Why libertarianism is a marginal idea and not a universal value | Steven Pinker | Big Think
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 03. 2018
- Why libertarianism is a marginal idea and not a universal value
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is conflict humanity's natural state? Could we ever agree on a set of values? The knee-jerk response for any student of history would be 'no', but the data tells a different story. Psychologist and author Steven Pinker offers proof in the form of Wagner's law: "One development that people both on the Left and the Right are unaware of is almost an inexorable force that leads affluent societies to devote increasing amounts of their wealth to social spending, to redistribution to children, to education, to healthcare, to supporting the poor, to supporting the aged."
Until the 20th century, most societies devoted about 1.5% of their GDP to social spending, and generally much less than that. In the last 100 years, that's changed: today the current global median of social spending is 22% of GDP. One group will groan most audibly at that data: Libertarians.
However, Pinker says it's no coincidence that there are zero libertarian countries on Earth; social spending is a shared value, even if the truest libertarians protest it, as the free market has no way to provide for poor children, the elderly, and other members of society who cannot contribute to the marketplace. As countries develop, they naturally initiate social spending programs. That's why libertarianism is a marginal idea, rather than a universal value-and it's likely to stay that way. Steven Pinker is the author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PINKER:
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his Ph.D. from Harvard. Currently Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, his teaching, and his nine books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and The Sense of Style. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He is Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and writes frequently for The New York Times, The Guardian, and other publications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Steven Pinker: Sometimes people say that in the absence of religion there can be no moral values and, in fact, for that reason, there can never be values that everyone agrees upon. “We are inherently conflictual. The human condition is conflict among peoples because they could just never agree on values.”
Well, putting a lie to that are developments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the Millennium Development Goals where the nations of the world agreed on a number of milestones that humanity should strive for-having to do with health and longevity and education-and some of which were met years early, such as reduction of extreme poverty, usually defined as more or less what a person would need to support themselves and their family, which was met several years ahead of schedule. Right now, less than ten percent of the world lives in a state of extreme poverty, and the successor to the Millennium Development Goals, called the Sustainable Development Goals, calls for the elimination of extreme poverty by the 2030s. An astonishing goal, one that is by no means out of reach.
One development that people both on the Left and the Right are unaware of is almost an inexorable force that leads affluent societies to devote increasing amounts of their wealth to social spending, to redistribution to children, to education, to healthcare, to supporting the poor, to supporting the aged.
Until the 20th century, most societies devoted, at most, one-and-a-half percent of their GDP to social spending, and generally much less than that. But starting in the 1930s with the New Deal in the United States and accelerating in Europe after World War II with the welfare state, now the median across societies of social spending is 22 percent of GDP.
The United States is a little bit below that, but even that’s misleading because we’ve got a lot of welfare that’s done by our...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/videos/steven-pi...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
Can you stop being a COMMIE and stop refining my beliefs. I don't like government spending because government is ran by people, people who are inherently flawed. That means government is flawed and it won't spend the money correctly. End the commie BS.
@@gimmeyourcookiesbombs These SJWs already label themselves as "smart". You do not agree with them so you are not smart. Their thought is big, so your is small.
@@gimmeyourcookiesbombs communism is when big government
@@cedrikdurand4740 correct, big government spends a lot of money, because people spend the money.
You do realize that almost half of the federal budget is spent on social services accounting for discretionary and mandatory spending and only 16 goes to military right? Yet the military actually knows how to spend the money, because their budget is not limitless.
The Ayn Rand Institute accepting payroll protection funding from the federal government tells you all there is to know about “libertarianism”
“No please don’t give me my money back”
Shut up moron, taking your money back isn’t hypocritical.
@@e.thomas2475 bootlickers are always so funny in the comments
Ah ha ha!😅😂Fantastic!
THIS
Funny that. Ayn Rand hated libertarianism almost as much as she hated communism.
From "Ayn Rand Answers:..."; Mayhew:
_Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement._
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
― Murray N. Rothbard
Exactly!!! I totally agree! If you are not an economist, is like having a banker talk about neuroscience. It is irresponsible to talk like this, without any real facts.
a science that's on its way to not being one, also read why socialism by Albert Einstien
@@Iandar1 Einstein used to joke that he couldn't make change for a dollar. I don't think I'll listen to him about economics.
Also:
"Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse." ... "It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary." -- Albert Einstein
@@artemiasalina1860 Rothbard supported a Nazi and Mises worked for a fascist government and praised Italian fascism. Who cares? It doesn’t dismiss any of their work. Bakunin was a staunch antisemite and Adam Smith was a huge racist. It literally doesn’t matter.
@@vladimirlenin3562 I agree, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.. None of these people, including Einstein, should be held up as infallible, especially when speaking outside of their field of expertise, and this should be pointed out to those who use that fallacy.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
~John Rogers
👌
Brilliant. 😅
Cracks me up, the number of "Christians" who are huge fans of that sociopathic, hypocritical monster Ayn Rand. Talk about diametrically opposing philosophies. Like thinking you can be a vegetarian who eats meat.
Really boils down to either you have a government or you don’t. Once you have a government, even if it’s sole purpose in the beginning is to outlaw rape and murder and theft, you’re already off to the races.
Just my observation- people who recommend reading atlas shrugged to others in the hope that it will inspire them towards libertarian or objectivist sympathy, have something seriously WRONG with them. It’s like they have some kind of fundamental psychological deficit or pathology. The way the characters speak, their weird monologues, it’s like they’re unintentionally autistic. And THAT is supposed to convince someone towards being a libertarian?? Maybe it works for a few months for college freshman, but even those folks usually grow out of it.
Steven Pinker is probably competent as a psychologist but not as a philosopher. If the entire world agreed on an ethical system it wouldn't speak to the ultimate "rightness" of a certain behavior.
The question is what this vague, elusive concept of “ultimate rightness” may even be, an how we can demonstrate that.
I would say that these agreed goals are more reflecting the agreement of the leaders as not all are democracies and those who have 100% agreement are Zero.
Yeah, no. The world doesn't exist in a vacuum; it is the product of millenia of competition and selection for the most "fit" societies - those that best provide for the common good in such a way that naturally enables expansion and the defeat/assimilation of "lesser" societies. Perhaps if there was at least one example of a functional libertarian state, you would have a point. But there isn't, and you don't. Government is necessary, and socialized services are required where markets don't have incentives, it's as simple as that.
Big think video titles tend to be quite different from what most of the video is about. This video is hardly about 'Why libertarianism is a marginal idea', and much more about 'Why modern societies have the universal value of social spending'
Deception is important if weak ideas are to have a chance.
ausroy087: I think the point is that the philosophy of libertarinism is inconsistent and antithetical to the principles of modern complex societies and social spending, hence it is marginal.
@@mjt1517 The confirmation bias in you is strong.
I usually realize this 30 seconds in and turn the video off. Big Think, please address this!!
@@trumpisastump9382 I completely agree with the way you worded that, couldn't have said it better myself.
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”
~Dom Helder Camara
Not true, you are only called "communist" when you insist on giving food to the poor with other people's money and even to be called "a saint".
@@CogitoBcn Define “other people’s money”.
If you mean tax dollars, you’re proving my point for me. Are we building roads and bridges with “other people’s money”?
If so, what right do you have to use them then?
@@hadara69 I was not even opening the worms can of the state spending. I was pointing that nobody will complain about you feeding the poor with your money, that the "communist" adjective is used when someone defends taking money (by force) from the rich as the only way to solve a social problem.
Regarding the tax/road issue, if I was forced to pay tax, obviously I'm morally allowed to use them. Although I would prefer that they were private and only pay their toll when/if I decide to use them.
Anyway, the quote is ridiculous and demagogue because it tries to conflate generosity and compassion with some political prejudices, so I fixed it in a more honest phrasing.
@@CogitoBcn I'd love to pay an air toll too. I wish my phone was coin activated. I wish the police were sponsored by Subway. I wish heroin was legal.
@@CogitoBcn Haha Of course you opened that “can of worms”, the second you regurgitated that tired old Libertarian talking point. DO YOU have a right to use that public road if you (the Libertarian) refuse to pay taxes because “it’s a gun to my head”? Do you have a right to call the cops, or the fire dept, or ANY public service we all pay taxes for?
Your “rephrasing” didn’t even make sense, btw.
RWers often say something similar about charity vs. social services. You’re ignoring one key point though:
Would there even be a NEED for such charity if the poor were looked after?
Libertarianism is cancer. It’s a selfish, greedy, and ghoulish ideology invented by an equally horrible person (Ayn Rand).
It’s also pathetically juvenile, btw. Like 14yo level juvy…
Essentially everything of importance in my life, my talents, my upbringing and opportunities, were things I did not control. And they have almost completely determined the rest of my life. I did not contribute measurably to my life, where I have been a successful research physicist; I did what I liked to do and was good at. I was never a matter that I worked harder than everyone else or was a better person. I just drew the right cards. Lots of people don't, and I think it is immoral to hold that misfortune against them.
So? Libertarianism doesn't hold anything against anyone.
@@MrCmon113 libertarianism is expressly based on meritocracy. Meritocracy is bullshit, which is what he was trying to express in his comment. Libertarianism is utterly psychopathic and if fully adopted would massively increase the number of people whose lives are predominantly defined by struggle and suffering. Plutocracy can only lead to the suffering of the many for the benefit of the few, and plutocracy is the inevitable outcome of libertarianism.
@@JMoose
>libertarianism is expressly based on meritocracy
I don't know where you get that from.
Some sort of meritocracy can be a fortunate byproduct of libertarianism, but it's not "based" on anything but the belief that freedom is generally a good thing.
That’s academia for you. Go work as a tradesman or a craftsman and you’ll find that the quality and depth of your work is the only thing that matters.
@@michaelrainbow4203 Fools will always follow a bleeding heart. Compassion is less important than achievement. You can be compassionate all the way to the grave, but achievement just might remove the need for that grave altogether.
"People don't really want to be free, all they want is a benevolent tyrant"
*Cough cough!* Religion!
Well yeah, that's what many people in these world yearn for, I mean we are designed to be just that.
You mean the upgraded slave system?
@@williemherbert1456 Seems people want to be free from the tyrant within and without. Seems it's just too extreme to say "people don't want to be free. All they want is a benevolent tyrant". The nuances in life I think inform us that people want a balance between the power that government has and their own power.
@@JohnWaaland Of course they WANT to, but at the same time ironically they DON'T WANT to do that as well, in an explainable sense, they wish to not let their own sins to over-run their process of thought and act in making decisions, and often those sinful desires are what we need to sustain own life and keep the pace of the continuous running and expanding economy, that's what democracy is for, you may able to wish in gaining immense gains from any method at all, but you're being halted by other with the same authority to be forced to make compromise and commitment to the same adhered law and custom or social and legal contract, but as you can see in the practice people tend to be swayed and persuaded to surrender their own critical thinking to be not persuasively shut off by the masses of the same opinion based on either same religious identity or ethnic identity, thus rendering the goals of democracy in bringing efficient and still sustainable method of governing and managing to be dimmed, and of course this bring the new generation to lose their trust and will in politics, ended as abstain participant, because the system being tended in a way not to achieve really meaningful progress as we could see from the past and present examples, and this happen in both spectrum of political wings that still advocating most of the time sort of fantasy solution, and I'll give you an example from what currently happen, as we know there is electricity crunch in global scale upsetting importantly population in developed country in East and West that cause the increase of electricity bills but still stagnate or even decreasing number of influx in electricity voltage in distributary to run economic and social process, and all of this is caused by how ridiculously short and yet stacked up targets and obligation to change the way of producing and managing electricity that all along even now still dominated by oil, coal, and gas based energy without giving right advocatory methods in how to do the transit process in achieving all-green energy, thus as we could see this hindrance being made because of how shallow the understanding of how hard it is to shift the way of producing and managing electricity from the system that we already had comfort with for a century already in social-culturally, economically, and also technologically sense in advocating all-green energy shift with such a hasty drawn-out conclusive wishes and combine with hoe reluctant most of the countries to be partner in developing such effort to be achieved more smoothly in ways not based on own personal gains of one country from other in ways that of course tend to need sacrifice in doing so, for example technology monopoly in one sector part in this development, that's the nutshell way to tell the background reason why the international policy in combating climate change cause by gas emission are such floppy messes with no strong regards of obligatory commitment and strong willed sense from the agreed participant that gave unclear instruction, hopefully we could learn fast and fix it.
Libertarianism is not just free markets, it's free individuals. Libertarianism doesn't deny social programs, it expects the free individuals to take them ahead. Instead of constituents claiming the government with pitchforks and torches, they'll voluntarily make the best social safety net for their fellow citizens.
Humans have always and will always impose group social controls on themselves. Libertarianism is a dead-end thought exercise because it assumes that the instinctual social compliance nature of humans can somehow just be "turned off" and replaced with "voluntary" behavior. The concept of sacrificing parts of our individual freedom for the collective group interest is not a bug of human evolution, it is a feature. In a very fundamental way, ALL human social interactions (from the family up the nation) are exercises in different levels of given and exercised authority for the benefit of the social group as a whole.
Libertarianism is a willfully ignorant abstraction that attempts to change the evolutionary psychology of human beings with nothing but a thought exercise and some good slogans.
It's. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Think whatever you want, just do it critically and with genuine intellectual honesty.
The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking:
What is critical thinking?
In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them.
Critical thinking results in radical free will.
1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism.
Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007).
The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?”
2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions.
Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. And, in evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience.
3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives.
Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles.
4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions.
In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases.
5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking.
Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007).
Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice.
In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can be reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena.
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
>Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking?
>In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why?
> What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?
Libertarianism makes assumptions about how humans will behave in a context that has never existed before. Libertariansim is an untested (and I think untenable) theoretical model.
@@sharpienate No "instinctual social compliance nature" has to be turned off in a libertarian system. All that libertarians are asking for is that make it voluntary and don't force the costs of your corrupt social programmes on those who don't want to participate in financing them. Money is always best spent by those who made that money and whenever the government steps in corruption skyrockets, this should always be considered. If people are so eager to give their money to those in need, than libertarianism is the perfect system for these people who like donating. Who would force you to deny your salary from the homeless in a libertarian system? Nobody, that's your money, you do whatever you want with it. Cut this statist bullshit, please.
@@carlbrenner7078 In the year since I posted this original comment, I've adjusted my view on Libertarians. You guys aren't actually taking any of your political arguments seriously. It all boils down to authority and control. You believe all pleas for authority should center on yourselves. You couch it in nice sounding things like "freedom". But really it's just an oversensitivity to anything that even smells remotely like someone else "telling you what to do".
And your mental feelers are so stupidly sensitive that you even pop off on the concept of a functioning community of united citizens with mutually beneficial laws and responsibilities.
But hey, if spinning fantasy lands and making up words like "statist" makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, far be it from me to get in the way of your silly hobby.
But, if you're ACTUALLY serious about political theory, maybe you will pull back the reins of your paranoia a little and think about who and what REALLY claims all the control over a capitalist society when the power of collective citizens are neutered by hyper-individuality.
I _cannot wait_ for the comments.
Ain't no libertarian countries because ain't no countries because ain't no earth because we livin in the matrix
"DEEP STATE! TAXATION IS RAPE! IF YOU AREN'T A LOLBERTARIAN, YOU'RE LITERALLY A COMMUNIST!" /s
Pinker appears to know nothing about the single tax, so he's wrong. If we shifted taxes from labour and capital onto land like we were supposed to we'd have a free market system with social justice and no need for a huge welfare state.
And here it is... his point exactly.
Kyle Hudak Whose point?
The reason why governments run large spend budgets is because they can. And the reason shutting down spending is difficult is not because the people want the spending but because the rent seeking elite is a more organized faction than the middle class
Correct. His whole spiel is based on the Public Interest Fallacy, which assumes what the government does is reflection of what its citizens/ subjects/ victims want.
Well, that was highly unsatisfactory.
I guess cope
So?
what need were you expecting to have satisfied
@@watcherwlc53 intelligence from the left
@@roguegenesis7020 Coping implies you need to continue denying a lie you know you’re not accepting. Point that out for me, why don’t you?
People like "free" stuff. How insightful.
Nope. We like to be repaid for our contributions with services.
Including libertarians, that's why they want FREE labor.
just because most libertarians want to eliminate welfare doesn't mean that that is the only way to handle the poor and be consistent with libertarian principles ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..there are a few other ways...………………………………………………………………………….............................so there is no one official libertarian position on how to handle welfare
@@robinsss let the market decide, last time market was deciding slavery was in full swing.
thats why democratic workplaces are the best bet.
libertarianism includes a respect for human rights so in a libertarian society slavery would not be allowed
Libertarians don't oppose social spending. Libertarians oppose involuntary social spending.
Is he saying a libertarian state is incapable of charity?
in a consistent and necessary levels probably yah.
@Bronson Kaahui people are selfish and greedy in general...
Is this concept so hard to understand 😝
@Bronson Kaahui No this applies to politicians too...
But that's why you setup systems and don't let them run it themselves.
@Bronson Kaahui The problem with a libertarian state is that it is no state.
It will lead to people forming their own communities and those replace the state.
Therefore it can quickly turn to anarchism if different groups are rivaling for power.
It's a fake charity that feeds on poverty. Theres a local business, libertarian leaning, that donates food to a local hippie pagan food bank (ran illegally out of a house. No sanitary oversight from any authority) that promotes libertarianism. The company writes that off in taxes. I applied there once and the pay was crap for the job and raises were based on ass kissing to sum up what I was told be the owner in the interview.
Create poverty cycle maintain control. That simple.
So he's actually saying that people are spending more money for someone else to do the social work, rather than spend nothing to do it themselves as they used to.
I make fifty an hour, should I spend a day doing charity work, getting to feel like a good person or should I take a days wage and pay four other people to do charity work. This is the math your missing. In a Billionaires case, the can spend one day making themselves feel good and look good, or spend a million dollars doing an enormous amount of good.
Individuals wanting to good, can. Forcing those who don't want to will accomplish far more than only those who want to doing good this. The best vehicle to get the most money and the most good accomplished is government. Sure, you can resent it, you can even actively sabotage it but that doesn't change the truth of it.
I think part of the argument was that social work just didn’t happen in the past. At least not significantly. The poor starved. The elderly wasted away. Children died in cartloads. Some of it was technology, some of it was economy, but generally the poor were out of luck. For all its flaws, the industrial revolution has improved a lot of things. Feudalism may not have threatened to destroy the planet, but it would have been utterly incapable of stopping itself if it did.
@@52flyingbicycles you hit the nail on the head. It wasn't that people did the social work themselves, the social work just didn't get done a lot of the time.
Sadly on one hand the world has preached humanitarian goals and in the same breath actively encouraged and protected the doctrines of hatred in the name of tolerance
None of this makes any sense unless you’re trying to project the failings of conservatism onto liberal democracies- you know, the liberal democracies that are the freest and most prosperous nations on earth.
There's an immense misconception that Libertarianism is the same thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, and it's not, and that's what people think it is when the discussion about Libertarianism gets brought up.
How can the two be different? Libertarianism is Ancap: the best social system for a society, period.
@@theaman1786 libertarianism is a broad spectrum of political ideologies centered around maximizing the freedom of the individual and ancap is just a subsect of the broader libertarian movement with a stronger emphasis on free markets, voluntary association and natural rights
@@willthryn497 ah yes, the mythical creature similar to unicorn, the free market.
When in the US has there been free market since frontier days and barter?
@@willthryn497 libertarianism is anarcho capitalism this term is only confusing for Americans
I just visited the libertarian school of thought,and concluded that it was my stance all along.i think it would be hard to call yourself a patriot,and not believe in libertarian values.
All market economies are designed. They have rules and customs that are needed in order to function. The libertarian notion that government should not interfere with the economy is specious. The will always be rules established by someone. The question is who and to who's benefit
Of course there are rules involved in trade. The question is, do you want those rules set by a bureaucrat, who has no real vested interest in the outcome, or would you prefer the freedom to directly negotiate your own rules, either individually or collectively. I know I would.
@@davidg1838 You think the payment to government representatives are no use? Politicians are nothing more than a chest piece in the business world. Anyone can be promoted by massive advertisement campaign. Vice versa. In a capitalist society, only the people with massive amount capitals can win this campaign war. So stop dreaming about this free trade nonsense, the rules made by a small group of people would only benefit themselves. Who represents more people, a government body or two businessmen?
@@davidnnn6986 Yes, I full understand that politicians are a chess peice in the business world. This is because they have the power to tax and regulate. Take away these powers and they become irrelevant. Corporations will no longer be able to buy favours.
In a Capitalist society, there is no campaign war because politicians have no control over social or economic matters. Everything is decentralised, so no "small group of people" can rule over others.
Do you really think government, in this day and age, is representative of the people? It's a delusion.
@@davidg1838 Your capitalism is ruled by capitalist titans. Those with the most wealth make the rules, one way or another. Getting people to slavishly believe in an ideology is simply a means of controlling people. Libertarianism has never existed. The closest system to it was feudalism. Direct control by feudal lords with no government interference. Democracy and feudal libertarianism are wholly incompatible. There is no perfect economic system. The economic system should never interfere with democracy. Instead a democratic government should be setting the rules for the economy. Most of problems we have today are because the economic elite have corrupted government.
@@tlgoody Sorry, but you wrong on several points:
Any system can be ruled by titans, Capitalist, Socialist, Monarchist, Feudalist or otherwise. It is Corporatism that generates the massive wealth gap and Corporatism is an act of government, not free trade.
Libertarianism has existed throughout history. It is simply the modern incarnation of Classical Liberalism, which existed during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. It was a period of political and economic freedom unlike anything that has followed. It is compatible with limited government and therefore, limited Democracy. There are many things that Democracy is not compatible with. After all, Democracy is tyranny of majority.
I would suggest the exact opposite is true: Democracy should never interfere with economics. that is not it's purpose.
Yes, the economic elites have corrupted government and the bureaucratic elites have corrupted big business and big labour unions. None of these "elites" can exist without big government there to support them. You are not looking at the big picture.
Mr. Pinkers optimism makes me have....many conflicting feelings
Because living your life at the expense of another group is incredibly attractive to those who benefit from it despite its obvious evil
@Exploited unlivable wage voluntarist libertarian okay then don't work for them or buy their stuff
@Exploited unlivable wage voluntarist libertarian The true communist ideal, you are a bad guy for having more things than i do.
@Exploited unlivable wage voluntarist libertarian Yeah it is. You're just too stupid to understand simple concepts like consent or everything you want actually taking work to exist.
@@LibertyLocalizer kinda hard seeing the inherent tendency for monopolization under capitalism.
@@Iandar1 Name literally one example
in other words there needs to be some structure to offer the logistics of protecting children, giving old people medicare care, etc.
Most children have parents. And it is 100% the job of those parents to protect their children. Now, if you choose to go out and pop out kids like a rat and are then either unable or unwilling to care for your kids, it isn't going to be me who is then somehow on the hook for your litter. I can assure you: no matter how little you care for your kids, I care even less.
Great reasoning buddy.
You don’t care about other people’s children at all?
What do you care about? You?
You’ll be the only one that does then.
@@Relyt345 I think you will find that people will start to care about other people's children (that is people will become more charitable), when they can do so by CHOICE, instead of being FORCED into a support role by the state. The welfare state has turned charity into a bureaucracy, which only benefits the welfare administrators.
I work in Logistics ad I can guarantee it has nothing to do with protecting children or giving old people medicare etc. That's what family, community, superannuation and private charity is for.
@Officer Meow You statement is illogical. Charity is not meant to make people wealthy, it's meant to help them survive. Community-based, private charity did a great job before the welfare state came along and poisoned the whole concept.
Time for you to study some history.
libertarianism is not against social spending. it's just against using force to sustain it
Libertarianism has lots of social spending but it is VOLUNTARY. We call this 'charity'.
Statist Collectivism also has lots of social spending but it is INVOLUNTARY. We call this 'socialism'.
The difference between VOLUNTARY charity and INVOLUNTARY socialism is the same as the difference between voluntary 'romance' and involuntary 'rape'. Socialism is the economic equivalent of rape.
Of course, socialists using State coercion have to pretend that their envy and theft of other people's property is the same as charity. It is not. But socialists are not, in general, smart enough to have worked out the distinction. Hence, socialists are convinced the evils they do (envy/coveting, coercion and theft) are good when they are most definitely not.
You don't want free healthcare? Because this is how you don't get free healthcare
there's no such thing as free healthcare
williamofdallas fine. But no matter how you slice it, government funded healthcare is great
yes, I too thoroughly enjoy when all my services are funded by theft and inefficiently run
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison
I'm for the smallest Government you can have and still provide that which the Constitution laid out. I want to uphold liberty as its principal objective. I think everyone should be permitted maximize their autonomy and freedom of choice until the point that it encroaches on others liberty. I believe in the primacy of individual judgment and for the greater good of one's family. Most Libertarians are nuts! But by legal definition, yes. Todays Liberal rational is compassion, but the impulse is totalitarian! Liberals who believe the social greater good is paramount and Liberty is dispensable, are in reality enemies of our Republic. They have a proclivity to affirm that their ends will justify the means. They desire to progress, despite our unalienable Rights and do so to achieve equity (Equality of Outcome). The only method to equity within a society is to have oppressive restrictions imposed by an authority on one's way of life, and behavior. That's Tyranny, not Liberty! Liberals may assert that we need reasonable, compassionate laws that protect equity, yet hidden within this cloak of kindness is the desire to gain control over and end this Republic. Label this how you wish, Marxist, Socialist, or Democracy, it's not American and these are not Patriots!
If you'll notice, your rebuttals are justifications
I recommend you read ‘phishing for fools’ or anything written in sociology or social psychology or philosophy or economic history about social groups, power and markets. Maybe you’ll see why some of your starting assumptions don’t reflect a lot of what has been observed by people who study societies and people beyond abstract political and anthropological theory like libertarianism.
And before you start with any ad hominem attack.
I personally am politically somewhere around a form of anarchism or socialism as a way to organize people, I see the value in pulling down unjust hierarchy wherever it exists and favor organizing in a way to make people not be anyone’s slave or be forced to work in terrible conditions. Just in case you were wondering about where I’m coming from...
“3/5ths of a person”-racist POS madison
madison is incorrect in his assertion.
yeah. he was a mere mortal like you and me.
not some sort of primal force of the multiverse that is incapable of being wrong.
part of the function of government is to promote the welfare of everyone in the country, and that includes the poorest of the poor.....which is what some would call "charity".
@@sabin97 Every Government is different, with a different set of values. Some may support charity, some may help their poor. What normally makes that determination are the mere mortals that come together to write that nation's Constitution. The Father of America's Constitution is and will always be James Madison. An assertion is a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief. By himself, he composed the first drafts of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's not as your state a wrong or right thing, it's what we ratified.
Your comments seem to be attempting to belittle his monumental contributions.
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." ----From James Madison to Edmund Pendleton, 21 January 1792
Yes but, _What is Aleppo?_
I'm having an Aleppo moment...
Zing!
We should also do nothing about climate change because Earth is going to fall into the Sun someday.
It sounds like a delicious pizza.
He should know, it's a jetpack brand!
I agree with everything in the video but it's good to ask ourselves how we should do things most efficiently. We should try not to depend too much on 1 way of doing things or we will not strive to improve ourselves.
Also not falling into the instrumental rationality trap that efficiency is the only thing valuable.
@@WLL-ej7lo Yeah, but this is probably a problem with HOW you measure efficiency as opposed to the metric itself.
I mean I also agree that efficiency as the only metric is not ideal, but I just wanted to highlight that there is a hidden complexity beyond just the abstraction.
edit: added an is between 'this' and 'probably'
I think it’s got something to do with humanity coming together as one but people naturally have free will so there is normally a disagreement and avoidance of that way because of opinions obviously. Our free will is our bestest friend and enemy sometimes.
That is hot Garbage! Go take that idea and think about it for 5 minutes, I'll let you do that. :-)
Already now in your new life you are born on an Indonesian island with really bad internet, really bad phone connection, and you have 8 siblings, your father died in a tropical storm because the storm came out of nowhere. You are the oldest in your family except your mother, no grandparents any more, and you are hard working. You managed to get accepted to a really good university through the help of your village. But you are too poor to pay for the dorm. It is fine, your scholarship pays for the form. You are studying hard and you are middle in your class. You bought the cheapest piece of junk computer you could get once you reach a big city, this is your first introduction to a computer. All your classmates know how to use a computer, this is why you are only in the middle of your class. Then COVID-19 happened and you are sent home. You are now back to sharing a single room with your 8 siblings, you have to show up for online classes but due to the bad internet connection you can only show up to 90% of the classes, this your first strike, you fail some exams, because you do not have access to the library, or stable internet connection and your 8 siblings are being home schooled, just like you were, so they are freaking loud all the time.
Please tell me how this boy could improve his situation.
This is a real example. I am using it in my PhD proposal for a suicidality theory based on the concept that I made called "losing your capacity to aspire".
There was nothing he could do. He was born the wrong place to stand a chance, the only reason why he survived and did not commit his planned suicide was because the state stopped their COVID lockdown for students who had particular hard conditions for studying.
I forgot to mention it, from his home to the university, that is a full day of travel by boat and by car. 24 hours by motorized transportation.
You don't know what rural is before you have tried to standing on the top of a hill in a jungle on an island in the Philippines trying to connect your satellite phone. Or as my friend Christian happened to him, being trapped for 3 weeks in a blizzard in an airport.
You know what, let us make the example purely theoretical, a solar storm throws a huge storm up that prevents the boy from leaving in the first place, but this time his starts with a computer, lucky guy. So in this theoretical example the government gets hims once they can, and not when a lockdown has been reduced in scope.
What could the boy have done? Where is your "personal responsibility" BS now?
You know what works all the time? Social security and security net to catch the people who fall through the first layer.
Wtf did I just listen to, I want my time back
@TerranStriker lol.
to what extent private sector jobs have replace social services many have no clue. In Sweden they engaged in Socialism for a brief period and now over half the Swedish social welfare system is run by private entities and almost 3 in 4 schools is private. also Sweden’s brief overture into Socialism ended up with them going from the third largest economy to the 13th. Now everyone from the poorest of the richest gets hit with a minimum of A tax rate of 10+% and Sweden’s is one of the least progressive in the world, And they have one of the most unequal wealth distributions in the world. *Sweden is a neo-con’s wet dream.*
3:47 So private charity just doesn't exist?
it has proven to be subpar......to put it kindly....if not for the welfare state, the poorest of the poor would perish, if they were at the mercy of private charity...
@Bronson Kaahui
it's rather easy to demonstrate.
the top 20 richest people in the world together have more than enough wealth to transform haiti into their personal paradise and have most of their fortune left to spare.
and yet they choose not to.
private charity exists....but doesnt really do that much.....
@@sabin97 and framing private charity as the solution to inequality pretty much implies that being able to eat when you can't afford it should be some "gift" and not a basic human right.
@@ethanherrick9910
yeah. libertarians seem to think that wealth means morality, and thus they see the super rich as some sort of paragons of virtue....because how in the world could a rapacious person get super rich?
@@sabin97 it's almost like libertarianism is just a polite way to say "fuck you I got mine, and because I got mine I'm more "valuable" than you".
There's a real good reason a bunch of millionare and billionaire libertarians haven't bought a deserted island and turned it into some "less-regulated" utopia.
I like social spending, but not when it’s the government doing it. It should be done by private nonprofits and churches.
Roads, schools, armies, politicians', kings' and dictators' incomes... all of these things are paid for by social spending. Should they too be overseen by private nonprofits and churches? Or would the interests people of a country be better, more efficiently served if a representative govt were to oversee social spending?
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 I would argue that armies and politicians’ incomes are not “social spending;” these things are necessary for a government. The others you mentioned often are better overseen by private entities. Look how much better toll roads and private schools are than their public alternatives in terms of quality.
@@PockASqueeno Not social spending? Then where do they get their money? I don't buy 'necessary for a government' as excluding it from social spending, even if they are necessary for a government, which they are not. If a society spends money on a program that benefits itself, all or in part, in some way, that expenditure is by definition social spending. Including armies' and presidents' wages.
What you have above is no more than special pleading, brought about because you can't defend your claim across all cases of social spending... or at best because you're to lazy to defend your claim across all cases of social spending.
And you still haven't addressed the question as to how you justify the claim that private nonprofits and churches will better serve the needs of the people than a representative government that is designed precisely for that purpose. I hear the claim, but it's too outrageous to go unsupported beyond hand wavy magical thinking and one unfit example that private schools seem to be better than public schools. (It's an unfit example because private schools are not in the business of administering education to the public in general, they are profit based entities that happen to sell education. In other words selling education is not overseeing education in the way that the Department of Education. In order to qualify as an example of a private entity doing the work of a govt body, they have to perform the same function.)
> resistance is futile
Shouldn't we call it Borg's Law?
The reason why we have no libertarian governments is the same as why we have no lions eating grass.
Plenty of governments have libertarian policies, and libertarian philosophy is at the heart of the modern Western order. Your statement is actually nonsense and displays your own ignorance.
Jejeje, ahora si hay "leones" comiendo hierba.
:v
Irónico
The deep naivete of this presentation is very entertaining. So many logical fallacies, so little time! He infers that what occurs numerically in the world is somehow an endorsement of its veracity. Thus, in the middle ages Democracy could have been presented to be a failure with the comment "All of the countries of the world have Kings, clear proof that Democracy is a failure."
I suppose the people of North Korea, Myanmar, Soviet Union, Sudan, Libya and so forth are "choosing" their forms of government. The video host fails to point out that most of the people in the world are stuck with their rulers because they are imposed on them at gun point.
He then glibly just claims that people love social programs, even though their complete failure and inefficiency is staggering. If these programs are so great, then why don't they make them voluntary? Everyone would choose to belong to such wonderful systems wouldn't they? The answer is obvious, people get stuck in them because they are forced by threat of violence.
He also can't seem to comprehend that letting people keep their own money would lead to many more resources going to help people who need it. Is he inferring that there was no charity before Woodrow Wilson? That it would go away without the use of force? The key to such poorly derived systems of thought is they can't imagine all of the good that can be done when people keep their own money rather than give it to the state who redistributes it to all of the connected big wigs and crony parasites who are attracted to systems like this one which are based on criminal extortion.
And this is at the center of the refutation of his claims. If it were switched to a voluntary system none of the government programs could survive. If people were given a choice of not participating in his crony paradise very few would choose it.
Most of the world is occupied territory and this guy is the heart of the problem.
@Steve Kusaba your naivete is very entertainping
Charity is not consistent and reliable enough to provide the necessities for millions of Americans, if a rich person decides "today I'm not gonna feed, shelter, and care for the poor with my vast coffers of wealth." Then they all freeze to death, starve to death, or die of preventable diseases.
@@monke6774 You are just stating a generalization based on nothing. It also has little to do with the big picture. Instead of giving most of the wealth back to the poor and middle classes you prefer to keep the crony corrupt rich insiders in the drivers seat because of some imaginary scenario you invented in your head about charity. Well, I can't cotton to that.
I doubt most people have heard of this guy; he is definitely not the heart of the problem lol. Our societies today are still driven by morals passed down through tradition. These are ideas imbedded in all of us that were definitely not altered by some guy.
@@dr.apollo4226 What guy are you talking about? What morals and what tradition? Without specifics anything could be interpreted in almost any way by anyone.
I am absolutely BLOWN away by the amount of people who watched/commented on this that didn’t understand what he was saying.
Libertarianism has a cult following like trump, maybe a little smaller. But nonetheless a cult.
@@pmaughmer if you dont think every political position doesn't have a cult you're a cultist.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Thank you Dr. Genius for letting me know that without government coercion no one would ever give to charities that helped poor children or the elderly.
Have you ever seen a charity CEO?
Charity is a joke, the only reason the rich even give to charity is because it's a tax write off. Most charity foundations are also frauds.
Have you heard of the Clinton Foundation???
@Noon
If you like to drive your car on the roads you need to contribute via taxes
If you like you country having defence you need to contribute via taxes
If you want your kids to be educated you need to contribute via taxes
If you want your streets to be safe you need police so you need to contribute via taxes
In libertarian society’s you get none of the above - bonus is no taxes
@@merchant48 Not really, you can have almost everything on that list with libertarianism, perhaps even national defense (military).
I can answer this question in the video shortly. Because the idea of complete freedom is dangerous & ends up with a few people controlling everything & people pillaging each other.
You got it! That's what history does show, over and over.
Oh yes because that totally hasn’t happened already under this control machine. Idiot
There's no libertarian countries for the same reason there's no conservative, liberal or progressive countries. They are all poltical ideologies and no style of government exists 100% on its own.
Are Libertarians for social spending?
If only the video could have explained it this way.
@@Vlasko60 Only if the individual wants to. Otherwise it's sink or swim
@@josepha5885 What about those with disabilities or diseases that need expensive care?
Yes, Steven. Libertarianism isn't a universal idea because most people believe there is such a thing as a Free Lunch.
How very observant.
There is, so what if someone else has to pay, its free to me.
Thats the logic anyway.
metamorphicorder it has no cost, but is not free
@@thomasbordoni1454 yes. I forgot to acrivate my sarcasm font. Im sorry.
So when you take someone who is disabled severely enough so that he isn't able to produce anything of value that he could sell on the market, and now it's a choice between a free lunch and starving, how do you solve that?
Or when someone with crippling depression is lying in bed for weeks, with not nearly enough money to afford the mental help to climb out of it, therefore no safety net to provide her with the free lunch that might possibly help her bounce back and become productive again, would that cynicism of yours be of greater help than a free lunch? Because cynicism is apparently what most people could provide in given scenario, since the free market doesn't really have an incentive to help such people thrive or even to stay alive.
@Artur Gołdyn Ideally, and in most cases. Or maybe just some cases. I feel like a system that relies on people's altruistic behavior towards each other is not even close to being likely to provide the most well-being to people. When designing a system, we have to assume that people won't behave ideally, and we have to take into account the selfish nature of humans. If I wasn't required to pay taxes, i probably wouldn't give a dime to anyone, and now some of my tax money is being used to provide, among other things, healthcare to people in my country who otherwise couldn't afford it. And I can see how this is a morally superior outcome, even though i would struggle to uphold these morals, like most people would, if we were 100% our own architects in this matter. I think a fundamental difference is, that the libertarian assumption is that people inherently behave in a cooperative way, while i rather think that people are only naturally cooperative with members of their own group, and as long as it suits them. In a globalized - or even just civilized - world, where close to 100% of people around you are strangers, some sort of framework is very welcome.
Hong Kong and Switzerland are close-to libertarian. And we have seen they are doing fantastically economically, and the Swiss are constantly ranked as the happiest nation on Earth.
Strike Hong Kong from that. Economical they are very free (other than in land ownership) however social the CCP has them by the short and curlies. Political parties are banned, supporters are teargassed (umbrella moment), it's so bad that the Hong Kong ensign is used by independence advocates.
I think it’s pretty sketchy to say companies providing benefits to employees is equivalent to social spending. Private insurance is more social than everyone paying out of pocket for healthcare, car wrecks, etc but it still only benefits people who directly pay for it and lots of the money goes to executives and advertising.
I would just add that healthcare for profit is a disgusting idea, just like school or prisons. You want to provide special offers, go right ahead but you can only keep what you spend, and you are allowed to save up to 300% of your current expenses. And everything goes right to tax and charities, 80% of the profits are allowed to be donated to charities that are not connected with any employee of the company, up to 1 links away. So a brother of an employee who is the manager of X charity, no go.
I'd be curious to hear Mr. Pinker's thoughts on the mutual aid and friendly societies that existed before the welfare state came along.
You mean like hundreds of years ago? Not really the ideal for a model society that I was hoping for...
There are plenty of modern-day examples of mutual aid as well: www.libertarianism.org/columns/mutual-aid-is-not-just-historical-modern-alternative-services so Mr. Pinker's claim that these are things that the free market are not going to provide by design is simply false.
You might find the answer in his book "The Better Angels of Our Time." I've never read it before, but I'm assuming he'd touch upon the kind of society you're talking about.
Charles Dickens used to describe them quite distinctly
Mutual aid and friendly societies are not 'libertarian' in their nature, libertarianism is pure lazy thinking. And the links you give talks about freaking charities, if you don't understand why society don't run solely on charities. Or what they represent don't truly differ from the idea of welfare state. Then frankly I don't think anyone can help you. Those idiotic think tanks aren't there to prove shit. They exist to 'market' dumb ideas.
If you need it spell out: Charities and private organizations that may actually had help (not always without strings) exist because the role of the state never used to include providing those service, but they were never a *consistence source of aid or solution by any measure.* Those are terrible times. Hence the welfare state, which is meant to provide a *'consistency'* to the mutual aid and friendly societies. You are proposing to go back to a state of existence that unless you are significantly wealthy, you will be screaming for the modernity you grew up with.
If you think the welfare state is bad? The primary answer to why, is people like right-libertarians keep trying to interfere or outright eliminate the *consistency* of mutual aid and friendliness.
Judging by the downvotes to an argument just as compelling as any Pinker's made, everybody likes him when he's being anti-PC, except when he's being anti-PC in a way they don't like. The irony...
What is pc
In the U.S., we have a ton of social spending, sure, if you count all the public spending towards our vast industrial prison and military complex. Coincidentally, I think the only positions in the U.S. that I can think of that doesn't treat health benefits as part of the pay check is maybe a job in the military or a stint in prison.
"In libertarian america"? I sure feel silly for striving for such a place if I already live there. Garsh!
America is not libertarian
@@robinsss
It was closest between 1776 through the 1800s.
Then it started to go downhill.
ScottySquatch
Sure, America was close to libertarianism at its founding - if you ignore slavery and the denial of basic rights to women and people who were gay (among other shortfalls).
@@Alex-mn5rs
Other than that yeah.
America is not libertarian and hasn't ever been fully libertarian
His data is not wrong. Everyone here is arguing about the benefits or viability of libertarianism and going right past his point that, to me, is as clear as day: the political philosophies we love to wrap our heads in, whether they be morally founded (libertarianism) fiscally founded (most modern day conservatism), or socially founded (most modern Democrats) can not begin to encapsulate the complex dynamics of humans, humanity, being, and the self.
If you're looking at this video and angry that he got your fragile view of libertarianism wrong, you've missed the whole point of the video.
My idea is that, you are putting too much faith and value on 'human dynamism'.
He presumes that its the markets place to provide those things. Its not. Those things ought to remain the choice of the donor to donate.
They ought not be compelled under the threat of force.
He presumes that people are ok with being extorted.
He presumes that its ok to do it.
He wants to save others from death or destitution by threatening others with the same. Hes a pinko commie.
Well, saying "markets by design cannot provided" is a very risky statement. Markets can literally provide anything that society demand because it is composed by the society, not aliens who produce goods and services to humans.
The problem is government intervention that distorsionates everything, and also blocks any incentives for the market to offer a solution and solve the problem. If the responsability to solve certain social problems were genuinely moved to the market, it's empirically proven it can solve things efficiently. Indeed, what is typically and wrongly mixed is that many of the services that are ultimately performed in order to solve government managed social problems are indeed provided by private companies specializing in these problems, but funding comes from gov which ultimately comes from society forced to pay taxes to the government.
Indeed, critical social problems should not be funded nor managed by gov, simply because they don't have incentives to solve the problem since this will cut down their budget eventually. That's why many social projects initiated by the government not only doesn't solve the problem within the society but also increases it, therefore it is easier to ask for more funding since there was not enough to solve things in the past, at the end of the day, government money is no one's money.
The richer a country becomes through free trade and specialization, the stronger the middle class grows and ultimately forms the largest segment of society, hence the smaller the proportion of poor and disadvantaged becomes. The free market works on the principles of supply and demand. The smaller the demand, the less great the urge and necessity to adjust a supply accordingly. The free market must run on enough profits to survive. Limited demand leads to little income and capital. So the market will mainly focus on the largest segments and classes of society with the most purchasing power. And thus the market will not help poor people and it then falls upon the government to use social spending and provide social security. What both people on the left and right ultimately fail to understand is that a free market and social safety nets cannot exist without each other. They exist thanks to each other's virtue. They restrain each other and in this way avoid that they can both be undermined. The free market can continue to exist thanks to social spending, because the market can then continue to focus on the majority demands, while social spending fulfills other social and societal minority needs, so that there is no social and societal unrest growing among the people. In this way you avoid that people and labor movements want to implode and destroy the free market system. And vice versa. The existence of the free market is what increases the need for social spending. A free market needs social security. And social security needs a free market.
3 minute video
30 seconds "the market isn't going to provide for everyone"
Libertarians BTFO'd
People get Richer,so they help more the poor
The Free market dosnt support helping the poor
But what makes people Richer is the Free market 😐😐
@Hilary Clinton thats the only thing that will.
However, if the poor learn to invest effectively, they can raise out of poverty.
@@dlee73 Yes, if only 70% of americans, who live paycheck to paycheck, would invest they'd be fine, really, it's not the low unionisation rates and hence the shit wages that explain the poverty, its the stupid, silly poors!
Nonsense. The market allows poor people opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise get. At the very least, living standards go up as products become cheaper allowing a poor person to afford a more comfortable life at the same income. I worked for $2-3/day in Burma, philipines and India through the course of my life several times but now I've finally got a proper source of income renting servers and maintaining them.
What I enjoyed: markets can coexist with safety nets provided by institutions and the people.
Even in Sweden that didn’t work out and now over half their social welfare nets are run by private organizations. It would be the equivalent of an overgenerous safety net in the US being implemented, then collapsing, then programs like Social Security getting overhauled and privatized by Mitt Romney.
Unicorns don’t fart rainbows.
Yup and that sweet tax money ends up in my pockets, capitalists love welfare when it serves them
There is such a thing as a "bleeding heart libertarian." We don't have a problem with helping the poor; we have a problem with robbing the rich.
Excuse you! Health insurance and other benefits are not gifts from employers, nor are they welfare. Workers earn them!
Exactly, it's a part of their compensation.
Yeah, this grey haired hippie is out of touch. He really has no business speaking on these issues.
What he is saying IF EMPLOYERS DECIDE to offer such things, businesses are not obligated too..he is right here.
Health insurance is usually the same coverage for everyone, regardless of what they earn, so there is a "welfare" component to most such programs.
As is a social safety net. You pay taxes for that. It's just that most people pay more than they receive, but healthcare works exactly the same.
I've often heard the phrase that big L Libertarianism is right-wing Marxism.
I am starting to think it might possibly have some element of truth to it. Thing is Marxist ideology pits the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Leftist Marxism, naturally is an ideology that favours the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. So it would naturally follow that right wing Marxism would be the polar opposite, defending the interest of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. We all know what happens when leftist Marxists seize power... we have what the new people in power like to call a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Then we get hideous monstrosities like the USSR and Maoist China.
I'm inclined to think that if these so-called 'Libertarians' were to come to power... it would likely have to be by force, as they would never garner enough public support to win an election, and if they were to somehow manage it, they would still not have enough support in Congress/Parliament to get much of their ideology implemented... especially as quickly as they would demand.
Such a regime, having already thrown rule of law into the bonfire would for the sake of its very survival have to clamp down on dissent, to suppress the 'statists' who supported the old order. What you would end up with is a 'Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie'. And just as Communism was quick to discard core socialist principles (and socialist people) in the name of expediency, this kind of dictatorship would likewise discard core capitalist principles in the name of expediency, as this regime could not trust people to 'vote with their wallets' by buying goods and services from people and businesses who are opposed to the ruling party... in fact they couldn't trust people to vote at all, considering they might vote the statists back into power if given the chance.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be the prelude to Communism, an ideal Communist and an ideal Libertarian utopia are practically indistinguishable. Just different means of reaching the same goal, neither are anywhere near getting there.
There is actually one country that matches libertarian aspirations like minimum state and no gun control: it's called Somalia.
I guess so. Maybe you should spell out what your point is, though.
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison
This argument is one extended non sequitur.
The fact that prosperous societies have social-welfare programs isn't proof that "markets don't work for welfare"; if anything its proof that markets are what creates the prosperity NECESSARY as a precondition for any social welfare.
Joke😂😂😂😂😂😂
czcams.com/video/rT_ORyBnrds/video.html
Who will invest in a country, generating employment and reducing inflation, if you have to pay high fees, do this is to ask to have their businessmen stolen from other countries
How does one defend against the argument that 200 years of poverty reduction begins with capitalism but comes via the welfare state, at least for the poor. It doesn't apply to the middle classes that capitalism created around the world as we see now in India and China and elsewhere, and which is something that I don't see the state being able to mobilise, but what about those stuck in low incomes, is that where the state can be seen to have reduced poverty? The cheaper products for those people are from capitalism, but I wonder how significant welfare is as a factor in reducing poverty in itself. I guess not in China at least, but in the west...
As roughly a (-2, -6) on the standard Cartesian political compass, one of the ways I can describe myself is as a minarchist, advocating for a government as small as it can be, but no smaller. The most efficient, effective minimalist solutions to US' today problems (UBI, universal healthcare (perhaps the Dutch model for US), infrastructure/energy updates, smart environmental conservation policies, electoral reform, etc) seem radical to most, I would say. I could say I am a libertarian who recognizes how much intervention is actually minimal, not just negligent.
Children, elderly, and unlucky - you forgot disabled.
(That could technically fall under unlucky but people think of someone putting their money on the wrong stock or having their home and farm destroyed by a natural disaster, not having mobility issues or brain impairment when they think of unlucky)
"Social spending went up in the early 20th century."
No mention of the Soviet revolution and how it scared the shit out of the rich so much that they had to give on social programs or risk revolution at home. Before the 1917 revolution, their were massive strikes that resulted in nothing but repression, after the revolution, smaller strikes were granted their demands because the owners didn't want the workers getting any revolutionary ideas. Now that the Soviet Union is gone they've been rolling back as much of the social safety net as they can; in hopes of getting back to the good old days; they're less afraid of revolution now; for now.
That's not all the Soviet Revolution did. It allowed tyrants to rule over that land for 70 years and build an global empire of evil.
I absolutely support organised labour and their right to collective bargaining but do you really believe these "social safety nets" provide any long-term benefits to those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale? The evidence suggests otherwise.
Meanwhile in America restaurant workers quit mid-shift and some places have their entire staff walk out at the same time. And Amazon is scrambling to find workers that will put up with the slavery, I mean, poor working conditions they provide.
@@davidg1838 The Soviet Union was an example of national liberation of an underdeveloped county from feudal conditions and out of the capitalist imperialist chain of exploitation and into self development; it provided a working model of industrialization to the rest of the global south, during the 20th century, to follow and help them modernize their economies and cut out capitalist exploitation from foreign countries that sucked them dry of both resources and labor capital to the benefit of the global oligarchy of plutocrats who command the heights of the world economy. Imperfect, like all things, but the best it could be under the conditions it faced.
@@noheroespublishing1907 I'm sure that's how it started off and I'm sure the original revolutionaries had good intentions but my reading of history is not so favourable. When you implement a system of mass killings, famine, deportations and large-scale repression, you can generally coerce people into hard work, with no real benefits, in order to modernise an economy. The fact that it actually lasted 70 years is a testament to the strength of the Russian character in the face of adversity, not the ideology they had imposed onto them.
It is just astonishing after now knowing how truly awful the Bolsheviks and ideology were, there are still people to this day defending the Soviets. So much misery brought to so many people by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Krushchev, etc. it is mind boggling to see the ignorant romanticism of the repulsive communists.
There are no libertarian countries because there is no place where there are enough libertarians to form one.
Gee. Wonder why?
California is a Libertarian Country on it's own
@@VenomHernandez Lul California is probably the least libertarian state in the US right after New York..
The market does not exist ontologically, people exist. If people are good they will help the needed in a better way than government. If people are bad the government will only make them worst.
“The Nations of the World agreed…”
No. The people in positions of power within governments agreed.
How those people reach power? are they aliens?
@@tiagor.369 those people are funded by wealthy billionaires. That money allows them to overpower and drown out opposing viewpoints.
Also, electoral systems are completely biased toward entrenched interests and power.
Take the U.S. for example.
Do you really think “the people” have much of a choice when it’s red vs. blue, R vs. D, left vs. right, every election?
Look at 2016 presidential, Trump vs. Clinton? Really?
That choice was “the people’s” “choice”?
Lmao man fuck that.
There's a deeper level that's of concern: your level of decentralization, and the effect this has on the impact a good or bad "king" can have. If you have a Trump or a Biden for a monarch (and imagining both to be good for more years than either probably actually is), you have to put up with second best for decades. If you have a good president for life (sorry, can't think of an example - maybe Solon? They seemed to think he was OK?) you benefit through all the years. Turnover matters either way.
If you could have a king of everyone (or a president for a long time) ... well you'd have all sorts of complexities to deal with that don't arise in simpler configurations? So you'd have even more of the bureaucrats who exist for the sake of the state, itself, than now.
If, OTOH, the world was a giant Switzerland, where the magic wand of the law is sticky and difficult to wave, the main problem would be the way people like the Taliban in at least one alternative Switzerland, set about turning it into something more primitive, in which they lay down the law. (Lots of laws in the resulting state, whatever their social spending turns out to be - maybe more set aside for things like the problem with women being disobedient, which America seems to be having a problem with at the moment?). If, somehow, you could offset the main factor forcing us to tolerate big, restrictive states that tend ever closer to full ownership of their people herds, lots of little states that don't kill each other would seem to me to at least be a safe bet.
How to make up for the deficiencies of the microstate that goes Victorian-racist? Just let there be maximal freedom of movement among states. Government turns bad, and you leave, and go and contribute to a better world instead of sticking around to be part of propping up your dystopia.
Big states are just easy to "do business with". Post colonial Africa is full of convenient one-stop bribe shops. Nice and convenient for the existing corruption institutions (big-kid states) to deal with. i.a. you only need to hire one mouthpart to make the right kind of noises to placate the social spenders or the tax-breakers you're dealing with as a country.
For those who know how to turn social spending into their own sinecures and big-buck-ventures, great big national and supranational conglomerations are great. For people living in those things, it's generally never better than enough to stop one from "whining too much".
To me, a high level of decentralization has a somewhat "libertarian" tendency. Instead of some big bureau-fiefdom subject to detailed control, working the same way for everyone, whether they like it or not, you allow little rotten pockets/ islands of freedom (according to personal prejudices), so there would be places where bad people can get away with not doing the good they are instructed to do in such a world. "Corporate liberty" instead of "personal liberty" if you like.
Still, at least it gives you some insulation from the terrible effects of a political culture that eventually tries to corner voters into the binary choice between "Clinton or Trump" (or "Biden or Trump") - i.e. not exactly what most people would call a a "choice". Unless "arsenic or strychnine" is to be allowed to be of the same type as "curry, roast beef, vegan seaweed soup, or bread with your favourite jam". Either make this terrible mistake or that terrible mistake. And hurry up, please, we don't have all day.
This is a long diatribe based on a false premise in the first few sentences. trump aspired to a monarchy in a democracy and failed. Biden never had such aspirations.
@@d.nakamura9579 The premise that this is a premise is false. (It was just badly expressed, perhaps. One of the sets of poles one can make up is between a presidency that degrades down to presidency for life, and then rots down further to something that walks and talks like a king; and libertarianism that disintegrates right down to anarchy. I was imagining such a made-up set of poles, and then just imagining actual leaders / potential presidents-for-life, rather than actual ones running the degraded democracy or incipient royal house.)
I will admit it's a long diatribe, though.
I have no idea what Biden's thoughts are. I do wonder how America can't manage to come up with better candidates for the people to choose from, though. Personally, I'm glad enough of them decided he was the lesser evil when the world was offered another season of Trump. I don't know whether he personally has dictatorial or otherwise authoritarian ambitions; it's just that when both parties offer so little there's almost no choice before the voters. Vote for the next drink to be dish water or diluted dish water. (Vodka? Nyet. That's not on the menu. Not yet.)
"...and therefore we need politicians to hold guns to our heads and force us to help those in need, because that's the only way to do it."
More like "force us to send money to the government so they can squander most of the money on random crap and pork barrel projects and allocate a pittance to be spent inefficiently on helping those in need," but I see why you decided to sacrifice precision for brevity.
And when the debt bubble bursts after all this awesome social (and military) spending comes to a head...? Then come talk to me Pinker.
Well what other systems of government do you think we should employ, either authoritarian dictatorships, theocracys or oligarchys? Those are the only other options from a democratic social capitalist society.
A libertarian society would be inherently weak and susceptible to take over or invasion because it doesn't have a strong centralised government.
The most freedom and liberty we can have in a workable realistic system is the one in which parts of Europe and America have right now. Libertarians are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that ideology can work in a country of millions.
@@kanyeste the least possible. You're not wrong that if the state were removed tomorrow we'd have problems.
Incremental slow disassembly is the only responsible action. Try to carefully remove regulations that hurt upcoming and small business which would create jobs. Slowly cut social spending, and encourage emploment by cutting income tax.
Would take someone firm but also reasonable and intelligent... Hard to get someone like that elected in this political climate, so unfortunately some sort of economic collapse seems inevitable at this point.
@@anindividual4916
That doesn’t account for the natural flow of money to the top. Money doesn’t trickle down, it trickles up. (If you need proof just read up on the Pareto distribution)
You need some means of managing that distribution, otherwise you end up with a violent revolution. So the question is, what are the most efficient government expenditures for managing wealth inequality? I am happy to have my tax dollars go to pay for universal healthcare and education, because I know that a healthier, more educated society is better than a society filled with disease and stupidity. Military spending to protect your own borders is also necessary. Military spending to “liberate” another country does not do anything to help me or the people I encounter on a daily basis, therefore I see no benefit in my tax dollars going towards that type of expenditure.
In a truly utopian society, everyone would start out on a level playing field. Anything you do to succeed or fail from that point forward is your own responsibility. Libertarianism asks us to strive for that ideal on our own, but that is far too big of a task for individuals to solve. So how can we (a government, after all, is supposed to be the collective will of the people) get as close to that ideal as possible?
@@kanyeste Libertarianism works fine in Africa.
@@TheCommonS3Nse I'm sure you've thought of getting rid of money 💰 and just producing goods and services. I'm sure you've thought of some positive reasons to get rid of money and not being overly greedy. Ok, so we might need some form of currency for trade between countries and maybe that could be a computer currency like Bitcoin.
But really just think about the implications of taking the money middleman out of our modern economies. Of course, so many details here to draw out. I view it as more positive then negative.
I'm a little bit confused because he had been talking for like 4 mintes but didn't anwser the question from the title of the video. He said that it's a thing that people like social spending and that there is a connection so that the richer the country is, the more it tends to spend on social programs, but to me it seems like he didn't anwser WHY is that a thing and that was the anwser I was looking for.
Am I the only one?
"Libertarianism doesn't work because they won't provide services for the extremely impoverished"
Dude knows a lot of fancy words but is 100% a statist
"Everything in the state nothing outside the state nothing against the state" - based Italian dude
Excellent video. Although speaking as a former libertarian it will fail to convince libertarians. Their kneejerk reaction will be to say "But we're not against social spending, we're just against the government enforcing it, people in a libertarian society are free to give to charities if they wish".
To those who thought of that, the problem is "tragedy of the commons". Many people who have no problem giving if they are guaranteed that enough others will also give won't give at all or will give a lot less if that can't be guaranteed.
If you think this problem can be overcome with charitable foundations and publicly encouraging people to give then take a look at health care in the US. Some people have died from treatable diseases because their insurance companies denied them funding or didn't offer to pay enough of the bill. If voluntary charity really worked then charitable people would've come together to foot the bill. That does sometimes happen in healthcare. There are charities that contribute to medical costs, but the fact that some people still die from not being able to afford healthcare proves that voluntary charity is not enough.
Libertarianism has one good point. Force isn't nice. Nobody likes being subjected to force. But it fails to realize that "force" can come from things besides the government. So for any given issue you're really deciding which force is the lesser of two evils. The health care issue, for example is a question of forcing people to pay a little more in taxes to fund life-saving programs v. forcing people who can't afford essential goods and services to become severely unhealthy, die, or go bankrupt spending money just to stay alive? Ethically I'd rather go with the first one.
Good point regarding the concept of force. For example, I know most people, excluding extreme right wing Trump supporters, wouldn't label the US as being "Communist", which they argue use force to clamp down on every fact of life, yet the main and first source of authority of states is the police, who use force to clamp down on people, sometimes deserved, others times not; the point being that in a society there is some level of force needed in order to keep it stable and from disintegrating into complete anarchy
@@xXAscendingPhoenixXx Yeah. Not to mention, force can come from non-human sources as well. We tend to not build animosity towards such kinds of forces for some reason, though. But society has had shielded us from those forces at the expense of inconveniences imposed upon us by the society.
" the fact that some people still die from not being able to afford healthcare proves that voluntary charity is not enough."
You have to apply to the charity, they don't come to you. Many people don't know these charities even exist.
The logical conclusion of right-libertarianism is a king.
That's why.
"Sometimes people say that in the absence of religion . . . there can never be values that everyone agrees upon."
Hey, Google: How many denominations of Christianity are there?
Answer: More than 45,000 worldwide.
It's more like with the presence of religion, there can never be values that everyone agrees upon.
45,000 Xtian denominations, plus every Islamic and Judean denomination. Not to mention every denomination of the literally thousands of other religions that have existed over the last 600 or so millennia. Religion has existed probably as long as language has, and every culture has had at least one unique version. The only thing universal about religion is that they are all products of human imagination.
Different denominations rarely form because of a difference in values. Many times, it is a question of doctrine or worship practices. That would be as silly as saying that there are food wars because not everyone wants the same thing for dinner every night.
well true christianity is guided by the holyspirit and not men or religious opression.. Jesus teaches that his kingdom is not of this earth.. You haveto become a born again christian to be a true follower of christ.. most christians aren't born again --> they havent personally dedicated their life to following christ or have a living relationship with him.
@@DrErnst christianity is just another story told by men to control other men through fear. looks like they got you with it lmao
@@briancullencullen6166 well your wrong I have personally experienced God, and intentionally stuck with my christianity in one of the top 5 the most secular city in the world Stockholm.. being ridiculed my whole upbringing.. atheist can be moral people but they build their morals on christian heritage and values: like the human rights is a christian concept: as we are created in the image of God.. its written in the american constitution.. albeit the founding father who wrote it where deist but they still had the christian heritage and culture to build on. the 20th centuary was the secular centuary also the worlds most bloody ideologies where formed: nazism and communism.. their only comparision i Gingis Khan and the mongol horde for massmurder and debutchery, and gingis khan lacked mustard gas and tanks so he probably never did it on that kind of scale.. but no atheist don't build moralfibers for society but narcisism and materialism, as the only person you cater to is yourself in order for selfpreserving your genes..
Steve, there are these things called Charities that are non government organizations that provide for the poor and there were mutual aid societies too that did the same thing then the government pushed them out of the market. anything the government provides it pushes out the competition because they also have the money and guns to do so and can change the laws to it's own advantage.
For being a libertarian I am surprisingly okay with this. Must be the ambien or the beer I took. Oh, and Pinker seems like an okay guy.
He knows his data.
Hi. You must be new to libertarianism.
@@sb3424 libertarianism is a fringe idea and not a universal value. You must not have watched the video
@@d.nakamura9579 It's fringe when almost every country has libertarian aspects like private property, free speech and so on? Damn. Pretty good fringe idea.
Honestly you would have to be an alcoholic and on Ambien in order to think that libertarianism has any kind of actual logical weight to its nonsense.
Imagine if they said freedom from slavery wasn't a universal value and just a marginal issue. That's how this title sounds.
The Libertarien or anarchist philosophy is supposed to be an idea with no ego, this is why governments aren’t libertarian because they’re driven by ego
Fuck government and society
There is no *the* here. Most anarchists in the world are leftwingers, who see "the almighty market" as as oppressive as any fascist dictatorship. They are anticapitalist, and want people to be free to follow their own conscience instead of having to do what someone is willing and able to pay them for.
Baby Perot: "Mom, when I grow up, I'm going to be a Libertarian"
Momma Perot: "well which one is it son? You can't do both."
Love it!!
Because being that self centered is the mark of a child? Or because in a libertarian society this child would likely die in an oligarchs sweatshop?
I didn’t know Perot was a libertarian. Being rich doesn’t make you a libertarian. Idiotic argument.,
Stupidest thing I ever heard.
How that even an argument?
Also you just took the liberal version of the meme and put libertarian in instead.
Being a Libertarian means you just leave people alone, the end. If you're a minarchist you technically believe in violating others a little bit but as a true libertarian as an anarchist you leave people alone period.
"Libertarian America". Lol
Neoliberalism America would have been more accurate fwiw.
Since when is libertarianism defined as "zero social spending" ?
I don't see why the idea that government should leave us alone and let us live our lives the way we want to have to mean no to social spending ?
Because of aging baby boomers the Assited-Living industry is going through a boom and huge growth market funded by the free market. Assisted living is also as good as it's ever been in human history. Particularly from when children were required to take care of their elderly or they had no other options.
Furthermore. humans are cooperative animals by nature and thus we naturally empathize with people that are struggling. It's in everyone rational self interest to ensure the community around is not completely falling apart. Some people choose charity and others choose to utilize coercion of the state. Libertarians think charity is a more moral option than coercion. By using the state you are using mob rule to force people into decisions. Not to mention you are imprisoned if you dare not to fund a state using your money for other immoral things. It's more selfish to steal from someone who earned their money than for someone that earned their goods to keep it. The more free or libertarian a society is the more flourishing will occur. That is a fact. The welfare state is product of human guilt and the need to be altruistic to others to feel good about one's self. What's immoral is using the state as means to control how much people get or don't get. Our nation was founded on many libertarian principles and these principles is what we owe are immense wealth and success to.
His argument makes sense in that there simply aren't enough people actually willing to live in a "social Darwinist" society. By which I mean survival of the fittest. No successful/affluent society has become that way while dominated by a belief that those who are less capable shouldn't be helped. The amount of help we should give and the acceptable minimum standard of living will always be debated but no society has reached the 21st century believing it should be zero. Whether this is good or bad will also be debated.
its cuz we have this thing call empathy which is the objective center of morality.
True story. In order for a state like Tennessee to eliminate state income tax, they have to raise revenue in other ways and cut services. There was a case where a fire department showed up to watch a house burn to the ground, the owner hadn't paid the fee for the privatized fire service, the fire department showed up to make sure the fire didn't spread.
When voters see pure Libertarianism play out to its inevitable, inhuman and illogical conclusion, they reject it. Health care is a good example, we clearly have a problem. When Libertarians proudly state that health care is not a right, comparing a low wage worker paying for cancer treatment to owning a wide screen TV or luxury car, they look like idiots. Most people who support our system in the US have employer covered health care and don't even have to think about it. As more people get left out, more will support a government solution. Obamacare failed to get support on both sides of the political aisle. We need much more and a Congress willing to work on this problem, not the BS Congress we have today.
Switzerland is considered to have one of the most Libertarian economies in the world yet they have universal health care funded by taxpayers. Most conservatives in the US can't seem to comprehend that there's no contradiction. No society can function well as purely Libertarian or purely communist. When people have the vote, neither system will get full support.
Healthcare in the US doesn't work because of tons of government regulations on health care insurance companies.
@@hibviow For a lot of people, US Healthcare works. Unfortunately, successive governments, hijacked by NeoLiberal policies, have decreased funding on social spending.
But at the very least, there's still a functioning government-led Healthcare.
Maybe you don't like the paper work.
It's a misnomer to say there are no libertarian countries.
There are no libertarian governments.
It's not in the nature of governments to limit themselves once they're created regardless of what people want.
Oh, how convenient for you. I pose just a couple of questions relating to your vision on the role of the state: Just how do you philosophically justify the government stealing from some to redistribute to others? What gives government the right to involuntarily tax its citizenry in the first place? If an individual can't confiscate the goods of another and use those goods to fund "worthy" endeavors, why is the same behavior acceptable for government? The fact is that YOU DON'T CARE. You want what you want and when it comes right down to it, you have ABSOLUTELY NO REAL CONCERN FOR FREEDOM or individual liberty. When your personal views happen to coincide with liberty, you believe the state should refrain from imposing its will on the public. Yet, you are more than willing to sacrifice the freedom of others if that's what you personally desire. Liberals are no different from conservatives except in the areas where they wish to see government use force. What a bunch of control freaks! While I might heartily disagree with the choices of another human being, I would NEVER be so arrogant as to use the state to control them and restrict their choices!
@Jack McCabe It would be interesting, wouldn't it? Perhaps we Libertarians have it all wrong!....Maybe WE should begin using force to impose our own will upon others! I suppose that might be labeled "Authoritarian Libertarianism"!! hehe
Reading the comments on this thread shows what the issue I have with Libertarianism is. It's less about how the system works, and instead it's about 100 different people having 100 different opinions about what true Libertarianism is. I think most people have missed the point of the discussion, and instead are only focusing on trying to establish what they believe Libertarianism really is. This seems to me to be a failing on the part of Libertarians, as it isn't up to the individual hearing the argument to make the argument cogent. For example, if I am listening to 3 people tell me about this great new invention, but each of them says it functions in a way that may be contradictory to the other 2, how is person listening to react?
I'd prefer we stop focusing so much on what this or that label means, and just explain the idea, how it functions, and the evidence for why one would consider it a better system. You could obviously explain terms used in your argument, but it seems that the discussion between Libertarians, and those opposed to Libertarian ideas, spends the majority of it's time trying to debunk or argue about the purity of Libertarianism.
One True Libertarian (Scotsman) is a game we tend to play.
Libertarianism is just the consistent recognition of the non aggression principle and the freedom of the individual. And it is incompatible with any form of a state for this reason
Thanks for something not entirely depressing . Please just be careful saying that healthcare and retirement are provided by employers in the U.S. You open yourself up to accusations that you live in a bubble . The phenomena exist , and skew reality from statistics . But , specifically those two benefits are increasingly considered unicorns by the working class .
It most definitely is not free
Pinker made it seem like employers were giving charity to their employees out of the kindness of their hearts.
@@kenmcnutt2 Don't forget, many do, even if most do not. The problem with relying on the kindness of employers hearts is that far too many are lacking in that regard.
Liberty is a universal value nowadays as well as wilderness is a marginal idea of living. There are libertarian proxies: Swiss for example. But now US counties are tied to their state's rule of law that is not libertarian.
Libertarians are not islands, they just say that social cooperation have to be voluntary and not compulsory.
There will always be social spending. Most libertarians want it capped or want it at least reeled in. The idea of a libertarian Utopia is not the goal, it is just to give people more freedom over their personal choices and to reduce government's reach. It empowers enterprise and small business. Taking libertarian ideals to their most extreme is an interesting way to argue them but NOT a constructive way to pigeonhole their advocators.
It really empowers large businesses, who will then stifle small businesses and enterprises.
The main argument is that it should be up to private social works, charities, churches or nonprofits funded by people with big hearts and big wallets to help the less fortunate in a free market society. There are plenty willing people out there
I can never get past the libertarian meme that greed is good. Greed is directly opposed to good by definition. If motivation is good, then it's not greed, it's inspiration.
What is the meaning of "good"?
@@dandre3K healthy
no libertarian says greed is good, the line is "each person chasing their own selfish interest in a free society makes the world a better place." It's not greed it's self interest.
It means that when free, that is when force is absent in decision making processes, which needs some government to protect, people acting in their self interests will help others.
Those libertarians certainly don’t represent me. Greed is a huge motivating factor for those that consolidate power at the expense of others and the corporations who lobby for privileges from the state
Adam Smith advocates public schools. He talks about it at length, argues it is a necessary good for society. JS Mill says universal education should be available, but public education should only be there as a backup in case private schools aren't widely available enough.
Libertarians aren't by necessity against social spending. They would just prefer it be the private voluntary kind rather than the government mandated forceful kind. Since the first is more efficient since it has to prove to its donors that it does something while the second can demand the money under threat of force even if the money is then squandered or used inefficiently.
Discusses title of the video in the last 30 seconds or so
That 2030 mission seems "Mission impossible" . We need a Tom cruise for that...:)
As long as people dream of movie star heroes saving the day will never get down to serious political progress.
"Why are there no libertarian countries?" The closest thing the world has to that right now is the state of New Hampshire, where all the libertarians are moving to build the society WE want to live under.
yeah, but you still do that by voting, market participating, and social spending lol
I'd say there are many other countries closer to the libertarian ideal than the US state of New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, as with all other 49 states, an 18 year old male must register for potential military call up. NH is subject to vast Federal laws and covert surveillance.
For alternatives, pick a small country, which is relatively stable and has low tax. There are many of them.
@@kenelmtonkin7722 like…?
Wanna hear a good joke?
Sweatshop or starve = voluntary and freedom.
During the periods of 1.5% gdp for social government spending, what was the private spending?
Bureaucratic overhead, and the police. They didn't even pay for the roads back then. Even today in Mexico many of the roads are privately owned, like it used to be in the US. It's slow going and you have to pay tolls everywhere.
Back then if the government needed something, like fire fighting, you'd get conscripted. Think like jury duty but for all sorts of tasks. This is one way taxes were reduced.
Just because we have been increasing social spending recently does not make it a object universe value. A hundred years from now social spending might decrease. These things ebb and flow. For example the Roman republic redistributed wealth, then during the middle ages little wealth transfer occurred. Now we spend a lot on social programs. Maybe that's around to stay maybe not.
there are some countries that are pretty close to being Libertarian like Hong Kong, Chile and New Zealand, they are very successful. Even the US and Canada are pretty libertarian despite the social programs
Strike Hong Kong from that. Economical they are very free (other than in land ownership) however social the CCP has them by the short and curlies. Political parties are banned, supporters are teargassed (umbrella moment), it's so bad that the Hong Kong ensign is used by independence advocates.
Um all the countries you named have huge social services which is the opposite of libertarians that don’t believe in safety nets.
@@gottjager760 Political Parties banned, you mean the Hong Kong National Party. But I must admit the libertarian economic strategy plays well in Hong Kong. Our government have almost no debt. The Debt to GDP ratio is like 0.1%
Chile? What a joke!
It's possible to manage without government. I think it would be better without government. Social spending has many advantages but doesn't need to be done by taxation.
Nothing to offer in the marketplace? That's not the fault of the elderly and disabled. That's the fault of the marketplace refusing to hire the experienced and talented elderly and alternately - abled people of society. This is not a market for the employee; it is a market for the capricious companies whose goal is not to hire for long term but to hire temporary employees and young people to whom they pay no benefits nor training. And they complain there is nobody qualified for their jobs.
It takes about a year in a job for an employee to reach full potential in a career job (a cashier job is NOT a career), and most companies refuse to invest that time, effort, and cost, preferring to hire employees at poverty wages. (Walmart, I'm looking at you!)
Time and again, too, the alternately-abled are overlooked in their talents and experience and abilities and knowledge. Our needs are looked at with disdain and revulsion, with fear that we with disabilities will want and demand a slice of pie bigger than the company can "afford" and then bring suit if the company doesn't comply.
Or maybe they think we will become those disgruntled employees that get revenge. It simply isn't so.
We who have disabilities have been systematically rejected, our needs ignored ("What? You can't work at a one - person job while sitting one foot away from your neighbor who is also working on a one - person job in a roomful of 100 people doing one - person jobs with a cacophony of a live warehouse as the office? With all the noise around and the neighbors talking incessantly next to you? How could you possibly need relief from that? After all, anxiety, mania, and depression are all in your head. Snap out of it and get to work! ")
Business is not built for the individual and her needs.
The problem isn't the high value we place on capital. It's the low value we place on work. In the 1950s, the CEO of McDonalds made 10 times as much as his lowest level employees and he felt shameful because he didn't deserve so much money. Now, CEOs make 1000 times their workers' pay.
I'm sure the CEO that makes 1000 times more per hour than his workers could afford to make 100 times as much, instead. He could provide his labor force cheaper insurance, a better way of life, and more money to actually spend (instead of hoard) which could promote the economy. If you honestly think any capitalist in this nation works 1000 times harder--carries 1000 times as many boxes per hour--flips 1000 times more burgers per second--than his workers, you're perpetuating a pretty bold lie.
America has found a way to tell the working poor that their health is a luxury, while reminding the born-rich that their yachts are a necessity. We've convinced the public that the smallest bit of equity for their labor is "evil communism". To that end, we're a nation that is so afraid of the left that we cling to the worst parts of our forerunners' "libertine" economics--which sometimes meant paying people zero dollars for the privilege of sharing land they claimed to own.
Right. It's money that is removed from the economy. It gets stockpiled, not spent, and is as unproductive as the schlock who owns it.
Not so fast, buckaroo. You could argue this if the money is in an offshore fund and in that case absolutely, but if we assume its in a bank here in the good ol' US of A then we can expect that to be a good thing. If banks have more money in savings accounts it allows for more loans to be taken out and then more businesses to be made, which only grows the economy. This means more jobs, and more opportunities for people, which in turn means less homelessness and poverty!
You do not know how banks give out money
We just have to wait for the bank to bail us out. Until then, workers spend dollars much faster than the bank ever could, by a factor of millions.
It wouldn't matter, though, because keeping American money in American banks requires (gulp!) regulations. And those regulations are vilified and voted down in the same omnibus bill that gives Boeing another $5 billion to build fighter jets.
NOT, a bail out, a LOAN. Also, never suggested I supported shutting down regulations, I support regulations. Also, of course 250+ million people will spend money faster than banks, but they want to spend that money in the hopes of getting interest back. Seems like your problem is with the Government and not the system of capitalism friend.
A capitalist system is only as fair as it's government lets it be, and you can guess what the inaction of American politicians is causing in this country.
He looks like a guy that gives a very enjoyable conversation.
The market place is nothing more human interaction. To say the marketplace can’t provide something is akin to saying people can’t provide it. As you Mr Pinker says himself, people like social spending. If governments didn’t offer social spending, the demand for such programs would create alternatives. These alternatives would have to compete in the marketplace. This competition fosters more efficient and cost effective measures than offered by governments.
LMAO!