Caller: We Should Pay Him, Or We're Libertarians 

Haha dude that's how I got into this show in the first place. It's addicting.

Glad I'm not the only one! Been watching since early Spring and I'd heard about these calls. Going through the playlist now, is DELIGHTFUL!

@@megpaul8076 okay, good. I am late to the party, but love these. Sam just destroys these callers. Whoa.

Watch some science guys talk to flat eartherz. You’ll grow a bushy beard before you leave the couch. And then there’s professional zit popping.

Same, lmao

Me too.

Excellent reason, lmao

Right?? Lmao

If you exploit someone, you're a libertarian??? How can you stand by libertarians if that's your definition???

He doesn't even understand that in saying that, he is saying that libertarians exploit others.

The thing is, at 11:04, Sam gave the caller a way to NOT be exploited for his labor of the phone call, and the caller rejected the idea!

No contract = no market

True that. In fact the charge you them greedy bastards.

For real. Furthermore the tv is my property. I'm charging the major networks rent!

I actually do feel this way, why should I pay for channels with commercials?! They need me!

I can't watch all these channels too, so I deserve/demand a refund!

Make it bigger E Bisrat, we deserve money for watching RU-vid VIDEOS

Hammer truther truths have not been truthed.

And if we're going down that silly road of an argument, his mother should have run him a tab for changing his diapers and put him on a payment plan when he could work.

This man is providing entertainment without pay as this RU-vid channel gets paid. Imagine if I had a comedian perform at my comedy club but did not pay him?

@@MrJaaaaake isnt that how open night mics work?

@@MrJaaaaake ever heard of an open mic night?

Yep. Exactly. The caller would have been technically correct if every transaction between any two individuals was considered a contract. I have called into this show before. Sam literally has no idea who the callers are (there is no screening) and doesn't know what the topic is going to be. So how can he be "hiring" people?

if you go to a store and start sweeping the floor..it does not make you an employee

You can put the kittens in the oven but that don’t make ‘em biscuits.

The caller has been listening to too much right wing media, which was going full blast to rationalize the Citizens United decision a few years back, and now he has completely conflated commerce and speech.

But what the caller refuses to accept is that he called in with the understanding that he would not be paid for the time of the call. He called in on his own free will, knowing that he would not be paid. There is no contractual agreement, and therefore no market, between the caller and Sam Seder. But in that same time frame, the caller could have done something that DID earn him money. And, as Sam mentions at 11:04, the caller COULD have tried to make money off the call itself.

welcome to my cousins brain

It's like when religious people say atheism is a religion.

Dude. I hope you changed your screen name. WelcomeToMyCousin’sBrain is outstanding.

Everything in life is exploitive. The government exploits my labor. There is not a situation in life where every part can be equally happy with an outcome.

@@MrJaaaaake I agree. If someone benefits from the interaction then it could technically be "exploiting the situation". Doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I could give a hot meal to a homeless person. They benefit from it because they get a meal. I benefit from it because I feel I did good in society. People don't willy nilly do things unless there's some perceived benefit.

@@ShiningSneasel that’s not the kind of exploitation people normally refer to in economics though. One use of the word is simply “to utilize” sure, but exploitation more commonly refers to unfairly use someone to your advantage Marx popularized the use of exploitation to mean “unfairly take advantage of” when he described the owner-worker relationship. An owner receives more money from the worker’s labor than they pay the worker. This is profit, and since the owner didn’t actually do anything it is exploitation. When you give a homeless person a hot meal, sure you exploited (utilized) the situation to make yourself feel better, but you didn’t unfairly take advantage of the homeless person. A hot meal in the stomach is probably a lot more valuable to them than your sense of fulfilling a moral duty

Chris Smith OMG, YES!

Chris Smith the caller isn’t a libertarian, you dumbass, he is accusing Sam of being a libertarian, which isn’t a bad thing, I’m a classical libertarian and I like the free-market. You guys that follow Sam like he’s some kind of god have developed this mind set that makes out libertarians to be “Nazis”.

@@jordanthomas4379 Nah, Nazis are evil. Libertarians are just.... what's a nice way of saying stupid?

@@Zahnzak Yeah....I'm a super duper intelligent atheist socio-communist. I'm smart enough to recognize that my ass is public property!!!!!

@@jordanthomas4379 not nazis bro, just really really funny, comedy gold. If you can please call in 👍

I thought the same.

They don't have the lobes for it.

Ferengi are smarter.

No wonder the Ferengi's heads were shaped like butts.

Bop bop bop

Employment is also voluntary.

@@MrJaaaaake No. The caller doesn't need to call in order to eat. People need to work in order to make money in order to buy food, water, and shelter. This is NOT a complicated concept.

His point is that volunteering for a for-profit company makes the agreed-upon wage 0 and therefore Sam is de-facto “employing him” for a wage of $0. Therefore, this should be allowed. He’s willing to work for this low wage. If others wish to in other circumstances, they shouldn’t be prevented from doing so.

@@perryjohnson6461 And the point demonstrated by this video is that Sam can exploit that "labor" and use the means of production that he owns to produce a video that then generates the surplus value of the conversation, resulting in profit of which the caller will receive nothing. Sam rails against such exploitation on a nearly daily basis. At no point does the caller effectively demonstrate that Sam is practicing libertarian principles; he only demonstrates capitalist practices. And the specific point that Sam's making is that volunteering your time to call in to a show is not equivalent to a labor market where employers have the power to arbitrarily set a wage that workers either accept or don't get the job, and where the market incentivizes businesses to collectively drive down wages in a given region so that workers are left with a choice yes, but a choice between a bad, non-living wage or a worse wage than that. If there are no businesses that offer a living wage, or even a wage commensurate with the labor in your region, do you really consider it a 'choice' or 'freedom' to work for a wage upon which you can't sustain yourself? The guy has a point, yes, and the point is that he considers libertarian ideals to include the abject exploitation of those who are powerless to reject an unfair labor agreement. His blunder was that he had a genuinely free choice to call in and then falsely equates his decision to offer his 'labor' to Sam without acknowledging that this in no way resembles the way a labor market operates. Hence Sam saying "Just because you called me up, it does not make me your employer"

your check is coming in the mail my friend, I'm sure

If you haven't received your check yet leave another comment it gets closer every comment.

Liberals want everything for free...

Arch Yeomans sure.

I’d call myself a right-leaning libertarian.

You're so silly, Jordan.

Arch Yeomans health care and basic rights are not "everything"

If he doesn't try to exploit her directly for his own financial gain.

They wouldn't need money where they are going, because jetpacks.

Do they understand why that is a joke? That's the real question.

Robert Looney Does any libertarian really understand anything?

Libertarian politicians: people who want be paid to lead a government that they feel should not exist.

Not the case if libertarianism grows. Because to a libertarian an invader is no different from your home government In regard to oppression of freedom. But it would be easier to lead a revolt against an invader to establish a libertarian government. In the future if the libertarian population is large enough and there is global tension they could become terrorist in order to facilitate their own freedom.

@Vincent S That makes no sense at all, maybe in your mind it does, but not in the mind of someone who has passed business law. lol

@Vincent S Actually, it does make sense, but you do not understand it. If you go to your neighbors house to talk to him, there is no legal binding contract that you will get paid to talk to him...UNLESS YOU MAKE A LEGAL BINDING CONTRACT THAT YOU WILL BE PAID TO TALK TO HIM. There was no contract between Sam and the caller that he was going to be paid. In order to enforce a contract, one has to be made, either by implication or signed.

The Ghost of Flekk Bone Gnawer No it's a common error to think that because you say Sarah and I it should be You and I, but that is an overcorrection.

I'd argue that there is services received. Sam is giving the platform for Alex to use for free but in exchange, Sam gets to make the money off the video. Now if Sam were to charge Alex to get on the show, it'd be the same concept. Literally Sam is the one delivering a service and by calling in you're accepting the service for free but at the expense of the station owner making the money.

@@ShiningSneasel The contract that Sam makes money from is between Sam and the station. Alex is what would be called a third-party beneficiary-he gets a “platform” because of the contract between Sam and the station, but he is not a party to that contract. Third party beneficiaries generally do not have standing to sue unless the contract was made to benefit them specifically and directly. An example would be the beneficiary of a life insurance contract between the insured person and the insurance company. Now, if Sam were to charge Alex, then that would be a contract between Sam and Alex, separate from the contract between Sam and the station. In Contract Law, accepting something for free is not a contract. It is the transfer of a “gift.”

even if he manages what he set out to do and prove you are in some way a hypocrite it would be at the cost of his own ideology

Would it not be illegal if I made money off someone that voluntarily provided value to my company for no compensation?

​@@MrJaaaaake the problem with this point is the dynamic is completely different. The caller isn't an employee or even a volunteer. He is a person using a service. Instead of paying for the service (getting a large platform to talk on), he gets to use it for free. This is subsidized through the viewership advertisements of youtube instead of paying Sam a fixed fee up front. As Sam said, he can easily make a youtube channel and post up his content and monetize off of it. Sam isn't exploiting the dynamic because the other person has the same opportunity to profit too. Sam will undoubtably make more money but again the service being rendered is that he has a larger platform to talk on.

If I sell labor the commercial agreement is between me and the client. Now I don't have to pay the employees since their labor is the product.

I think socialism appeals to people who lack the responsibility and courage to be self sufficient and look deep inside.

And if he does, I feel bad for his employees.