Debate with the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida 

RogueTool absolutely! Whenever I’m bored I always turn on an old majority report libertarian debate

Me too, I wish this was the show sometimes. We need so much more of this! lol

RogueTool I've been bingeing on these for a couple of days. And I second Beavis De Jesus' comment. Michael's laugh was so much fun.

Same, I’ve been running into a bunch recently and I come here to recharge

@@Randomuser2329 I miss him

+Despicably Irascible Rapscallion not only that, but Native American tribes warred with each other constantly over land and resources. There was no body to govern the bartering, so if a stronger tribe didn't feel like honoring the barter, they would just kill and enslave the weaker tribe or just flat out take the resources. The fact that he used Native Americans as a litmus just goes to show how delusional these people are.

+Alain Laroche And governments haven't done the same thing? I don't get this argument that says we can't have a system based on free markets because people might war with each other. So instead lets have a state based system where people war with each other. But you're right, libertarians are the delusional ones...

moonlitegram I'm pretty sure using native tribes as an example of libertarian utopia is what we were talking about. It's fantastical nonsense, but then the whole premise is. - Please try to keep up.

Despicably Irascible Rapscallion You didn't address my point at all and resorted to what essentially boils down to an ad hominem. Nice try though.

moonlitegram yes, governments have done many ill things in human history. but there is literally no proof of their being a successful society with no established government. Libertarians live in this drug-induced utopia that doesn't exist.

he just ignored all the families that were so poor they relied in child labor

Also, the times where a single individual could actually support a household on their own were almost exclusively times where we had significantly more worker protections (regulations) enabling higher pay.

LOL

Lmao I thought the same thing

I usually say Libertarian paradise is Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome...

​@@KznnyL And they all think they'll be master blaster, when really they're more likely to be shoveling pig shit

@kennethleak1863 I usually go with Road Warrior lol

+Logan Wallace lol and which of the "most successful people" would want to go with you?

LOL, good luck to you. Seriously. I have nothing against the libertarian people as such, some of their goals I even agree with. I just find the attitude incredibly selfish and a bit ignorant. I gladly pay my fair share so people who are disabled, ill or just unlucky can get the help to get back on their feet/ have a decent life. Decent life means being able to survive and live in dignity, not a free ride and luxury.

Its called the US

@Logan Wallace If you take all the "successful people," who is going to build the houses? Or set up the plumbing? Or build the roads? I would love to see people go Galt, because they'll find out that there will be new rich people to take their place, but they won't be able to last without us workers.

Libertarians obviously have utter contempt for everybody, who are not wealthy white men. they would not lose one wink of sleep if people were dying in the streets, and we brought back Jim Crow segregation. It's an utterly adolescent selfish sociopathic

America...exploding places ever since.

That and all the other super powers owed us enormous debts

Majed because they definitely do!

funny because a few comments up someone says "native americans didnt have government? these libertarians have no basis in reality" which is explained by your comment.

Sam: "Cite one example of anthropolical evidence that markets pre-date any type of govenment." Libertarian: "Sure. How 'bout, I have a yard full of chickens..." Laughter erupts.

To be fair, the libertarian was talikng about a barter system. Which of course, could not possibly work (and never has worked) as an economic system in a civilized, modern society.

Actually post civil saw a growth in economy that by 1890 made us the richest country. Though I think the new system we have is far better and has proven to show demand side economics have given us the greatest periods of prosperity. I think libertarians pine too much for the old days and don't realize how much better things are because we evolved as a society.

The economy grew but economic growth isn't a good measure of the financial security of the people within the country. That era was the era of robber barons, massive wealth inequality and an upper class so wealthy they could afford to purchase and crash trains into each other for fun.

They were regulating the economy or at least involved in it by working against the workers in favor of corporations

What? When the technology was nothing like the technology we have now, im not sure you could begin to analyse the extent to which that is down to ideology.

@ThisIsMyRealName " slavery fueled the USA's industrialization" You realize the south was not very industrialized in comparison to the north where slavery died out right?

ThisIsMyRealName don’t forget North American tribes literally set up a confederacy of nations to create laws between tribes and to work together. It was such a good system the south actually based their confederacy off of the Iroquois system.

I bought a Toyota for 8,000 chickens.

Not only that, prior to 1917 we paid for government using tariffs based on Alexander Hamilton's idea of protecting infant industries, which is literally the government picking winners and losers. It cant get anymore intrusive than that. It was as it turned out a damn good idea but it was in no way shape or form a free market. This guy needs to study some more.

@@jlrinc1420 what's this?? a youtuber commenter who actually understands American economic history??? I did not think such a miracle would occur

it was a relatively free market

Hamilton is notorious for going against the basic principles of the enlightenment and capitalism…………..………………………………….

if Jefferson had an embargo on some country then he was going against free trade concepts with other countries but he wasn't interfering with the competition between American companies...…………………………………………………………………………………………...within the borders the market was free

Libertarians ain't anarchists, dude. Lesser taxes, smaller welfare state, less military, end of drug war is what we want.

Harshit Madan that’s what YOU want. The Libertarian ideology is so far spread that when you listen to presidential debates in 2016 people like Johnson who advocate for what you just said get yelled down by the rest of the idiots that think Walmart should build roads and hirable militias are absolutely better then government police.

Have we? Dare you go back to Freddie and Fanny Mae? Or are we going back further in your revisionist history?

That's just straight up dictatorship.

+Pat Doyle The more the Government regulates the economy, the more the rich individuals (like Bachmans) or groups of individuals (like unions) are likely to get access to politicians to propose their regulations. The more free market you have the less you can stay rich forever. One of the reasons the economy didn't skyrocket until 19th century was the slavery which kept capital around keeping the slaves rather than R&D. As bath as those families were, there must have been a reason why so many people went to USA and why the USA got so reach, or why UK got so rich after abolition of corn laws and so on, creating a lot of free market. P.S. Government are not some weird aliens or robots programmed by Jacque Fresco, they are just people, mostly rich, who regulate everything they can! They tend to lack any remorse (look how they smile when they evaporate people in wars, or how Albright said killing 500 000 children is a good DEAL) and they are completely driven by self-interest, way more than regular players in the market. The last point is why the anarchist Graeber mentioned by Sam .. is also sort of a free marketer, as he doesn't believe in initiation of force too.

Alexandru Dragoi No - sorry. The economy took off because of the industrial revolution - the end of slavery had nothing to do with it. The places where the most wealth was being made - the Northern US states, and Europe, did not have slaves. And slaves are NOT free labor, so having them would NOT mean that people would not try to improve productivity. Slaves cost most, and have to be fed and cared for at least like a horse, or other animal being used for work. If someone came to a plantation owner with a machine that would allow him to sell off 90% of his slaves, and the price was right, he would buy it. Free markets created all the European "noble" families that have mostly stayed rich for longer than our nation has existed. Free markets without regulation ALWAYS result in rich, semi-permanent oligarchies that use their economic power to crush any competition. Unregulated free markets are always horrible for the vast majority of society.

And in which countries at the time was there NOT high levels of poverty.

Josue Barboza What countries are you talking about? The levels of poverty almost everywhere at that time were terrible - including the USA.

Pat Doyle exactly. Sam was implying that free markets create rampant poverty, but there was rampant poverty everywhere lol

Alex Matthews Florida man strikes agaib

Libertarianism only creates rugged individualism, if you think wealth inequality is bad now just put a libertarian government in charge and watch the absolute destruction of our way of life

I mean, his argument is more that a free market cannot possibly exist because once the market becomes too free it ceases to be a market. That's the reason why he is asking for an example of one. He is not saying it cannot be because it has not been, he is saying it cannot be because it is self contradictory.

We should have probed his idea of "money." It is always entertaining and fruitful.

Total credit for Graeber reference. In 2012. Game-Point-Win / Game-Set-Match.

no i think it was...im just now getting into the treasure trove of seder vs libertarian debates...thats darryl

C Tomlin I see libertarians always insulting Sam in the comments... never refuting him. Interesting.

Star Splitter maybe you don't understand the term conflate then?

It wouldn't matter even if I didnt

Star Splitter to refute him is so easy and obvious. Yes, there are and have been many free markets. Happy?

C Tomlin Oh wow, a baseless assertion, I've never seen such a thing from a libertarian.

I would say semi government control. the government was essentially always close in some way. Since the towns still ran on the u.s. dollar. the banks were still regulated by national banking acts. the telegraph could send 30 words a minute to ask for assistance. and the rail road could bring whatever was needed in town from the territorial capital within a day or two.

Nope

How were unions dismantled?

Well, yeah. Rockets don't exist in nature, nor have they ever existed in human history without society or government, just like markets. There's no such thing as a free rocket program just as there's no such thing as a free market.

the free market existed here in America in the 1800's before the anti trust act and the fed…………..……………………………………………..Sam's argument is that if has never existed it can't exist…………..……………………………………………………...at some point the internet didn't exist so based on his logic it shouldn't exist now but it does

How can you say that's wrong i'm astonished

+francis mccormick Yah, idk wtf he was talking about there, and I dislike libertarianism..

Barter "economy". There has never been one. Barter yes, barter "economy" no.

@@hrsqsiest why not?

@@harshitmadan6449 because of 2 situations: if buyer and seller trust and know each other, they share things just like you did to family, gifted economy like system. If the buyer and seller don't trust each other, they will not trade or they both require some kind of authority enforcement system to guarantee both sides will not cheat or punish those who cheats.

lol...if I hunted a wolf with big fur you have two rabbit with small fur but edible...we exchange....if this happened hundred thousand years ago there were no currency....no evidence? barter is popular and native tribes all around the world even American natives used barter...there are plenty of evidence

He's talking about a economic system based on barter not individual trades. If the tribe all agrees that 10 chickens equal 1 cow then that, by definition, is an exchange of currency (chickens for cows) established by govt (the tribe).

S. Tyler Stafford In many civilization they had fixed values of merchandise similar as you just said. In the Amazon some tribes had exchange values set similar as 3 birds worth a small pig and so on. There are documentations of such, there are plenty of evidence.

+Jon Snow exactly my point. When a group of people come together and agree on the value of a thing that is the establishment of currency by a governing body.

S. Tyler Stafford lol....I guess in your dictionary has no such thing as barter. When a fur of a fox, a wolf, a rabbit or a bear has an exchange that also can include some pigs, some clothing, some caught fishes and a long long list...you want to call that currency ? Seriously? The guy makes the best bow and arrow exchange it for a pig and his fee is a pig for each bow is a pig so suddenly all tools and food are currency....NOT.....it is called barter. When the weather is mild and there are lot of pigs the value of the bow can go to 2 pigs instead of one...lol. In barter the item you exchange is the currency, but there are no such thing as real currency because if the person does not need a bow will not accept it for a pig. To be a real currency it has to be accepted as a generally and circulated. Primitive tribes do not have such. They only barter for needs or to gain "wealth".

Evidence: the Koch brothers are libertarians. Or so they claim.

Why should I pay to protect the weak-ass folks?

You should probably learn what market means.

I think the argument that should be made is "No large, growing economy with wide spread power and authority in history has ever fully or even mostly relied on barter to maintain that power." Barter does and always will happen but is not and can not be the main system in place for trade markets because it is too cumbersome to deal with in the long term. Is this clear enough or is it still too ambiguous?

Ugh, they can be checked independently. They give you the facts and figures and you can figure it out yourself. You are talking nonsense.

Miles Jensen Yeah. Sam is wrong. What about black markets? Black markets exist *despite* the government trying to get rid of them. People will always trade goods, it's called demand and supply, which is something he's basically rejecting. It's actually quite funny.

Paul Åge In fact, they are only black markets because the government has made it illegal.

Miles Jensen Exactly. But they exist despite the government trying to get rid of them/don't want them? Yes. And of course, drugs should be legal - but that was not the point here and now.

Miles J. He was referring to a market on an economic scale, not a single transaction. There are families and communities that can pull together but that doesn’t mean a nation can effectively adopt communism.

@@robertaylor9218 I think the argument that should be made is "No large, growing economy with wide spread power and authority in history has ever fully or even mostly relied on barter to maintain that power." Barter does and always will happen but is not and can not be the main system in place for trade markets because it is too cumbersome to deal with in the long term. Is this clear enough or is it still too ambiguous?

***** That's intelligent.

***** So is that.

***** Yuh!

***** I totally agree. Today's right wingers are wingers on steroids!

Or women, who were the men's property? Or children, who were forced into child labor instead of school just so families could survive?

Jim Powell oh god

And how would they do that? By gathering together and forming some kind of state which facilitates and regulates the market? There's a word for that... begins with g...

Libertarians aren' anarchists. Duh!

I think the premise that your neighbor is allowed to steal money from you also makes them angry. It’s kinda funny that we call it taxes instead of stealing.