That was classic. 1. Tells Sam to go look at facts 2. Ignores all facts when presented to him 3. Complains about academics 4. Brags about his academic credentials And all the while he abjectly refuses to make any kind of case for his point while simultaneously complaining about how stupid Sam is because he doesn't already agree with him. This, folks, is a typical Libertarian.
adamjsutto12 I do wish he'd get them to actually say some of the obvious conclusions out loud. He tends to let them talk. When they talk, anyone with half of a brain will be able to tell how out of touch they are. When Sam doesn't get them to own up to their poor reasoning, they might actually be hanging up happy with the thought that they'd triumphed in a battle of rhetoric.
Seems like a typical response, its not my shitty phone why i cant hear and why i keep changing subjects its your government socialized microphone that sucks.
***** So you're telling me these capitalists own a bunch of Chinese people? If you can prove that I will be impressed. Funny thing is, it's the so-called "progressives" who rely upon slavery. It's the sine-qua-non of the entire so-called "progressive" agenda. Abolish slavery and so-called "progressives" are left pissing in the wind.
Bolgernow How typical of a so-called "progressive" to make his case so succinctly. So you are stating, in writing, that FOXCONN owns human beings? Does it purchase them at auctions? If so, who do they buy them from? How much would an average slave cost? Does the company get tax-breaks for depreciation? Is FOXCONN the only company that owns slaves or can you name others? Are you any good at chess?
@John Downs Yeah. When you support your delegates/officials in stealing and aggressing on people who didn't harm anyone. I complain? I just point out what happens and that you support that. By the way "the people" already decided when making all the orders from amazon etc. Billions of people did that. Nobody forced them. People can't make out their mind, so they support all the stealing and re-stealing. Backt it up by authorities and platitudes. Its great for you and the community, right? I don't think so. Why are you punching yourself?
whyamimrpink78 Thanks very much for a good laugh. One of the points of a college education is reading things you wouldn't normally read. Part of any 'good' education is challenging and comparing ideas and theories. If you take economics in any depth you are in for a rude shock as you will end up reading and analyzing Marx (his economic history works mainly). As to you idea that people in the "real world" are moderate. My grandfather left school at 14, then worked up to he was 72 including running his own small business, died at 100 with the same socialist beliefs he had in the 1930s. The vast number of people who voted for Obama to win two elections aren't in academia. PS - A lot of them also have smoked pot.
***** Great post. Mr Pink doesn't come across after my interactions with him a particluarly well read in economics or business. He even admitted he was a more of "math and science guy" who gained his knowledge in these subjects by talking to friends and family. He displayed his lack of knowledge during a interaction on another Sam Seder YT clip about a Peter Schiff stunt. My 12 year nephew know more about how shares work in modern businesses the he displayed.
whyamimrpink78 Calm down, I didn't say you are stupid. What I said is that you know less about shares than a person I know who happens to be 12. You stated, if I remember, that Walmart gets most of their revenue from people buying its shares. Which is so wrong as to be laughable. My brother's son takes after his Dad and is interested in business and he understands roughly how shares work. He is bright kid, but I'm sure you know far more than he does across the wide field of human knowledge. Also I don't remember in the clip Sam talking about supply and demand curves. He was just pointing the stupidity of Mr Schiff idea that for Walmart workers to get a $15 min wage it would need to raise its prices by 15%. As someone who understands mathematics I'm sure you agree with Sam, especially when he quoted a study from Berkeley which suggested even if Walmart passed on the full cost of the wage rise, at most it would involve a few percent.
Who or what are you replying to, as this latest missive has nothing to do with what I wrote. We finished with the Walmart discussion. I think they are exploiting their work force and the tax payer, and you don't (because the the right of a corporation to earn maximum profit overrides an individuals to earn a living wage). Yes I agree with Sam in this video (and the Peter Schiff one) because the arguments made by Sam are better than the ones by either Mr Schiff or the weird guy in this video. By the way if you know so much more than Sam does, when are you going to take up his challenge to debate.
You wonder if in their head it's like when you try to reach someone on the phone and they are not availiable "Bee Dee Bee We're sorry but the brain you're trying to reach is unavailable. Please hang up and try again."
It's funny because you see the same libertarian trolls on every video here saying why Sam is wrong. When you tell them why dont you call the show and tell him XYZ. Their reply is they dont have the time lol
"Let's say ten, because I have a shitty phone and can't hear you. Or is it that I am intent on ignoring you because you aren't letting me push my agenda unchallenged."
Not even. Sam's approach is brilliant. Because Libertarians are so hopelessly belligerent, arguing with one almost instantly turns into a barroom brawl (metaphorically speaking). What Sam does (and this isn't easy to do btw) is to stand back, disengage, and watch them thrash about in their own impotent fury. If you've tried to debate more than four or five Libertarians, you're probably aware that they basically say the same stuff no matter what you're saying. Turns out they keep saying the exact same stuff even if you don't say anything at all. What would have been a barroom brawl if you had argued with them ends up looking like a deranged maniac swinging wildly through the air at an imaginary opponent. There's no better way to demonstrate the vacuity of their positions, and there's no better way to make them look silly. Best of all, they do it all to themselves.
devourerofbabies "anti-establishment" "statist" "nap" "no min wage" "class doesnt exist" "equality of opportunity" etc etc. and on and on goes the use of empty propaganda
I love when they try to break out the micro econ dead weight loss checkmate argument. It's like, yes, according to econ 101, you're right, but you know that there is in fact more to economics than that. The problem with an intro course like that, is that you're probably not taught when those models work and WHEN THEY DONT. Not to mention they seem to forget econ 101 when it comes to labor and health care when they seem to forget how inelastic demand works. Econ 101 can't model labor and money, as low wage earners with more money spends more which increases demand which means more jobs can be created which means labor demand goes up which means wages become more competitive.
17:00 "Did you even think about what you were going to say before you called in?" WHY YES IT'S RIGHT HERE SCRIBBLED ALL OVER MY WALLS, NEXT TO THE MANIFESTO AND LIST OF POSSIBLE LIZARDMEN IN CONGRESS
David Clements I think they just can't help it. The arguments being used are so ludicrous that they find it difficult not to laugh. It's a human thing.
Been watching a lot of these libertarian caller episodes lately, and every time Sam asks "why?" there is stunned silence followed by stammering/confusion/defensiveness and sometimes hostility. It never gets old.
All of these libertarians have the same argument which boils down to: “I have no evidence that supports any of the things I believe, but I just really, really FEEL that what I believe is valid.”
"Two." "Fifteen?" "Two." "Fifteen?" "I have two employees." "I can't hear you. Ok, suppose you have 10 employees, or whatever." "Two." "So, I'm sure you pay your 10 employees pretty well..."
I’ll never get tired of how they cite the Founding Fathers, as if slaveowners overseeing colonies at a time when the Frontier was West Virginia had the best sense of a nation’s government.
Kyle Bernadyn Too true. The founders were wise men, but they lived in a different world than we do now. And people tend to project their own ideas onto them.
Americans who argue against the principle of a minimum wage forget the reasons it was implemented. Unregulated labor capitalism will drive some people into abject poverty and indenture. It has created and perpetuated a class struggle that was mostly dismantled in the 20th century thanks, in no small part to wage and labor reform. I don't work for a government and have never belonged to a union, but I know how to read and recognize the benefits of providing everyone with a minimum, quality of life standard. The regressive bullshit I read and hear spewed from elitist libertarian puppets harkens to the days of Company Towns and Workhouses. Thankfully, that Libertarian Utopia, is long dead!
They think it's better to have 100% employment with people slaving away for pennies a day, than to have slightly higher taxes and some unemployment benefits for those temporarily out of work. It's a cycle, the key is to ensure that there's never an underclass that is perpetually out of work. Something we've been failing at but not because of minimum wage or welfare. Offshoring, austerity and the drug war have done a lot of damage.
@@IshtarNikeExactly. Even if markets were perfectly competitive a minimum wage would still be welfare improving for society if, as libertarians themselves fucking argue, workers with marginal skills are the ones going to the unemployment office. "First, we show that a binding minimum wage - while leading to unemployment - is nevertheless desirable if the government values redistribution toward low wage workers and if unemployment induced by the minimum wage hits the lowest skilled surplus workers first. Importantly, this result remains true in the presence of optimal nonlinear taxes and transfers. In that context, a binding minimum wage enhances the effectiveness of transfers to low-skilled workers as it prevents low-skilled wages from falling through incidence effects. Second, when labor supply responses are along the extensive margin only, which is the empirically relevant case, the co-existence of a minimum wage with a positive tax rate on low-skilled work is always (second-best) Pareto inefficient. A Pareto improving policy consists of reducing the pre-tax minimum wage while keeping constant the post-tax minimum wage by increasing transfers to low-skilled workers, and financing this reform by increasing taxes on higher paid workers. Those results imply that the minimum wage and subsidies for low-skilled workers are complementary policies." They talk about basic economics but don't even understand it. 😅
I live in Seattle. Its almost been ten years since the panic about the Seattle $15/hour min wage hike. In 2022, BurgerMaster, a local chain, is hiring starting at $20 an hour. The current minimum wage is $17.27. Before the pandemic the restaurant industry was booming and it is starting to come back again.
I mean they still have McDonalds in European countries with minimum wages that cover basic costs of living and the restaurants are still in business so they must still be making a profit, it's just not something outrageous like here in the states where the CEO is averaging 400 times what their workers make. There is still an incentive for profit in order to drive the market, it's just not at the expense of a basic standard of living that should be expected of such a rich country because if it keeps up we may see a sharp increase in the demand for reliable and efficient guillotines here in the U.S.
That was painful to listen to. The "libertarian" caller was utterly clueless, oblivious to evidence, contradictory and incoherent; in other words, typical.
Narred Darr It wasn't a matter of rhetoric, he made the typical bullshit arguments against minimum wage that have all been discredited ad infinitum that they always do (that modest increases in MW will raise unemployment-MYTH). His IDEAS are dumb, the caller's dumbness is unimportant.
Still possibly the greatest MR clip ever. Watching this pushed me to purchase a membership and now I listen to every minute of every show every single day. And this still never gets old.
It's indicative of just how little experience Libertarians actually have in defending their twisted philosophy. They don't even have it straight in their own heads, they're too busy drinking Kool-Aid all day. You can tell near the end of the call: as he loses his composure he frantically rattles off one random memorized slogan after another, like HAL shutting down.
The internet? You mean the one that was funded by the government? The one that continues to be regulated by said government (at least, until Net Neutrality get lobbied out of existence)? The one that gives hobby developers visibility and market viability equal to that of large conglomerates, by giving the means of production to the people? THAT INTERNET?
6:48 I'm willing to bet it was USPS and not UPS that was delivering the mail. I think he just realized how idiotic that would make him look if he admitted it was USPS.
Thinks “Econ 101” is a good argument. Arrogant enough to think he doesn’t need to do any research. Thinks having s degree in math makes you more intelligent. Bashes academics only when they disagree with him because they don’t run a restaurant , but academics that affirm his asinine arguments who don’t run a business are correct. One of the best libertarian calls soo funny lol
Oh man, that was gold. That guy had no freaking idea what he was talking about. Every single time a libertarian phones in they show that they're completely immune and oblivious to facts, it's fantastic. Never gets boring. Keep up the good work guys and maybe, bit by bit, this BS ideology will be shown for the joke it really is. :)
My favorite part was his assumption that people who have Ph.D.s have never worked in restaurants. What does he think we DID to support ourselves all that time?
This Libertarian clips are the best!!! The callers are insane. Every time Sam makes a crystal clear point it's the same reaction every time, "Wait...what??" 🤣😂😃😄
This was hilarious. But also sad. When I was in high school, I was a libertarian, but now that I am researching more and living and breathing the real world, it's obvious that most of the policies are just flat out wrong. My favorite one is where John Stossel argued against a minimum wage and cited that it is the reason why gas stations don't have gas station pump attendants anymore, even though the minimum wage back when they had pump attendants was higher than it is now. It's sad that people are so arrogant, and it's a shame people are so naive and ignorant of the basic facts. If I had one law that I could change of the government, I would make minimum wage in the United States $17.50 an hour across the board; and it would be less harsh than the minimum wages back in the 60s to the 80s
You call me arrogant, and yet you think you know how much every business in the country should pay their employees? Seems pretty arrogant (and extremely ignorant) to believe that you have enough information to declare that every business can afford to pay their employees $17.50 an hour.
Jake M If worker wage was tied up with productivity in the 60s, the minimum wage would be about $22 dollars an hour. 17.50 an hour would be WAY LESS HARSH than the minimum wage in the 60s, and to my knowledge in the 60s they weren't having major problems with wages and income inequality, were they? Not every business can pay 17.50 an hour, but those who can not pay a wage to live on (It costs $10.50 in the cheapest county in the USA to survive off the bare minimum and self-sustaining yourself) do not deserve to exist. Since you are obviously a hardcore free-market guy, one only needs to look at CHINESEworkers and sweatshops, where they make NOTHING and barely make ends meet. One only has to look at JAPAN to realize that hard work can KILL YOU. Now who is the ignorant one here? I think little more is needed than these ethics, unless you're a mindless drone that can't think for himself and buys anything faux news says.
***** OK I don't think you realize that in China there is heavy wealth inequality, zero regulations regarding environment and worker benefits (besides the 5 mandated days off for an employee and the $300 whopping dollars a month for the highest minimum wage (disincluding hong kong, as it is a country within a country really). China is a craphole that a lot of chinese are trying to get out of, filled with sweatshops where businesses are forced to build nets around buildings to stop their employees from commiting suicide. "Wages are determined by more than just inflation rates" when did I ever say this? Also - it is a joke to say that workers would agree to work for less than minimum wage; anybody can find a job. It's just a problem that the jobs they can find milk employees dry, and it's A RACE TO THE BOTTOM. To propose that decreasing regulation on the environment and businesses and eliminating the minimum wage would help people and their families is an insane idea with no basis with fact. Economists and many prominent business people state that increasing the minimum wage by modest proportions (IE increasing it to 10.10) would actually stimulate the economy and create more jobs. It is embarrassing to allow one of the fastest growing industries in this country, fast food, to keep paying employees such a low wage that they can not live on, and before you shout that minimum wage is mostly made by teenagers in high school, think again because 40% are 25 or older, with 25% supporting kids. Literally, people earning minimum wage must rely on social programs in this country (which you are probably against) just to make ends meet, and must stretch their budget to the limit. Please, swallow your arrogance and ignorance, and research both sides of the issue from an unbiased standpoint. Look at raw data, expert's opinions, pros and cons, for and against. The economy is much more complex and diverse than what anybody realizes it is (as there are no true laws of economics) You will come to the obvious conclusion.
Farkinob Your first argument about productivity is absurd. The reason productivity has increased so much is because of computers and technology. There weren't any personal computers in the 60s that could do the work of 5 humans in half the time. The increase of productivity has little to do with an increase in the work output of humans. Technology is the primary driver of increased productivity in this country, and that technology was created by supply and demand, not by government intervention. You are making the extremely fallacious assumption that human labor is the only thing that drives productivity. Your second argument that 17.50 is "WAY LESS HARSH" than in the 60s is simply incorrect. The highest inflation-adjusted minimum wage was in 1968, when the minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, which is $10.64 in 2012 dollars(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States). This is nearly 40% lower than your proposed $17.50 minimum wage. The minimum wage has NEVER even been close to your proposed $17.50 when adjusted for inflation. Your 3rd argument, that those who can't pay a "living wage" don't deserve to exist is also absurd (and incorrect). You make the claim that the cheapest counties in the country require $10.50 without citing a source, so as far as I can tell, this is an arbitrary number that you made up. I went to this site (livingwage.mit.edu/) and went to random county's in Washington (where I live) and CA, and I didn't find a single county where the "living wage" was over $10. I also checked Hettinger County, ND and found that the living wage there is only $7.12 (livingwage.mit.edu/counties/38041) which is below the federal wage of $7.25. Keep in mind that these are for individual adults who work full time. When you have 2 adults, the living wage goes up to about $12-$14 in many counties that I checked, which is less then the minimum wage of 2 working adults (and that assumes that BOTH adults are making exactly the federal minimum wage). I'm sure you will bring up the fact that when children are added into this equation that the "living wage" goes up quite significantly, but unless you believe in immaculate conception, having a child is a choice, and a choice that you probably shouldn't make if you are making minimum wage. Your assertion that "if they can't afford it, they shouldn't exist" is why I really hope people like you NEVER get into a position of power. The meaning of the word "deserve" is as arbitrary as the power that is given to the those who think they should decide what people "deserve". Stalin and Mao both thought the people in their country "deserved" to live in an industrialized country, and they killed over 60 million people from famines that they caused because they thought people "deserved" industry over agriculture. Hitler thought Jews didn't "deserve" to live. Musollini didn't think that his people "deserved" freedom. The word "deserved" is meaningless, and only individuals should decide what it means. It should not be decided by any person or even a group of people. China is a communist country, not free market, so I'll accept this point as a point for myself. But let's look at Hong Kong and Singapore. First off, the unemployment rates in those countries are both below 4% (Singapore has an unemployment rate of 1.9%). Secondly, Hong Kong has a thriving economy, and even though there are sweatshops, people still want to leave China and go to Hong Kong simply because there is more opportunity to improve their own lives there. Your final point, who's the ignorant one? Well I'll let you decide on that based on the evidence and arguments I have just provided.
+Jake M really? I mean really? No county in the US where a living wage was over $10/hr. What planet are you living on. Just in Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix area), to truly be self sufficient (i.e. no roommates) you would need to make between $16-$18/hr. And that is just someone living alone, bring in kids and the figure for one parent with two kids goes up to $26/hr. In Los Angeles County, CA, the overall cost of living is 30% higher than Maricopa County (housing 100% more, and other expenses usually 10-20% more), so do the math there genius
Yuron was my favorite so far. He seemed to have a decent phone and some decent thoughts. Until he blamed the children of the parents that died in the apartment complex collapse
"If one state raises the minimum wage and it works then other states will follow suit." Is that why republicunt run states keep passing laws to prohibit minimum wage increases?
Libertarians don’t understand how politics work. Politics don’t change when politicians look at what’s doing the best. We aren’t governed by philosopher kings. A major benefit of democracy is that it can still work even if everyone in charge is a moron. The constituents have a problem, so they tell the government to solve that problem. But different constituents have different problems, so they form coalitions (usually led by parties). Whoever has the strongest coalition wins. Politicians aren’t looking out to see what creates the best results, they are looking to get re-elected. They get elected by having more votes aka a stronger coalition. If one state’s ruling coalition benefits from a higher minimum wage, they raise the minimum wage. If another state’s ruling coalition benefits from a lower minimum wage, they will do that. It has everything to do with the constituents and their ability to exercise political power. The federal government is just a higher stakes arena. Thinking the states are somehow experiments that will follow the lead of the best one is idealistic hogwash so long as there are conflicting political interests.
When libertarians bring up microeconomics supply/demand curves, see if they are aware of the concept of "price elasticity". Basically, some demand is more sensitive to price changes (elastic) than others. Demand for insulin, in theory, is perfectly inelastic; people need insulin to survive, so price hikes will not reduce demand for insulin! (Until people start dying of course) This concept is generally taught the day after Libertarians fail out of Econ 101. Unfortunately we all need money to live in this society. So demand for jobs, insofar as you can model jobs as a "good", is going to be very inelastic. If all companies decided to pay us half of our current salaries, we'd have to take those salaries, right? What would Mr Libertarian do in that case?
Cronicas 559 Dude literally never said a thing about having the private sector “integrate” with the public. He said there should be an equal balance of both. That doesn’t mean state run companies. It means private companies operating independently but overseen and regulated by the government. What’s wrong with a completely “unhinged,” market place? It opens the door for workers and low income people to be taken advantage of. The 2008 financial crisis is a good example of this. We (government regulators) repealed a bunch of laws that were meant to keep finance in check so as not to gamble money in a risky fashion, and allowed them the lee way to literally package mortgages however they saw fit. End result? Millions of Americans lost their jobs, savings, and homes as a result of allowing the private sector to essentially self-regulate. People are not, by and large, good natured or selfless. Especially capitalists. They take advantage of whatever loopholes they can to make as much money as possible. Sometimes that’s done in such a way that it has little effect on others. Most of the time, though, this is not the case.
Usually I can understand but disagree with Libertarians, but this 'states rights' issue is something that either I'm not getting, or it's just not logically consistent. If you're taking the 'greater freedom' approach, then why should it stop at 'state' rights? What about city rights? What about neighborhood rights? Taken to its logical conclusion, why should there be any federal government at all? If you're taking the 'founding fathers' approach, you should feel ridiculous for thinking that any system of government that would have worked in their time could work on ours.
I never thought about it like that, I think Sam mentioned this idea before. Yeah, why stop at State's rights? Why not have community/street rights? Why not break it down to the smallest municipality possible? "We don't want them city fellers telling us how to live our lives, we need more FREEDOM from the tyrannical city gummint, that day'gumm city council telling us how to live!!!" Also, the founders envisioned an apartheid-style, racist regime. The Articles only allowed for the states do to things, they were basically small tyrannies. The idea of due process and protection from torture, when the constitution WAS ratified, only applied to the feds. The States tortured and terrorized the population as they liked.... EVEN if they did desire this system, the U.S. was still a pre-capitalist, agrarian, pre-industrial society. Electricity was still in its antiquity. The idea that society could, or SHOULD function according to these ideas is silly for obvious reasons
I think there's an agenda to keep power centralized because if states get too comfortable then we'd see a "Texit". But I do agree with the idea of states having more rights. It's easier to hold a gov accountable for actions than it is for a president.
Libertarians are an odd bunch.. I agree that going by the core principal of individual freedoms, the idea of states rights is contradictory. It's still a centralized government that exercises control of the citizens in that state, it's literally just smaller. I know some libertarians that are constitutionalist in a more modern sense. They argue that the federal government should not only be limited to but required to uphold our basic constitutional rights for all citizens, regardless of what state they live in. But this idea isn't really in the scope of modern American libertarianism from what I've seen. This is a tamed version of it that is just hoping to slip in further deregulation of industry and further erosion of our workers rights... Of course in the name of Freedom and liberty. It's really just an ideology based in moralistic and philosophic garbage designed to rationalize and promote an agenda. Very similar to what communism does just from an opposing philosophical position.
You correctly identify the inconsistency here. I'm a libertarian, and I can tell you that this particular caller was very confused. Look, the ideology is clear, but we can't enforce quality control on who calls himself a libertarian. :) The ideology is against aggression, in favor of individual rights, and therefore against all levels of (involuntary) government. That is, against all states, both local and federal. The ideal libertarian society is a state-less society.
I hate that response,..."They can just move". Like it's so easy to move, especially for poor people. I'm a Libertarian is just a nice way of saying I'm a Republican with no balls.
This is comedy gold! I love these calls. Sam, this is priceless. Thank you a million times. (Incidentally, Sam's mic is a Shure SM7, a broadcast standard. You need a better phone kid.)
I wish these people would just be honest and say "this radio host or news person from fox said this, and I have not researched it further, and that is why I hold this position"
It's true, Sam - your microphone is terrible. I mean, it sounds perfectly fine to everyone else who listens to you, including me, and I can understand every word you're saying, but it beams these insane ramblings about the Denny's School of Economics into this particular caller's head. So, you know. That's on you.
I've worked retail (and in management in a retail store). No matter what the minimum wage is, a store will always have only the minimum necessary employees working on any given shift/day/time. To short themselves employees mean dealing with customer service problems which could mean losing business. To have too many employees on the clock, would mean ppl would stand around doing nothing - and any competent manager will start sending ppl home. This is the bare basics of managing a store's employees. No matter how companies grumble, they will only ever hire the bare minimum number of employees they need to run the store.
Seattle professional Chef here from the future (2019) . . . We raised the minimum wage to $15/hr (incrementally over time) about 4 years ago and the world did not come to an end! Currently, large companies must pay $16, smaller ones, $15. Also, restaurants are allowed to pay $12 to tipped employees, as long as the total wage plus tips amounts to at least $15. These hourly wage amounts can also be reduced to $12 in some cases if the company provides certain medical benefits that add enough value to reach the $15 total. Although some in the business community predicted an apocalypse, overall, it’s been a benefit to workers and our city economy has continued to grow. This is indeed an “experiment” and Seattle is in many ways a unique environment, but it has shown that it can be done, and in my opinion, should be. And yes, I have run a restaurant. Many, in fact, over the last 20 years. It’s a tough business to make money in. The overhead is high, and the profit margin is low. But your labor force is arguably your greatest asset if you treat them well and pay them a decent wage. And if you can’t do that, well you should probably rethink your business model.
another seattleite here, can confirm the fearmongering and i will be the first to say that back in 2014 i was a "libertarian" myself and thought it would be bad for the economy-- i was wrong and my beliefs have shifted very much left over the years
I love how every single libertarian call goes the exact same. They say all the data researchers and economists are all liars or ignorant. And then they give a bunch of anecdotes
THATS NOT "JAKE FROM SEATTLE", THATS TOTALLY "JAMES FROM THE SOUTH".... Mr. "no taxation with out a proper vacation" himself aka Mr. "you can pry my 75-100 watt light bulb from my cold dead hands"... HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS GUY THINK HE CAN CALL IN WITH A DIFFERENT NAME
Pro tip-as soon as a libertarian invokes the term 'founding fathers' you know you legitimately scored that round. My sibs are libertarians, and they're super smart guys in work ways but like most libertarians, their thinking on libertarianism is superficialfragilisticexpialidocious. Their libertarianism comes mostly, I think, from "affinity"--like the pissed offedness we all feel when govt reminds us of school, having to "follow stupid rules", and "getting hall passes just to go to the bathroom", not to mention the gratuitously fault-finding red pencil no-no's scribbled all over our work products. That, and having to pay taxes, which can feel like paying protection money to the mob just to keep them from ruining you. They've also been brainwashed to think people vote with their money and via natural law or somesuch whooey those who end up with the most money we consented to be our overseers. The invisible hand of the marketplace is the Supreme Lawgiver, via "consent of the governed"-so says libertarianism. Yeah, that's LaLaLand. I agree. But in America, it's hard to find somebody who isn't living in LaLaLand. What drives ME nuts is that it's 100% rejected, pre-enlightenment era deductive reasoning first principles->conclusions libertarians use to evaluate the "real world". It's equivalent to medieval Aristotelianism. So dialog is frustrating--like what it must have been like when the aristotelian deductivists confronted the galilean inductivists who'd actually *looked* at the real world and could see for themselves that deductivism had fed to them an artificial, virtual reality rule book. But let's be honest here. It's not that the libertarians are more superficialfragilisticexpialidocious than your typical everyday progressive or conservative. Reality can take a hella long time before it gets people's alert attention.
dffykvn I dunno what makes libertarian some how better, they believe in this magic free market hand and some how capitalism is the essence of what humans are, yea if you are a ethical egotist - egotist it is. They like ti play on lib and progressives for being sheep, well i cat seen anything more dogmatic and without evidence as believing in a free market system that involves a magical imaginary free hand and we must all follow it without question which determines how we should run some type of moral society. Free market principles involve a limited resource as money and anything that is a limited resource corrupts and most likely makes you into a selfish prick because its all about whats best for you. This is what they worship and bow down to and make it a all in one solution for society and equality.
Libertarians are the exact same type of person as a Neo-con. The only difference is where they're getting their money from. Allow me to elaborate: Libertarians take as their idol Ayn Rand, whose basic philosophy was that one should pursue one's own self interest whilst ignoring everyone else. Basically this boils down to "GIMME GIMME GIMME MORE MORE MORE" coupled with "might makes right". A pretty shitty thing to base a philosophy on, but then again Rand formulated it based on her admiration for a serial killer, so I shouldn't be surprised. Anyway, Libertarianism dictates that one should take whatever one can get regardless of the effect on others. It's very easy to see Libertarians actually putting this into action. Rand herself spent a lifetime complaining about social programs because she didn't want anybody else's grubby hands on her tax dollars, but when she fell on hard times she was quick to put her hands out for a welfare check. It's not hypocrisy on her part, it's just her staying true to her principle of "MORE FOR ME MORE MORE MOAR". So if you're a Libertarian, and your driving philosophy is "MORE FOR ME GIMME GIMME" and you don't care about others, (indeed you're admonished not to, since Rand considered any concern for others to be immoral) what do you do when you're offered a defense contract? Do you take it? Of course you do. It's your moral obligation to take for yourself at the expense of others. Libertarians wail and moan about military spending because its funded by their tax dollars and they don't get anything for it, but I guarantee you that if you took that same Libertarian and gave them a billion dollar defense contract they would snap it up in a heartbeat. They have to, according to their principles of selfishness with utter disregard for others. And once you're taking those contracts, where do these same principles lead? Lobbying the government for more military spending maybe? After all, it's in your interest. Are you going to give a thought to the millions you might be killing? Hell no, because according to your fucked up morality, it would be wrong *not* to kill them if there's a buck to be made. If letting them live costs you a single dollar, you have committed the cardinal sin of altruism. Neo-cons share the value of "MORE FOR ME MIGHT MAKES RIGHT GIMME GIMME" with Libertarians, so in effect they are the same. Trying to make absolute self interest with an utter disregard for others into a value ensures that you have *no* values. In this, Libertarians and Neo-cons are the same. They differ on some positions, but that is purely due to their relative positions in the economy. Switch them around, and the Libertarian gleefully becomes a Neo-con, and the Neo-con will become a Libertarian and bemoan his precious tax dollars funding a military which he no longer directly financially benefits from. That's why I don't give Rand Paul an ounce of credit for his anti-war stance. As soon as Raytheon gives him a $4 campaign donation, he'll spin around so fast that *you* will get whiplash. He'll be dropping drones on Pakistan before the fucking check clears. In short, Libertarians are just the same old assholes with a different name.
The only thing this guy gets correct in his entire incoherent call is that it's very easy to make numbers lie in your favor. I believe in being fair and giving someone credit for making a valid point. Sadly, he doesn't know which numbers are lying to him. Spoilers: -The quicker students in the class will have picked up that it's the made-up numbers he likes.-
