From the Majority Report, live M-F 11:30am EST and via daily podcast at Majority.FM: Lee Doren answers Sam Seder's Libertarian Open Challenge on Sam's 12 Hour 1 Year Anniversary Live Broadcast. A Libertarian vs. Leftist debate!
"If you're arguing for Walmart paying for those roads I'd be completely happy with that." Then you would be happy with higher taxes on Walmart, which is effectively them paying for those rods.
No it isn't dumbass. taxing them redistributes that money to the government to spend. Letting the business spend it will allow it to be spent in the most efficient way.
@@ddddddd570 @Red Flag TFT wtf this is obvious. Because the government has no incentive to spend those funds properly and build the best roads for their worth. The Newyork government spent 2million dollars building a public toilet that people didn't even bother to use. A private entity is inentivized to build proper roads for their proper worth because it's their money. The government on the other hand can spend however and as much as they like because it's taxpayers money
I agree. I was once told by my wealthy boss something along those lines considering tax law. "Tax law is written by rich people, for rich people, and if you don't exploit it, you will never be rich people"
10:01 I love your facial expression Sam. Yeah Lee the FDA actions are governed by their fear of bad press. :ROLLEYES: Isn't it amazing how many fallacies this clown uses. And get this Sam, he's a bloody lawyer !!! It's shocking to me as a person who comes from a family of lawyers to hear one use so many fallacies and have such massive cognitive biases.
The road and especially highway argument would work even better as a subsidy for the car companies considering the highway system creates direct demand for owning cars.
Right. And we’re going to pick starting right now, ignoring all historic advantage. Then it’s every man for himself. Is it surprising then that the advocates of perfect liberty tend to be the people who currently have some economic and social advantage?
Property rights transcend government. If I occupy an unoccupied object, that's my property. I may retain it, I may trade it with consenting adults for some other property or I may simply abandon it.
Brian Remington The moment someone ascribes another’s position as “perfect” in an argument is the moment the argument can’t be taken seriously... Who said anything about “perfect” liberty??? What is perfect? How do you define perfect? Regarding your question, do you honestly believe that stifling or restraining freedom of those who you claim are “advantaged” will result in MORE societal prosperity??? If you can find me one of these wealthy “advantaged” people who acquired such status by putting a gun to the heads of, or stole from those who either purchased their products/services or were employed by them, I’d be more than happy to join you in trying to throw that person in prison. To those not guilty of such acts, I struggle to understand why those with such advantages are deserving so much contempt... I would truly like to understand such reasoning...???
LOL at people claiming Doren won the debate. Go watch his pure ideological videos then watch this debate. He goes from pure libertarianism on his own videos (full of lies and omissions of important information) to totally backtracking, compromising, and justifying his views based on no evidence whatsoever. Seriously, we all know pure libertarianism would never work. To think otherwise is insanity. There's probably a pretty good reason these libertarian utopias don't actually exist anywhere in the world - they'd fail 80% of the population almost immediately.
First, Libertarians have never suggested a Utopic world. How many times do we have to explain that arbitration is a valuable service before you understand that? Second, a reasoned argument (despite whether you agree with it or not) is the direct opposite of an ideology. An ideologue sheds blood, sweat, and tears for national healthcare simply because they cannot imagine how a world would operate with TRULY privatized healthcare outside of their own bias. In this way, they basically say that they can accurately predict the future. In fact, an ideologue fears living a world without national healthcare, and describes those who simply wants to CALMLY DISCUSS private healthcare as fascist. Third, Libertarianism could in fact exist. The only problem is that people like you support, with your own money, a monopoly on the real guns in society. Very little can thrive at the end of the barrel of government-issued, fully-automatic M16.
dffykvn Then why is it any better when it's a State or Federal court? Also, idiots wouldn't populate the free world. People wouldn't willing go to the arbitrator known for screwing over it clients.
Who is asking for a socialist utopia? Reasonable human beings realize that some issues are best resolved by competition and others are simply not efficient using this same system. All most progressives want is reasonable regulation to protect the market and customers etc and socialism of certain programs (mainly healthcare) because the evidence shows it to be more just and cost effective generally speaking. Yet, all conservatives online like to pretend that we all want some communist regime or something. It's puzzling. I'm sure there are many people on the internet who do advocate for more socialism/communism/whatever than I am, but obviously the larger trend amongst society is simply for a more just system where we can make a lot of money for working hard while also not having our lives ended for bad luck (natural disasters, health problems, collapse of investments out of our control, etc). It's not a crazy position at all. Sometimes the government is not the right entity to oversee these programs, and sometimes it is. The goal is to discover which is which, so we can optimize the positive outcomes for everybody, both poor and rich.
I love Lee's example regarding beta blockers, because it emphasizes just how much he and others are willing to go to distort reality... The argument goes, well, if the FDA would have permitted the drug to be released (which ignores lots of issues--firstly), then 10,000 per year would have lived. However, this argument ignores that the beta blocker drugs that could've been released years ago, are drastically different than those out now. Only beginning in the 90's did they actually show promise.
One time I thought Lee Doren was a "thing", about eight years ago, but then I looked at his channel just now. And then I looked at the beginning, middle and end of his channel and saw a striking similarity. Apparently I was wrong to make that assumption.
That guy was supposed to be reasonable? Sam sold that like it would be a great discussion and we'd get to hear some good ideas and conclusions from a sane libertarian, and then he proceeded to disagree completely with they guy throughout the conversation, lol, facepalm, it's hopeless, they're all crazy, we just have to keep fighting their insanity always and forever until the end of time.
I heard that Doren became famous on RU-vid back in the day for being a standard person to learn how fallacious someone can be and having spawned a few vids debunking him.
at 2:50 - the libertarian states that consumers buy what's best for them in their lives - and therefore the free market always knows which products are the best for themselves. The problem with that assertion is that it is absolutely false. No, people don't know whether they're buying the best product or the worst product. People could spend billions of dollars on oil every year (and they do) and be completely oblivious to the problems it causes in air quality. Also - the argument that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers is ridiculous. We manipulate people's bodies in surgery to heal them. We manipulate the minimum wage so that people are paid a living wage. We manipulate food (gmo's) to create more juicy and healthy foods (golden rice). We manipulate the birth process with a c-section if we believe the baby or mother are in danger. We manipulate things not because we simply can - but because it's usually the preferred method - because when we manipulate something we can more easily control it and benefit from it. That's all that happens when we manipulate anything.
Justin Beagley Sometimes manipulation doesn't turn out the way we want it to, doesn't it? Raising the minimum wage kills jobs and hurts small businesses. When a business is forced to pay workers more than they are worth, it's simple they'll fire people and stop hiring. They'll look for ways to replace these jobs like building machines to do the job. Although a big business like McDonald's can afford changes like these, a small business would not be able to survive, because it would be too expensive for it. This would eliminate competition, and ironically would head towards the buildup of monopolies.
rnslrzno28 A few things: 1) They've done studies on job growth and job decrease given the enactment of raising the minimum wage. Studies show that there is NO drop in jobs created, or small businesses being hurt. If you have data or studies that show the opposite of this i'd like to see them... as from my research - this is an absolute myth. 2) "when a business is forced to pay workers more than they are worth" It is possible that workers can get paid more than they're worth - that's true. However, you do realize that over the past 20 years of inflation, income has been stagnant. Now - you could 'blame' this on the recession, stating that employers don't want to spend money in an unstable economy. But the reality is that CEO's and companies have seen RECORD PROFITS during this 'recession' - it wouldn't have even BEEN a recession (or much of one) - had a few things happened. A) Income of workers would have been raised to meet the growth of inflation. B) CEO's of companies had been willing to 'share' their profits, or rather - PAY their workers what they are worth for the success they created for the company. But neither of these things happened. -- And your last statement - i answer previously. Minimum wage increase would not kill jobs or hurt small businesses - again, this is a myth - and therefore would not help in the creation of monopolies.
"Studies show that there is NO drop in jobs created, or small businesses being hurt" citation needed, basic macroeconomics tells us the opposite. Countries with the no minimum wage, have higher average wages than us (Singapore, Switzerland, etc.) because there are no regulations and restrictions by the government, and this in itself is the biggest regulator, the consumer.
rnslrzno28 Well since you're making the claim that jobs will be lost, the burden of proof is actually on you. But whatever: Department of labor states that over '600 studies' have been done on the effects of minimum wage hikes and how they effect job loss: The ruling after 600 studies? There is none... it's a myth www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm Which is why many economists, including Nobel Prize winners in economics support an increase in the minimum wage. -- As far as your comment about switzerland and singapore as examples of countries with no minimum wage, and higher average income. A quick search on that doesn't have anything conclusive on switzerland having a higher income - wikipedia says they get 3k more than the U.S. - Gallup poll doesn't even have them ranked. And Singapore is ranked lower than the united states. That's if we calculate for the AVERAGE income... but those numbers are skewed because the overall income is raised by the richest in the country. It's far more accurate to take the MEDIAN household income to show where the middle class is in these countries. The country with the highest MEDIAN income? Luxembourg... And they have one of the highest minimum wages in the world at $13.50/hr. Norway and switzerland are right after that - but they are 4k dollars less annually. So while there are countries with high incomes that require no minimum wage - the highest average income is in a country that does have one... one of the highest ones in fact. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income So again... a minimum wage is essentially a non-factor to businesses and jobs, or it helps. My opinion? Correlation doesn't equal causation. The benefit of a minimum wage is that it cancels out the need to form unions. Instead of wasting time bargaining for companies to treat you fairly, let's just have the government force companies to treat people fairly. We do it in every other instance. At most, minimum wage is helpful - at the least, it's benign - if that's what the studies show, you should either not care one way or another (because it's benign) or you should be for it - to be against it, is to essentially stare facts in the face and say 'i disagree'
Justin Beagley Actually most economists do not support minimum wage laws: econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html the webpage does not source the data it uses in “busting” the supposed myths about the minimum wage, but an internet search of the statistics found that most of them originate at the leftwing Economic Policy Institute, and happen to directly contradict research and data compiled by official government researchers and statisticians. “Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs,” states the DOL website. “A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increase found no discernible effect on employment,” the DOL claims to counter the “myth.” Oddly, even as the DOL claims 64 studies claim no effect on employment, a 2014 report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that up to one million people could lose their job with an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. In other words, that source is bull: mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2014/07/28/dept-labor-rejects-fed-data-favors-leftwing-spin-minimum-wage www.cato.org/publications/commentary/let-data-speak-truth-behind-minimum-wage-laws
I think Sam made a great point towards the end. Programs like Social Security and Medicare have done more to take people out of poverty than anything we've ever done. When you relieve some of the stresses of poverty it's easier to get out of it. That's why I think the ACA or Obamacare, as some people like to call it, is going to do a great job of decreasing poverty .
He made very good points as usual in this debates with these guys as usual. This guy I admit display a little more intelligence in his arguments then most of the people he argues with. I even think he was better then the molyneux debate.
And I have no doubt he would have done even better if Sam would simply let him finish a thought. That's one of the problems with Sam debating libertarians...libertarianism demands complex thinking to solve solutions, rather than band aid solutions, and those solutions demand more than 10 second answers.
I don't understand the purpose of this guys questions. Where do we draw the line? Which governments function this way? How big should the military be? What's he trying to prove with these questions? And how does he not see the difference between the government giving Walmart millions of dollars of tax payer money and building a road? like seriously???
DrSpooglemon And yet he can't comprehend that the fossil fuel industry has and continues to be subsidised to the point of trillions of dollars by government (not taking into it's human health and environmental costs) so removing green energy subsidies would be picking a fossil fuels as a winner.
I think Seder did not understand what Doren meant by "picking winners and losers". Seder was talking about the natural consequences of decision-making. If a tennis tournament organizer chooses grass courts over clay courts, then the players who excel on grass will have distinct advantages over those who don't. Doren understands this as a matter of course. What he was talking about was the corrupt practice of predetermining outcomes...that is, literally picking winners and losers, like fixing a fight or stuiffing ballot boxes. Seder clearly missed the point.
Off topic question here: Why do some threads allow 'Reply' and some threads don't ??. And yes I'm too damn lazy to GOOGLE the answer !!! (probably would not find a straight answer on the information highway)
I thought Lee's arguments were pretty obvious, but Sam came off as intentionally obtuse. He wanted an absolutist philosophical answer from Lee re: how big government should be, when it really is a more complex issue. Lee even acknowledged that he's realistic about not achieving a utopia. Sam kept yelling over him and intentionally not understanding him. Lee's a consequentialist. It was so obvious. And Sam kept calling Lee's views "arbitrary," when his own views are the exact same.
So the line on ammount of subsidies is arbitrary, but the line on amount of minimum wage isn't arbitrary. The line between direct money and roads is not there, but the line between $10 and $20 wage is huge? It's like Sam only deals in black and white when it's convinient, when it doesn't help his point there's lots of greys. Not very intellectually honest of him.
It's cool. Feel free to continue this conversation via regular RU-vid messages. I'm not sure if we'll reach any kindof agreement, but better than nothing if you'd like to continue.
Singapore is a very «un-libertarian» place. There is an authoritarian government that kept the peace between the different ethnicities and very very strict laws such as the infamous no chewing gum allowed law. The economy was planified by a central gvt that 50 years later happens to require close to no taxes because they are a small Island city at the exact right spot on the global commerce routes and they act like a giant warehouse for south-east asia which pays for ALL the bills required for a city-state. It is not libertarian by any means. A similar thing can be said about Hong-Kong. Also, both are EXTREMELY popular tax havens detrimental to the well being of the entire world. What the fuck is this guy talking about.
Seder: "[Did you know if you end social security that you'd double poverty in the US.]" Seder, Did you know that if a farmer stops feeding his cattle that they'd starve? SSI has made people dependent on it. I'd love to have a +14% pay raise from just keeping my SSI contributions and UE. The government has forcibly taken too much; our money and our personal accountability. Ending SSI is done by phasing it out, not cutting it off. I'm 32 and never collected SSI or UE. My deal to the government is, keep all that I've paid in; just let me out. What's wrong with that?
Yeah, everyone tends to demagogue when it comes to other people's ideas. I realize I do sometimes. SSI is a mathematical impossibility really. My last SS statement had a FAQ sheet included in it, "Is SSI going to be available to me when I retire?" "[Yes, but given the current rate of contributions SS will be insolvent in year 203X unless there are regulatory changes to increase retirement age and individual contributions.]" So there you have it, even the SS Administration isn't pretending. My deal to the government is, keep the chips I put in the pot, just let me fold and play at another table.
***** Repugnant DemoCRIPS. You along with the ReBLOODlicans have destroyed this country. Sam likes to interrupt people and not give them a chance to speak.
Matthew Richardson You love to see the unemployment rate within the Black community on the rise. Leftists like Sam Seder would like to see the Black community destroyed.
***** You're so full of duplicitous shit. First of all, people shouldn't depend on a) finding an employer willing to hire them and b) being paid a wage you can live on. A guaranteed minimum income should be a recognised and respected human right and it will be in the future, due to automation. Secondly, how does it follow from what Sam is saying that what he is proposing would lead to increased unemployment, enough to more than offset the benefit of people who remain employed making more money? Secondly, how does it follow that for unemployment within the black population to rise is what Sam's agenda?
Sam answers the Libertarian government the same way every time. He says, "This has never existed, therefore we shouldn't try it." What old age thinking.
Actually it has existed and it worked every time. The problem is it then grew, as all governments do, and then died. Most governments start small and free and then get wealthy as a result.
It's so bizarre that people passionate enough about their libertarian beliefs to call into a radio show (or make hundreds of youtube videos about it) can't actually explain what it is or give concrete answers to questions about it
Sam Seder ALWAYS argues from ignorance: "Oh, I haven't seen libertarianism exist, therefore it cannot exist." Its a shame no-one seems to point out that this argument is fallacious. It's like someone thousands of years ago saying "I haven't seen people living in cities with electricity and supermarkets, therefore it is impossible for people to be living in cities with electricity and supermarkets."
Nice Article. I worked for a Produce Company that ran into a similar problem. The freemarket solution they came up with was a partnership called ProAct. bassically a large number of small produce companies joined together to buy in bulk to compete with the larger companies like Shamrock. The funny thing is that even though it works much of the time we often worked out contracts that benefited the company by not buying through the ProAct partnership. We were that good.
> College professors and msm media is a very, very tiny percentage of the population That's why I said "and their ilk." > you are assuming all of them are liberals Actually conservatives assume that, which is why I used those examples. But there is some truth to it. Self-identified liberals are largely college educated. And so most have decent paying jobs and don't use govt. assistance. Liberals are altruistic folks who think it's wrong to let needy people go begging for help.
Sam, I have nothing against you, and I really wanted to hear you liberal argument, I myself am a conservative libertarian, but I there are a few liberal viewpoints I may agree with. I had to stop your video about 9 minutes into it, and I would really recommend that you be aware of your pauses, try to control the noise you make in them. This is very distracting from whatever you were trying to debate in this video.
So Singapore is considered to be close to what a libertarian paradise is even though more than 20% of its GDP comes from state owned entities like Singapore Airlines??
Why is it that when Bush was in office, we did not see this anger about the debt and paying money back. It's not as if no one did not noticed. But the minute a Democrat gets into office. We suddenly become fiscally responsible?!
vegeta, it's a recurring story. Republicons cut taxes for the 1%, run up Uncle Sam's credit card, start a war. Democrats get into office, save the economy, try to end the war while Repubs complain: how are you going to pay for your agenda? Funny, no one asked that when the R's were spending on illegal wars and putting businesses on government welfare: billions of $$ to Wall Street. Repeat.
Another question for Sam Seder since he doesn't think there is a difference between direct and indirect subsidies. Suppose we make direct subsidies illegal. No problem because I can just use indirect subsidies right? So let's say I want Ford Motor company to succeed and Crystler to fail. How big should I make the military? How many roads should I build?
"UHHHHHHH" is there a version where someone edited out all the "Uhhh's"? Cuz after 5 minutes it was UHHHH all UHH I could UHHH hear, UHHHH and i had to UHHHH turn UHH it UHH off UHH. Seriously, i couldn't keep hearing that loud drone.
You clearly had trouble comprehending the point. The "UHHH" was so obnoxious that I, wait for it.... stopped. listening. and. turned. it. off. That's why you're getting no critique. If that upsets you, maybe you should've just come right out and asked me for a hug instead of resorting to sarcasm as if not giving a substantive critique means one isn't capable of it. When a video is quality enough that I'll actually watch it without it becoming unbearable, I'll comment on the subject matter. Until then I'll let the youtuber know why I didn't bother. If this person wants a substantive response he'll have to get rid of all the UHH's so I'll actually listen in the first place. Until then I'll inform him on why I didn't do so. You tried tho... here's a gold star for your forehead. *smack*
Not to mention the fact that I'm not required by law to pay anything to an investment firm, and that if the investment firm spent all my money instead of investing it I could sue them.
(cont) true that when you’re a child, you don’t have much choice in income mobility AT ALL. You are, for the most part, completely dependent on your parents for everything. But, as you grow into adulthood, your life ceases to become a reflection of your PARENTS, and starts to become a reflection of your CHOICES. This is true in nearly every area of life, from social circles, to careers, to health. In fact, did you know (cont)
Ok, thats just false that Obama has more debt then all the past presidents combined. You would have to explain the two wars that were not funded that started under Bush. Then you would have to explain the medicare Part D prescription that also went unpaid. Obama did extended the Bush tax cuts but nonetheless, that also is part of the debt. And the simple fact that the economy was in the tank when he took office. How do you have a tax cut and start two wars at once. No one called Bush unpatriotic
If you'd like to see it while we wait for Sam to decide if he wants to post it, just copy this and paste it behind the youtube. com: watch?v=9WNQ9z-82Zs&list=UUhKFLEKPCznuasXv4_5HHLw&index=1&feature=plcp
Lee Doren is not a very good libertarian in that he seems to be arguing against a system that he's simultaneously arguing for. At 21:21. when he described his "perfect system", I asked myself how is "his" system different from the system (in its principles and aim) that we have now? Same thing at 18:33, where he lists the things that are appropriate Government functions: "Police, military, courts, AND the Constitution that's enumerated which provides other agencies".
lolz. Anyway, here it is: What I was actually addressing was the comment where bigsuccessor said "...ANYONE can become rich if you just tried to strive for higher income.", which, in one form or another, has become a fairly popular phrase in books and movies. What I'm debating is whether that phrase (or perhaps something to the nature of "everyone has potential for more than what they currently have") can be somewhat true in the real world. I believe it can. It's ABSOLUTELY (continued)
You are correct that most people are born with disadvantage, but I don't believe that people are born with discouragement. In fact, the very word "DIScourage" implies that it's impossible to be born with it, simply because I need encourage, (or simply courage) in the first place. It is only after I realize all the disadvantages I have that I get discouraged. Nothing MAKES you discouraged. You CHOOSE to get discouraged after assuming in your own mind that you won't make it.
because, and lets be honest, who would hire an elderly person. Companies did not hire the elderly simply because they felt that a younger person would do the job more effectively. Studies have shown that before Social Security, almost half of the elderly population was poor. The lucky ones would have to live with family members. But this also created a strain on finance with their family when it came to medical bills. You can't deny the positive impact that Social Security has.
Look at the worker cooperative model as compared to the corporate model and how much more sense it makes. You can even wiki it to see the chart analysis
The difference between direct and indirect subsidies to companies, is as stark a difference as that between Corporatism (the state showing favoritism and extending protections to some, and not to others in any given market) and Austrian School economics.
What I believe is that if my parents made it (when no one told them they will and remembering my mother crying because all she could afford on my birthday was a slice of cake) then anyone can make, please let me know if i'm missing something here. Did they have an edge? No, Did they have better education or experience or connections? No. All they did was not afraid to take risk in opening up several failed businesses before they opened up a successful one, not giving up, and faith in themselves.
Seder is horrible. He changes the topic while Lee is answering his questions. He asks LEE to tell how large a military he would want as if that knowing demonstrates a principle. He fights dirty. Too bad a moderator couldn't jump in. He's basically monkey-wrenching his guest, then acts smug that he out thought him. Horrible.
What Lee failed to point out was Hong Kong has comprehensive social security and universal healthcare, and Mainland China is responsible for providing military protection to Hong Kong.
This segment felt like an awkward mix of a interview and a debate and I think a debate with a moderator would have been more appropriate after seeing how the conversation evolved.
>Think those on welfare, which is currently 50% of our population. Just to be clear, very few are on "welfare" as Americans use that term. Most assistance is in the form of food stamps and EITC. Those programs are justified because of the fact that capitalism favors those who are wealthier. This has resulted in all new wealth created over the last 50 years going to the top 50% while real wages on the bottom 40% has dropped (slightly) even though productivity has increased.
You do realize that Lee started to change the subject and said, I quote, "...well...i was going to talk about that but I want to stay on your subject..." and he only said that to try and give himself cover from trying to contantly change the subject. What conversation are you listening to?
No I'm not. I'm saying that the FDA failed with the specific case of Thalidomide. You are using "Affirming the consequent" fallacy here in your reasoning.
"The unseen consequences...outweigh the safety benefits provided." Please provide examples of these "unseen" consequences. Otherwise I'll assume by "unseen" you mean "non-existent".
