Richard Epstein, George Soros, and Bruce Caldwell Discuss Hayek's Constitution of Liberty 

@News Now Adirondacks Which is perhaps why you can understand Soros, whether you agree with him or not, while with Epstein you get something like this: "...what you do is give yourself a basic set of stable institutions, you get rules for the acquisition of property, rules for individual autonomy, rules for voluntary exchange, rules for the prohibition of force, and then what you do is let the voluntary exchange run and see what the outcomes will be. And at the end if you get these maldistributions in distribution, which you sometimes will get, that's when this other social safety net kicks in, preferably through voluntary means. But the key feature about this, is that when you run the system, the resource base with which you're going to have to work with is going to be far larger, and the number of people who are going to need assistance will be far smaller, so that the chances of needing something like a formal social security or a medicare system if you let this happen will be correspondingly diminished in the ways in which this goes." Far larger resource base? Far less need for assistance? Why? Why? Is there any proof or evidence here in all this verbiage that this would be the case? No and no. Is the point as banal as saying that stable institutions will result in greater productivity, as compared with a perpetual state of chaos? Is anyone scratching their head about this? "Gosh, I thought that if the buildings were going up in flames and everyone was at everyone else's throat then the resource base would explode (pun intended)." I get the feeling that if Epstein dropped all this pretension he'd have something important to say.

@@francisl.goodwins6724 Funny, I found Soros to be very cryptic in his response and Epstein quite concise, though Epstein covered a lot more ground than Soros.

He needs to read him the first time first.

He is deliberately misrepresenting Hayek. Soros is engaging in propaganda, not debate.

Ya, its hard to understand complete BS. Epstein should try reading very basic books on economics, and psychology.

Mikael Öhman, I agree. I couldn't listen his exposition for very long, it didn't make any convincing argument.

Dragan Ostojić I think he's smart,but my question is if everyone is fallible how do we give power to someone to rule our life?

Abhimanyu Karnawat as long as they have limited terms in office we can vote them out if they make serious mistakes. One can worry that Soros who works behind the scenes may influence political decisions and yet not be accountable but I think that fear is not justified. The reason is that they are usually affiliated with the particular party so when that party loses they tend to be marginalized and ignored.

Dragan Ostojić I have very strong libertarian intuitions,but soros is correct that we have biases,look moral psychology by Jonathan hadit.

Dragan Ostojić democracy is mob rule think Gustav le bon,social proof

u sound brainwashed and naive

How so?

don't worry if you do not get him. It takes a brain to understand what he is saying.

yes, he is terrible at everything. Is he still 100% dead certain that just 50 people will die in the US FROM COVID? And that there is no climate change? Narcissistic nut with a God complex, who suffers badly from the Dunning Kruger effect.

Ha.

Also Soros: Markets don't work because people don't make perfect decisions 100% of the time.

Do we have any data about the population of conservatives, back then compared to now? Preferably something which tries to avoid sampling biases inherent in e.g. looking only at one's own media consumption. I agree with your praise of Richard Epstein. It applied back then as well as today, so he cannot provide evidence of a change in the population of conservatives as a whole.

he's not a conservative but rather a classical liberal/libertarian

@@jacobgibson8379 FWIW: I agree, I just wanted to challenge OP on the point about change.

@@jacobgibson8379 Yes, he is definitely the latter though I am not sure that classical liberal/libertarianism is incompatible with conservatism, at least where conservatism means what it has largely been taken to mean in contemporary America, i.e., keeping a stress on limited government (more or less), which indeed often has been called neo-liberalism.

@@jacobgibson8379 funny how his logic aligns with conservative thoughts though. He sounds like a Catholic theologian when he talks about viewing life at conception. I think he believes there is such a thing as Truth.

Prescient for 2022.

Wow, how do you feel about your statement in the environment of 2022. Now rather than omit conservative voices, there are those who have hirelings to hunt them down and metaphorically (for now) erase or extinguish their voices. But I can't complain totally since I can still find Friedman, Epstein, Sowell etc als here. ...just wish I heard em in the airport too.

Mission drift, its all over.

Upon rewatching the video, it becomes more apparent that you are referring to Mr. Soros’ submission in your comment. You’re correct on how he broke it down on the subject of agreeing to disagree or allowing both belief systems to co - exist in a way as a check on how far we pursue each extreme. However, all in all it’s without doubt that since the first Mont Pelerin Society meeting and frankly throughout their career lives, two of economics’ great minds being Friedman and Hayek had a lot of opposite and divergent views on subjects like the government regulatory policies and the extent to which we can pursue them without hurting the market, taxation or the regulatory centralization of the medium of exchange (The Fed) even though they shared a lot of common ground on what the core tenets of the free market should be. Hayek in one of his last interviews, argued against the centralized control of liquidity or cash as the only recognized medium of exchange (kinda a little extreme) . All that this points to is that even among the great champions of the free market who detested regulation and advocated for the free market in its most utopian form, there were undoubtedly some disagreements, how much more Mr. Soros and Mr. Epstein? Theoretically, both extremes of being for regulation or for minimal to no regulation may sound great on paper but fall short in their real-life applications because the human subjects in both extremes, have a will which cannot be preempted , but as Soros rightly stated, both can co-exist to help shape the market for the benefit of the consumer. For example, a regulatory tool like anti- trust laws, even with all the reservations a free market purist may have against it, helps keep the market open to the small guy whiles keeping corporate monopolies at bay to ensure that the competition needed to drive innovation and slash prices for the consumer thrives! So in essence, both schools of thought in our Keynesian world are needed.

He is King sellout.

...but even that gives us insight. I get as much from glaring omissions.