Sam DEBATES Libertarian Party Leader 

'uhmazin

Daniel Vincent What; you don’t wear a boot on your head?

I'm still hoping Joe Exotic throws his hat in the ring

Wearing a boot on your head does seem like it would increase your capacity to cartwheel... Just Saying.

Fuck yea free ponies for all! :)

LMAO

Watch out you're gonna get an IP Ban from Steven 'I read one "Professional" opinion on economic policy and broadcast it as indisputable fact to my audience' Bonnell... Love him when it comes to Social Issues... But holy fucking christ, he needs to expand his citation list... I want 2016 Destiny back....

@@Preacher_. destiny complaining about "researching" TPP for 1 night and then being monologued by michael, who actually knows his shit

Soul Biscuit I love Michael, but good fucking grief, he was on a Gish Gallop death march!

He spoke almost as much as in the other one.

is it code for "shared white xp"?

When a libertarian breaks out the words "lived experience", I start cracking up uncontrollably.

What does that mean? Mythical data that only he is privy to?

As a Libertarian, Sarwak is good at what he does but he's not a great debater. This was never going to end well for him.

Especially after he said you couldn't use polls to gauge health care's success.

@@tinamoul their phone connections... It's been ten years?!

I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all. Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies. This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc. If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress). And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation. This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent. Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.

@@ericbilodeau8526 Nope. Read Modern Monetary Theory. The point is we don't have to default.

@@ericbilodeau8526 I don't think Sam was literally suggesting we default on 70% of our debt. He was simply pointing out that it's not the Boogeyman everyone on the right likes to pretend it is. A few Trillion cold be QEd with no impact on the economy (as it already has). The principle can largely be ignored, as long as we're paying the interest. It was kind of a pointless tangent though since it started with the question of paying for healthcare and Medicare for All would actually save us $3 Trillion over a decade. He also failed to point out that every country with universal healthcare pays half per capita what the US pays.

@J P Modern Libertarian principals are not immutable laws. Even communist and socialist thought has evolved...I guess Libertarianism is like Star Wars fandom. A lot of us go through that phase, but most age out when better options are presented. I know I've moved on from the idea of fantasy westerns... and Star Wars.

@@beepbopboop7727 I think you mean postmodern NEOmarxist, lol.

I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all. Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies. This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc. If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress). And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation. This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent. Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.

@@ericbilodeau8526 I agree. We don't need to cheat the system. We have the means to allocate taxes, raise taxes, and negotiate prices to achieve the goals we have, and probably cost effectively.

BeepBop Boop i meant arguing libertarians but this guy was FaIrLy ReAsOnAbLe FoR a LiBeRTarIaN

@@ericbilodeau8526 well said, I also think libertarians and those with your views see eye to eye on a majority of issues taht can be tackled “easily” by dismantling the establishment.

To many libertarians owned segments on his show throughout the years

I know! He didn't even lose it when mentioning Vermin Supreme like a legitimate candidate.

Simon Raworth I love Ron Burgundy.

@@WillBravoNotEvil do you mean Rohm Burgundy? ...is what I would say if the caller was in the democratic party. Look... the joke _would have_ worked, ok? 😏

He was, indeed. And while joking and being flippant for the first ten minutes, Sam still destroyed his ideas (note: anytime "ideas" is written, Michael's Dave impression needs to be mentioned). When he got more serious towards the end, he slayed him like a dragon. What an absolutely embarrassing party. At least they're less racist than Reich-winged Republicans. To this (idiot) guy's credit, he wasn't a faux Libertarian like Rand/Ron Paul. He condemned the Yemeni slaughter, mass incarceration and deadly white supremacy. However, Sam made him look like an absolute fool that he is.

He was actually funny as well. I’d like him back on.

Yeah, I'd say that guy was pretty cool for being on.

@HKZ P Not true. It wouldn't be a punitive tax, like so many see contemporary taxes. Since most of the money goes to already-rich/well funded programs, and not to programs the working-class desperately need. If a family of four's premiums, deductibles and coinsurances are $50,000 per year, but their taxes only go up by $10,000 per year, they're saving a net of $40,000. Saying taxes will go up without saying it'll net save them money is incredibly misleading. It's not that hard to think about. Why do the largest insurers offer, usually, the best coverage and relatively "affordable" (in the healthcare industry vacuum)? Because they have the largest pool of people. Yet, if an entire country were under one-plan, I hope you realize how much money that'd save. Same with the fact they'd have to negotiate drug prices, etc. Everything Bernie has proposed is moderate-at-worst. This "he's ultra left" is nonsense. What should happen under a Sanders two-term presidency is the following: first four years, take care of all the most pressing issues like curbing climate catastrophe, M4A, universal public college, student debt relief, $15/hour (though it should be at least $20/hour, but I digress), etc., that'd be a great first-term -- assuming they flip the Senate. (Another reason why Sanders NEEDS to be the nominee; he'll help so many down-ticket candidates to make his plans more feasible.) But in the second term, there should be a mass reparations bill. In the trillions of dollars, funded solely by the capitalists that systematically stole from the working class over the last 100+ years. Obviously, black people would get a large chunk, especially if they're direct defendants of slaves. In reality, though, I don't like how Sanders side-steps reparations questions. Yes, they are a bit "gotcha questions," but that's all corporate media. I also understand he understands the country is extraordinarily racist, so it's likely strategic. However, as badly as black folks badly need $1 trillion+ in cash reparations, so does the rest of the working class screwed over by the "owners" of the country. They've stolen untold trillions of dollars from us for far too long. I'm sure a very basic study could come up with a number. The ruling-class, of course, would oppose it, using CNN et al as their conduits. In reality, we have the money to do all this. I really don't think people realize just how much money is in this country -- hell, just the cash in DE would be enough to fund many of these "far left" programs. And, as a strategic measure, it would make reparations a word for whites and blacks (and Asians and Hispanics) instead of a divisive issue for racists. I highly doubt even Sanders would do such a proposal, but it'd be worth it. To your quantitative easing vs. letting the debt go, Sam is more correct, I'd say. I don't want to write another novella, so I'll just keep it at that. "THE SCARY DEBT" is the most overrated, nonsensical fear-mongering economic tactic the Right uses. All these programs would make the ruling class less powerful, the society more democratic and closer to a legitimate country of solidarity. Although, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates would likely only be able to live off a paltry $50 billion instead of $100-150 billion. We need to "criminalize" capitalism via "fines."

@HKZ P Where did you get Sam didn't mention QE? Sure, he asked listeners to read about it, but it was mentioned.

Sam landed too many hits to count. Its like this guy doesn't know anything about how the world functions.

Sam does not even know how statebonds work, and that he advocate make them junkbonds with stupid policies. Then the endresult is nobody buys the bonds, and all services stops, and you have government shutdown. Talk about screwing yourselves.

@@dnciskkk9037 they were talking about US treasuries.

@@henrygustav7948 The US treasury issues the bonds, it does not hold them. You got it backwards. And Sam apparently got it backwards. You must be conflating it with social security, pension funds, etc, or with the federal reserves. The federal reserves hold bonds worth 6 trillion. You leftists conflate terms, and do not understand anything. And defaulting on loans have an effect no matter what, bankrupting the federal reserve has a cost.

@@dnciskkk9037 you guys love to make it about left or right. US Federal govt is monetarily sovereign and can not go bankrupt. Bonds and Federal taxation don't fund Fed govt expenditures and its impossible to default, why? Because the US Fed govt issues the currency. Constitution article 1 section 8.

Booty Eater LOL

According to Shapiro , Doctors in a single payer system are FORCED to provide care and are not better than slaves.

@HKZ P Yup, apparently, according to lil' Ben

Wait... holy shit is Ben’s wife a doctor?! Has he talked about it before?

Poor thing is afraid she's going to lose her job _and_ has never been satisfied by her husband, according to her husband. Poor gal. Edit: Booty Eater, maybe you can help her out.

hahahaha spot on

What was he supposed to do there? Call sam out as a liar? a bad faith actor? Has to be nice to mr forever seventeen, since his foolish audience are alot of his voters.

The thing is, as good as the federal government does healthcare, they don't do everything well. I live in Michigan, and the state government can be extremely incompetent. Ask anyone who has started a new business and they will tell you about their awesome experiences. I'm not a free market purist, but there is incentive when you rely on customers to keep the lights on.

@@whyamimrpink78 Sam qualifies that by saying "Comparative to what? Verizon Wireless?" He's just saying the government is more better than the free market at providing a cost-efficient, functional service that meets people's needs.

@@spizzlo Well, I'm from Michigan, and that's because the state senate has been Republican longer than I've been alive, since 1984, so for my entire life democrats in Michigan have not been able to pass anything without getting it signed off on by a number of Republicans. From 2011 to 2018 all three branches were under Republican control and they ran amuck indeed. Republicans and incompetence go hand in hand. Just look at Betsy DeVos and how her policies incentivize incompetent charter schools to leach funds from public schools in pursuit of more profits. She herself is a hopeless basket case. Or look at Snyder and how his aggressive and short sighted policies led to the Flint water crisis. I can go on for days, but I'm not sure how citing a Republican government that has worked tirelessly to deregulate over 8 years in power to deregulate and got shitty results in any way makes an anti-government doing things case when the problem with this government is to a large extent the things that they don't do in the government. More specifically, I'm from Port Huron. The city used to do the snow plowing and the leaf collection in the fall. It was fine. Then they outsourced it to some private company. The workers at this company have no incentive to do a good job at all. They have insane haphazard collection routes, don't collect at the scheduled times, and throw people's bins to the ground (many people have complained that their bins have been damaged), and as for snowplowing, we're lucky if they did the main roads by 5 P.M. whereas the city was able to do it by 8 A.M. back when they were doing it with their own employees. Sure, you could say that the company wants to do well so they get the next government contract, lol, no. They have a lucrative multi-year contract and are only motivated to reduce their costs to the bare minimum, just enough so that they might not lose if the city sues them. This kind of company of course will always get these contracts because the entire point of outsourcing services like this is for profit cronyism while denying responsibility. If you ask the city about it, they'll point to the contract, which they often can't violate without paying exorbitant penalties. The city isn't happy, the residents aren't happy, and even the lower level employees of these companies are not happy as they're making less under worse conditions and with worse benefits than a direct city employee would. The only people happy in this system is the upper level management reaping the profits. You can say that this doesn't sound like a free market to you, but this is what people are actually pushing for when they claim that private companies do things better than government. All they're trying to do is get one more formerly government function outsourced, and they don't want it regulated so they don't have to maintain any standards. Just look at the charter schools DeVos pushes, they don't have to meet anywhere close to the standards that public schools must in terms of things like, oh, their teachers actually being at all qualified. As usual, if you look into how this outsourcing happens, they often purposely sabotage the government run program in order to make if fail to supposedly make their point. For instance, with charter schools, they want to money to follow students because it will destroy the existing economy of scale in public schools as their enrollment drops on top of just moving some dollars. Once they get the money to move with the students, then running charter schools for a few years will function to harm public schooling as it brings them down to a similar level. Charters with low standards spend less money/student to keep more as profit, but at the same time this is pulling money from a system with many more requirements (e.g. needing to pay qualified teachers instead of someone laid off by the auto manufacturers, nothing against them but they usually don't have background in teaching). This deteriorates that system as well until they look competitive, which they use as justification to complete their gutting of the government service for profit. Sorry, I'm sleepy and not staying on point here. My point is, a lot of things that are inefficient in government are intentionally inefficient because part of our government is trying to have them done privately by their friend's company for massive profits. It isn't because any intrinsic quality of government makes them this way, but an intrinsic result of electing right wingers and any other corrupt person. When government isn't being screwed with on purpose that way, they have many advantages that let them be more efficient than almost any company possibly could. The only exceptions being massive monopolies, but the very fact that those companies are for profit means they are guaranteed to have an additional overhead that government does not. So then, what is the difference between a bad government running a service vs. a bad private company running it for them? We can vote out the government, that's some powerful motivation. That fixes the issue if it is the government that is running things. If it is a company though, then the new faces in government may still be bound by the existing contracts and can do little about it without large funds to either pay the company for breaking the contract or pay in legal fees to their lawyers. Even when the company is ditched, the government needs to start the service from scratch, hiring anew, etc..., it's almost like starting a company after dissolving it for years, many of your employees, particularly your best ones, won't be back. This kind of thing is what we see in some sense when comparing Bernie's plan vs. some of the pseudo copy-cats. Bernie's plan is single payer, this is a crucial difference because it places the negotiating power firmly with the government. Any other plan is setting this up for failure. Insurance companies have deep coffers and will be happy to undercut government insurance, even at a loss, for a few years to keep people from moving to it, declare it a failure, and then get rid of it. Now sure, maybe the government doesn't get us the best rate or engages in some rate cronyism. It is significantly easier to change them out and get good healthcare at a good price than it is to get them to make changes when they have no direct leverage over insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc... That involves regulation, and enforcing that regulation in a way that is so strong that violating it threatens the profitability of the companies (otherwise profits will behoove them to be immoral as it wins out in the cost/benefit analysis). Relying on customers to get paid is not what differentiates a "free" market from all other kinds. I know your main point was just that government isn't guaranteed to be more efficient. I guess I just wanted to discuss more about the reasons for it being more or less efficient. I think that two things are true here, 1) government always has the potential to be more efficient than any company (unless the company literally has more power in the country than its government) and 2) it is easier to hold government to account than to do so for private companies. There is a lot more to cover on the topic and my presentation has not been the most organized or thorough.

I would religiously watch the libertarian debates if that were to happen...

I feel you... but it should though..

Nuking people like this is indeed borderline criminal

Why do you hate _FREEDOM,_ @GORA HINDU!?

when sam starts a point with "well them Im' sure you also know and are aware of ...." you know the guy is going to get butchered

I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all. Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies. This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc. If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress). And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation. This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent. Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.

Not enough appreciation in the world for this comment.

Libertarian house fly with a human head

but we had to get the money from somewhere………………………………………………………………………………..we didn't just print it like Sam seems to think

And this guy is the libertarian head!

Sam would show you what graph if you made a big enough deal about it, he’s genuine you know, like most of us on this side are

Most of the foreign debt. Just like progressives cant figure out that insurance doesnt save or kill people. And satisfaction surveys are not health outcomes. And military spending is the largest part of ONLY discretionary spending.

I didn't see that part. Where is the graph at that shows China owns 10%?

It would be a non-debate.

Exactly why he doesnt entertain lefties

@@ScribeLur , He does a poor job of entertaining leftists... he requires people to go over his statements to make sense out of them. Poor Rubin.. cursed to be a terrible comedian. :(

I would prefer a Sam vs Crowder debate

Eduardo Flores Do you happen to know of a program similar to this one or the Jimmy Dore show in Spanish?

What are roads?

@@roarblast7332 socialism

If I don't drive on it, it don't need to be there

Omg... 😂

WITH GOD AS MY WITNESS, THAT MAN HAS BEEN BROKEN IN HALF

Sam sounded like he was explaining things to a 10 year old. I honestly felt kind of bad for the guy.

My big issue with Libertarians is that they have this apple-pie attitude that all you need to do in life is work hard and nothing else matters. Yes, yes, working hard is important and no one is saying you shouldn't. But mature people are beyond that point. We are smart enough to realize that not everyone will have equal access to the same opportunities. Or, at least, the opportunities are harder to come by. So, some people have to work even harder "disabled, poor, non-white people:. Of course you should work hard and do the best you can to make a better life for yourself. Back in the day, that would fall under a "duuuuh" statement. But it doesn't change the fact that some groups have better advantages and we should try and work to fix that. @@brycesipes

My lecturer in university once said 'Libertarians are a lot like cats, they think they're independent but they don't realise you're actually taking care of them the whole time'

Just the opposite. We are realistic about the abuse of government power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." --Lord Byron Acton

@@Ru95M "my lecturer in university" LOL!

@HKZ P debt stuff he's totally right. check out MMT

@HKZ P What you're failing to consider is that argentine peso doesn't resemble the usd in any way, nor does the history of the argentine economy have any relationship

is it really comedy tho when they're still doing the same grift 20 years later ??

Their economic ideas are based off magic & completely ignoring reality

@@Michael_Paul585 what's his name??

@@snesntmlnial9790 yeah i just never found seinfeld funny at all, he always came off really hacky and the other chucklefuks like kramer just annoyed me. i'll re-watch some bill hicks or martin lawrence though, and I like a lot of the other big names.

@thesparitan What if - by virtue of libertarian ideas and pure, good ol' fashioned elbow grease - a libertarian becomes so wealthy as to become part of the aristocracy? I think I got him!

Agreed. This is the core of their belief system, anything else is just post-facto dressing to make that core look better.

They don't even need to say that. They can just say that people should have the freedom to choose what they spend their own money on, if they want to die from lack of healthcare that's their personal right. "I don't like government so don't like Medicare for all" is phrasing it as a leftist.

Former free market libertarian here, when it came to universal healthcare or other issues where libertarian “logic” was so obviously wrong, I remember engaging in tons and tons of motivated reasoning just to be able to continue holding my position that the free market works for healthcare, because with libertarians, if the free market fails at anything that means it fails at everything and the whole “philosophy” falls apart

You really have to do mental gymnastics and redefine others to be able to defend you positions, very sad. Libertarians are very worried about financial collapse. Fiscal responsibility is at the core of everything. Adding 3 trillion to a budget of 3,5 trillion, is just plain insanity, and irresponsible childs play.

Why would you respect this guy? Libertarianism in the U.S. is just a distraction created by a couple of billionaires who know it's not serious but through it, they try to get support for deregulatory practices of the republican party because a libertarian reality is just not an actual reality and these guys all know it; so the reason this guy holds this position for a joke party is the money he gets to play the role. So he is absolutely ingenuine.

Libertarian economy works by being very simple, like pre tool making simple.

And then with same mouth saying taxation equals theft

How about no streets and we just drive around in ATVs?

Flintstones car.

I thought the libertarian response to the streets argument was "ah yes, the old 'who will build the streets argument!'," followed by changing the subject.

Sam knows a bit of mmt definitely.

Sam's a very informed person

Sam has been in this game for a long time, long before the quality of political debate took a sharp nosedive and never recovered. It's also why his comedy is so effective.

He showed a complete misunderstanding of economics... He's got people like you eating out of his hands, though.

@@georgiajeep7 Sawrwak did, yes.

Gonna remeainhere for updates.

Yeah I was asking that, hopefully they'll put out a part 2.

Nathan Kelm yeah WTF I need more lol

Was it live today?

when was it live?

Only when it's convenient

Yeah but Libertarians and Progressives some /many agreeable points on foreign policy.

Yes

@@poorboy2772 and drug policy

I made this comment before watching the video to the point Sam said it himself

Yes, Richard Wolff talked about this on TMBS (You should check it out!). The purpose is to cut popular programs in order to make them seem nonfunctioning at their core in order to cut and gut even more.

I don't even know why I'm telling you this lol. I'm preaching to the choir 😭

@@IanBlunden Except funding for the NHS went up every single year during the "austerity" years. So no, there weren't any cuts.

@@niceday21 most contracts are given to private companies. STFU! Tories are shit.

He knew libertarians were such SJWs! Surprised to hear that after a heap of them think child labour laws are wrong haha

Monity ... Yeah, too bad Sam doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Magnus Dayne Magnus Dayne

One can't lose against a libertarian in a debate.

Jessica Hildebrand Well you can thank the complete economic reforms under Alexander Hamilton’s tenure as Treasury Secretary for that!

Borrowing 400 billions to pay interest on your existing debt, is kind of an issue. If the debt remain the same over 10 years, that is 4 trillion wasted. And if you add 30 trillion to the debt over 10 years, it will be a trillion dollars a year in interest with current interestrates, but they will not stay the same. If you double your debt and it becomes to big percentage of GDP, then interestrates will skyrocket. and you are talking new debt with double or triple interest rates. Running new creditcards to pay down old creditcard debt has never worked.

@@dnciskkk9037 Who receives the interest payments? The interest payments are an income flow to the nongovernment sector, just as social security checks are an income flow to the nongovernment sector; these payments increase the wealth of the nongovernment sector. Some of the bonds are held by foreigners, but how did the foreigners get the dollars to purchase the bonds? They traded their goods for them - fair and square. Now we have the goods and they have the bonds (which are the saving account version of dollars). That is how trade works. The government is not a household!

@@robertjenkins6132 You clearly do not understand it, and desperately try to argue for irresponsible freebies, disregarding every fact,. Issued bonds yield interest that must be paid with US dollars, and it must be printed or produced by selling more bonds. , AKA passing the bill off to your kids. Don't pretend like you know how much is held by federal agancies and others, and it is irrelevant, it must be paid. You try to pivot of the issue. And don't bring trading goods into this. Must I explain the basics to you, countries have companies, that export and import, countries need tradesurplus to run green numbers, or high taxes, or must sell their own bonds to fund the red numbers, just like USA. Countries that have surplus do not want pressure in their economy, and buy statebonds from other nations to balance the budget. Countries are very much like investmentbanks in that regard. You issue bonds with a lower interest rate to buy bonds with a higher yield, that is free money. My country did that with USA and Greece in both their biggest crises and made out like bandits. Greek bonds was dumped at 40 cents on the dollar, and our pensionfund took a gamble, knowing EU would bail them out. You have to understand the difference between companies and country, you cannot argue that USA sells bonds and germany pay with BMWs and apfelstrudel.

Google gold vs dollar value. This is why when dems say we are wage slaves they aren't 100% wrong.

Libertarians usually don’t, mainly because of the suspicion that google is being artificially propped up through artificial regulations and restrictions on market trade, reducing competition and barrier to entry into the market. Libertarians will defend monopolies if they naturally form because the monopoly was formed due to consumer choices and because competition can always spring up to provide a better good or service.

@@kingtoon22 That is an interesting point if valid.

@J P google is a democracy? Cool when do I get to vote on Google's corporate policies, leadership, which projects Google will fund and how Google's finances are distributed?

@J P lol plenty of places around the world have markets that doesn't make them democracies

@J P saying a "free market" is democratic doesn't make it so. If workers don't democratically make decisions in their workplace, really its just a a series of oligarchies and autocracies that people can choose from.

Because libertarians take Econ 101 (nothing later) and no history or government classes in college.

Some of these were tough

It makes me happy he’s the chair leader. If this is the brightest person in the party, we have little to fear.

What was he unprepared on? Sam had not prepared, his staff had printed out some talking points from imbecils, and was wrong on everything. What a simpleton, when will he grow a brain, and when will he bother preparing for his show. He does not seem to put in any effort and is just slacking.

Wayne Paul he seemed to have more awareness of the tougher questions is my point. But the efficiency and cost savings of single payer is pretty common knowledge.

Wait you were in an abusive relationship?

@@beepbopboop7727 Maybe he wasted their time

Your first statement is wrong.

Hell yeah, Sam debates libertarians for fun - Steven Crowder's Dad knows that his son doesn't have a chance.

@@redlightmax Sam often puts people in these positions to acknowledge an irrefutable truth about the society we live in and they get this ego about it because its in that moment they know he's about to dismantle the entire argument. If libertarians were just honest and to the point about how little they give a fuck about other people, it would actually help their argument a bit. They try to paint it like they want what's best for everyone and that's simply not what their ideology suggests.

David Owens all I saw was someone who was prepared/good at debating vs someone who was not prepared good at debating. If he destroys someone like Gary Johnson I would be more impressed.

Check out his look as well, classic

Steve Savage thank you. I got a kick out of that.

I do it because I believe every American deserves a free pony

@@goodbeans same

I thought Vermin Supreme was Melania's nickname for Trump.

When he does those eyebrows you know he's about to get sassy.

Libertarians are perpetually high school debate team kids.

Lmao. A total squash match.

Is it? That's why we had the European sovereign debt crisis? Because mmt worked in that instance? 😂🤣🤣🤣

@@fgsaramago EU members are not sovereign issuers of anything

@@PK-on9vj they were until 2002. In fact the main reason for creating the Euro was to stop the mmt like policies that countries chronically applied with devastating medium and long term consequences

Wrong. Go learn more.... please.

James H Gunby okay tell me where I'm wrong smart guy

Once it actually helps the American citizens it's too far man, too far

Imagine having a three way debate between Trump, Bernie & Seder

I'm not even A era an and I would donate to that!😂

My cats kill their previously alive toys first... At least Sam isn't a sadistic murderer. *Hides this comment from his Cats*