Can I PLEASE just watch a single debate ANY DEBATE that has a proper audio engineer?

@aaaaaaaaaa7699

4 жыл бұрын

Capatalist trying to save a buck lol ahahaha

@BGcam

4 жыл бұрын

Power Wash not capitalists trying to save a buck. Capitalism only grants resources to things that generate profit for shareholders, thus there is no incentive to provide proper audio engineering. Under socialism we would recognize the public good of having a proper audio engineer provide and allocate the resources for it.

@michaelregis1015

3 жыл бұрын

@@BGcam dude, I think he was just joking.

@danaililiev1404

3 жыл бұрын

@@BGcam ajhh exactly why they would want quality sound?

@petrosdaskalopoulos1191

3 жыл бұрын

@@BGcam i do not think that a debate would take place under a socialist government . That is attributed to the closed off nature socialism has marking capitalism as the enemy

Nowhere near enough time for a debate on socialism vs capitalism. Especially with those long intro statements.

@seanpierre1338

3 жыл бұрын

just read road to serfdom. wraps it up tight

@reasonerenlightened2456

2 жыл бұрын

I am so fed up from endless stream of videos like this one which just Analyse to death. WE NEED SOLUTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enough said. The modern interpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is called Perpetual Limited Speed Purge Allowance (PLSPA). (One purge per person per year allowed no questions asked; the purge right is non-transferable; assistance to purge is a crime; purges can not be accumulated; nobody is excluded from being purged; self-defence rules apply when subjected to a purge attempt; all purge events must be logged in a public database; the purge can take place at any time and any place. ) After the first purge wave the society will become harmonious and peaceful. ... and it will cleanse itself. Those who want too much Power or Wealth will get purged for sure by those who don't want extreme Power or Wealth .... and the society will welcome it. Sufficient Suffering Spawns Socialism (SSSS) or Fascism , abundance creates Capitalism. Capitalism creates scarcity resulting in suffering which brings back the Socialism eventually. That is why in addition to the free market and all current laws we we need a law that implements The Real UBI (for perpetual re-distribution of sufficient Wealth) and the Perpetual Limited Speed Purge Allowance (PLSPA) which, together, implement the true meaning of 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' without the need for any centralised power behind the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Genius. You can worship me now LOL Make me a statue.

@jgunn03

2 жыл бұрын

@@reasonerenlightened2456 Dude(tte) You get a statue after I get my SOLID SILVER statue of myself in the city square. Wait your turn.

@reasonerenlightened2456

2 жыл бұрын

@@jgunn03 at least someone recognises my contribution as "deserving a statue". I'll settle for a foot note in history and insane amount of cash now.

I feel like it ended just as it was getting good

@reasonerenlightened2456

2 жыл бұрын

Only stupid idiots would expect a politician to choose the wellbeing of votes over the advancement of his/hers political career . The cronyism is inevitable. We must have the real modern implementation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Everything depends on the definition of these isms, so I expect more heat than light.

It ended too soon, but I love how much respect for each other they had through this debate! I didn't see any ad hominem falacia being thrown casually in attempts to assassinate the other parts character and I saw a lot of admitted convergence in certain ideas. Bravo! That's how we get to learn and grow as a society and most importantly as individuals.

@legalfictionnaturalfact3969

2 жыл бұрын

the only way for convergence is for socialists to converge toward grasping the free market. there is no "meet in the middle" when it's fascism vs freedom.

@falco.404

2 жыл бұрын

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 couldn't agree more. All I'm trying to say is that they didn't resort to attacking each other's characters to get their points to seem more valid, and I think we need to see that more often in modern politics.

@legalfictionnaturalfact3969

2 жыл бұрын

@@falco.404 yeah, sure. it's almost always the incorrect side who starts shit though, and once shit starts, we WILL finish it. that is appropriate and that's what we're going to keep doing. no more "split the blame" "two to tango" bs. there's a guilty party. point the finger.

@xwarrior760

2 жыл бұрын

"honorless sad pathetic immoral creatures" referring to Caplan's comments about how you don't have an obligation towards your siblings/parents. That's an ad hominem if I ever saw one.

@ujjalshill6442

2 жыл бұрын

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 facism isn't socialism there is class devide in facism

During the regimen of Göran Persson my parents considered to stop working becuase it would have been more beneficial for them to live off the wellfare checks than their highly taxed salaries. They decided to continue because it would look bad on their resume when things got better

@puckerings

2 жыл бұрын

The most likely explanation for this is that your parents did not understand how taxation works. So I call bullshit on you, or I call ignorance (or bullshit) on your parents.

@RockPile_

2 жыл бұрын

How would it have been more beneficial?

I think I have benefited in some way, by listening to this debate. The closing statement by the Moderator, about "Knowledge being something that grows" is an essential Idea to remember, as We struggle to determine the Truth of Things in Our Lives. Someone said that "Truth is a sword that cuts both ways"...or maybe more ways than that. It is difficult, but We should remember that there are two sides (or more) to every story. So, if this is True, by what measure do We decide the aspect of Truth that We should endeavor to better understand, promote and follow? (by "follow" I mean the bringing of the best aspects of Truth into Our Lives...so that We might grow In The Truth.) This seems like a good idea to me...if I want to become More and Better...and I do. Maybe a "sword" is a poor analogy to symbolize TRUTH. A sword is a tool, but THE TRUTH is an essential element of successful CREATIONAL ENDEAVOR. It provides that which We can depend on, once We increase Our grasp of IT, in Our Quest To Become More and Better in and for CREATION.

Liz was much better than I expected; too wordy at times but strong, needed to be stronger on saying socialism need not be authoritarian or statist (see comments for examples of other missing that point). I can't imagine she's still writing for the WaPost.

@Oners82

5 жыл бұрын

@madcheeseknight Unjustified assertion born of ignorance. Give workers control and you reduce the power of both the state and private sector - there is no inconsistency so to say it's impossible is categorically wrong.

@Oners82

5 жыл бұрын

@madcheeseknight Interesting thoughts, but I think you miss some key points. 1. Distribution can be done at a local level within communities, so your assertion that it requires central planning (or at least is impossible to do it any other way) is false. 2. You assume that socialism necessitates revolution, but this is again false. As anybody who has studied the history of socialism knows, there is a huge subset of socialists who advocated using the democratic state to bring about revolution by electing leaders with socialist tendencies. 3. You assert that the leader would necessarily own everything, but this is just begging the question. If businesses are owned by coops of workers then the workers by definition own the means of production, NOT the state. 4. And am I a part of the private sector? Of course, but so what? I don't want to be, I simply have no choice (public sector work aside which is practically the same) in the economic system I happen to live in. And the naive view that people "decide" where they work is obviously misleading. Nobody wants to work in McDonalds or an Amazon warehouse or Walmart where you work your ass off and don't even get enough money to survive, you do it because you are coerced into it because the alternative is to barely be able to afford to survive. I guess by your logic the child labour in sweatshops in Asia is there by "choice". What a moral position to take... 5. In what realm of fantasy is workers owning their own production and democratically deciding how the business is run having less power than being a wage slave to a capitalist who produces nothing and yet takes all of the surplus value of your labour? Look at all the people who are made unemployed by capitalists exporting their jobs abroad for cheaper labour. Is that your idea of the worker having power, their jobs being stolen from them by a capitalist class who would rather pay foreigners to do their job for less? And ask yourself, if these companies were owned by the workers, would they be exporting their OWN jobs abroad? Of course not because when they own their own businesses it is the workers themselves who have the power to make these decisions and they aren't going to screw themselves over. You are either incredibly dishonest or you simply haven't thought this through at all. "Having control of your own labour rather than being a wage slave to a capitalist is reducing your power and giving it to someone else...". *EPIC FACEPALM*

@Oners82

5 жыл бұрын

@madcheeseknight I said that the distribution of PROPERTY could be done at a local level, much like it is done now in capitalist systems. For example in my country we have state owned property that is rented to low income families and it is allocated by local councils rather than the central government. I see no reason why the same local method of distribution could not be the case under a socialist system. As for the military, this would obviously be organised centrally. And of course there is a central power, we are talking about socialism, not communism lol! As for what a revolution is, it typically means a forcible overthrow of a government by non-democratic means, but I am not going to waste time arguing over the definition of a word. Call it what you want. As for coops, they are run by workers who are democratically elected to make management decisions. And if people are slacking off you discipline them just like you would in a capitalist business. The only difference is that the profits created by the workers go to the workers, rather than a capitalist class exploiting the workers. You then say that nobody has to work shit jobs but this is obviously not true. Not everybody can afford college, not everybody has the aptitude for college, and college doesn't guarantee you a good job anyway. This view you have that anybody in a shit job just hasn't tried hard enough is delusional and based upon the false idea that we live in a meritocracy where ability guarantees success. This is naive beyond belief (or dishonest). And you are ignoring the point that these people are still being coerced to work there, it is not the free choice as portrayed by apologists of capitalism. To blame workers for their own plight is so elitist it's cringe worthy (it reminds me of the right wing notion that poor people are just lazy). A completely delusional view that ignores the structural problems of the system. As for China, it is not communist, it is state capitalist, and are you seriously apologising for sweatshops??? The kids do not choose to be there, they do because if they don't they starve. Again, this is a STRUCTURAL problem, not the fault of the kids; they are the VICTIMS of this cruel, capitalist system. And don't for one second forget that these sweatshops are owned by Western capitalists because they would rather pay slave wages in China than a decent wage in the West. Blame China all you want but WE create the demand for these products and it is CAPITALISTS who own the sweatshops. Next, why would everyone slack off if it is in their direct interest to succeed? Let's just say I work for $15 an hour in a factory and the profits go to the shareholders who earn millions. Compare that to the profits being shared amongst the workers so the more successful the factory, the more I earn. Would I be more incentivized to work hard to make profits for the shareholders exploiting me, or to make more profit for myself and my fellow workers? It's a complete no-brainer so your argument makes no sense. Only an idiot would slack off more under a system where they reap more benefits for their hard work. You then go on about communism which is rather strange considering we are talking about socialism here lol! And needless to say, your portrayal of communism is complete and total nonsense but I won't waste time entertaining your red herring fallacy. Stick to the subject at hand, namely capitalism vs. democratic socialism.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

@madcheeseknight Why so quiet? I was enjoying handing your ass to you lol!

@peaceandlove1255

3 жыл бұрын

madcheeseknight If you’d be interested in a discussion, I’d happily debate all those points. You seem like a genuinely good natured person and your logic seems sound, but many socialists have answered these questions and more many times. I think you’ve thought enough about things that you’d be willing to change your opinions if presented with good arguments, no?

The first 20 mins perfectly summed up capitalism vs socialism. The capitalist talked about real countries, and she started quoting Plato.

@frausteiner8615

5 жыл бұрын

The Capitalist claimed Sweden as a Capitalist country.

@yeerkals

5 жыл бұрын

Frau Steiner Sweden has a free market with social services. It’s more capitalist than any other ideology.

@grusilag

5 жыл бұрын

Tamriel Alive Perfect! Then I'm sure you won't mind the U.S. adopting Sweden's policies.

@yeerkals

5 жыл бұрын

Grusilag we already are, but it should be optional if an individual wants to pay more for social services.

@frausteiner8615

5 жыл бұрын

@Arwyn Sweden has what is known is "Liberal Socialism." They have an economy based on Socialist ideals, but they go about it differently than the Marxists did. Sweden does better than America in pretty much every aspect of society.

The question is: How do you slow down her speech? She goes so fast it is hard to focus on her words and "absorb" them. I found it and slowed her down to 85%. Much better!

@r_e_panzer4960

4 жыл бұрын

Thought the same thing, difficult process and listen at the same time. In my defense, my brain was providing tens of counter arguments to what she was saying as she was saying them

@daviddiaz529

4 жыл бұрын

It's not just her. It's called Spreading. It's what's done in high School debate teams. The intent is to get an opponent penalized for not responding to all arguments raised. It's also done when there is a time limit to respond. You can tell which debaters still use that style of debating. I can't prove it, but I believe it's the reason why Ben Shapiro speaks the way he does when he's brought on a political show, Speech, Q&A, lecture etc.

@profoundwill43

4 жыл бұрын

@@daviddiaz529 very interesting analysis. I will look this up, but it does make a lot of sense considering how the moderator says she will be a dictator on time. Bryan, whom I thoroughly enjoy listening to does talk fast, but in my opinion it's because he's trying to be as thorough as possible, citing real life application, stats and logic. I feel like he was also limited in his debate by how short it was for such a profound debating subject.

@elchinito4247

3 жыл бұрын

Blame your parents for poor cognitive development, mate.

@ska8mark

2 жыл бұрын

It's annoying that she's clearly using tactics from competitive debating in this sort of setting. Completely the wrong forum for it.

Starts at 5:43

@nsq2229

5 жыл бұрын

asdf asdf thanks dog

@tryhard3r216

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks

Where is the Q&A?

Amazon and cheap products that are convenient? Does he have any calculation of the cost on the environment and the inconvenience of these products?

@shsch492

4 жыл бұрын

Guess what... you don't have to buy anything! I love how the socialist talks about freedom and then goes on to suggest that we all need the government to tell us what we can and cannot buy!? Have you done the calculation for being born... maybe we should control that? Where is the line drawn........................

@igboman2860

3 жыл бұрын

If people didn't like amazon it would have failed

@raiklaub975

3 жыл бұрын

To have industries that weren't polluting the environment is not an issue of capitalism but one of the society in which capitalism is implemented. The voters and politicians have to care for this. Capitalism is a economic way how to handle economy. Not to have any values. Values go along with your oppinions, votes and laws. Btw I don't think pollution is less in socialist countries in comparison to their production outcome.

@raiklaub975

2 жыл бұрын

@Asian Bust I'm totally agreeing. You can't critisize capitalsim for poluting industries. To polute or not polute is not a characteristic of capitalism. Free market, trades and professions, negotiable things are a characteristic of capitalism. Poluting is an issue of politics. How politicians who are voted by the people treat societal/environmental issues.

@davruck1

2 жыл бұрын

@@raiklaub975 one could argue that mass murder is not socialism’s fault. It’s the fault of government. So the debate becomes pointless, because the real issue is not addressed. Neither system can work for large nation states. Nation states are not a good thing.

She says capitalism demands rationalisation? Yet, central planning demands more computational power and routinisation of society than any mode of capitalism I have seen. The Projection is strong.

@raqueljacobs1542

4 жыл бұрын

Drew John it demands rationalization because it creates unparalleled wealth inequality to the point where more resources exist than can be consumed so they are destroyed. People are starving, while throwing away food 🥘

@ivandafoe5451

2 жыл бұрын

You haven't been looking very hard if you can't see the excessive bureaucracy and enforced routines that capitalism creates.

Knowing a fact about history which is not in line with an argument that we SHOULD do something, doesn't suggest either a positive or negative against the should. It's just a cute historical fact that you selected.

The only thing remotely interesting was the very last question (43:44), and then it ended before anything really happened.

@dankghoul1438

4 жыл бұрын

@Snappingturtle 267 Because Marx didn't believe in private property. Which I guess is easy to say considering he was a lazy bum.

@bruhmoment4380

4 жыл бұрын

The differences between private property and personal property. A difference that MUST be clear to everyone but the world is dripping with american propaganda

@bruhmoment4380

4 жыл бұрын

@Snappingturtle 267 America is not a free country and never was. They're an imperial corporatocracy. Fascist dictators are the best friends of the americans: Pinochet, Batista, Francisco Franco and Roosevelt tried also an alliance with Mussolini (I'm italian so I know). Everytime a third-world country tried to be totally independent from US, the US organized a coup (Lumbuba and the other one in Burkina Faso for example) and killed the independentist leader (maybe democratically elected like Allende). In the 50s there were supposed to be elections in vietnam to unify the south and the north, but the americans opposed to this democratic elections because the favourite one was Ho Chi Minh and started the war. Luckily Ho Chi Minh won with the help of China and USSR and Vietnam survived from another U.S. puppet. Source for everything: wikipedia Now the veterans are emigrating to Vietnam due to healthcare and education,how ironic. America is stolen land (the natives, you know) built by people stolen from their land (afros), nothing to do about freedom. Fortunately, the hate towards the americans is increasing, their empire will fall as every empire. If you wanna know about real freedom ask Nestor Makhno or Rosa Luxemburg, not to Americans killers.

@MrKnowdatruth

4 жыл бұрын

Bruh moment doing bad things has nothing to do with the freedoms in America. While our freedoms are being attacked and stupid people think giving it up to the government will solve their problems this system is the best system in the world. Don’t take it from me here’s the facts. Capitalism took people out of poverty more than any other system. America is 25% of the world GDP with about 5% of the population. China became a powerhouse after using capitalism not socialism. There’s a few socialist ideas in the US for example Social Security. Each year we’re at a net negative because we pay more than we take in which is said to eventually crash the system. Instead of finding a solution once you entitle people to something it’s almost impossible to take things away.

@bruhmoment4380

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrKnowdatruth "Freedom in America" exactly underlines how most americans are brainwashed at all, because if a journalist tries to report what really happens in middle east and in Mexico he will be either shot dead or arrested (Gary Webb, Chelsea Mannington etc...). Indeed the media in the United Shits are so conformed and obedient. "The best system in the world" is just an illusion, I way prefer living in Europe than I did in the U.S. All the wealth of America is built over genocides, slavery and every form of exploitation, and that's an hystorical fact undeniable. Lifting out people from poverty? If you consider the poverty line at 5 dollars/day the poverty (circa 1800/year) is just increased. Freedom does not exist in America, corporations are totalitarian entities, there is as much freedom as under Stalinism. Indeed is a two party system de facto, nothing more and nothing less. Even Cuba performs better than the U.S in many things, and Cuba was a third world country under Batista. Maybe the U.S could be less barbaric under Bernie Sanders, but until now they're just an imperialist, antidemocratic state and a threat to human peace (see Nelson Mandela). Even the ancient Romans would laugh seeing americans talking about "freedom and democracy". Here in Europe if someone tries to steal our human right to healthcare, he will have an hard time (Macron in France is paying the consequences for less). "The (im)perfect system" is built by others, neither America really belongs to americans, just as their wealth and so on.

43:12 she broke his brain.

@cameronjoray7685

5 жыл бұрын

No she didn’t. He’s a economist and not a professional debater. Just because one can deliver their point fast doesn’t make them any more correct.

@johnappleseed8146

5 жыл бұрын

Cameron Joray There’s certainly better arguments for socialism than she made.

@user-hu3xi3je2x

5 жыл бұрын

that “baseball to save the universe argument” fucked him up LMFAOOO

@jacobrivera7302

5 жыл бұрын

hardnewstakenharder You’re a socialist brat

@jacobrivera7302

5 жыл бұрын

hardnewstakenharder Give me your phone exactly bitch

Way, way too short

When we talk of Capitalism vs Socialism or Capitalism vs Communism what are people thinking or speaking of? Is it economic, political, cultural? There are two sides of the spectrum to which people fall under that of Self vs the Group. The concept of Capitalism as a system is people flourishing without or with limited interference. That is fine and dandy until you consider things like poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor it creates and so there is the other camp, The Socialist whom believe that we are or should be responsible to the group or community but the problem with that is of course loss of individuality, competition and personal achievement. We all fall between these two belief systems, many of us have heard of Trickle Down Economics a Capitalistic idea but with if I told you there is a little bit of Socialism there in that the objective is to share the wealth. Even in our current Western capitalistic society there are traces of socialism in regards to public welfare, educational and healthcare policies. However how much of our hard-work and profit should be allocated to the poor? The heart of the debate we have to consider what is fair to the individual and to the group? There is such hate for both sides because we fear them at their extremes, Capitalism at its most greedy vs the Hive mind mentality that is Socialism/Communism. Socialism and why a lot of people hate it is that has gone beyond economics and into political and cultural sphere, infesting it with group think, political correctness, tribalism and identity politics. anyways I hope this makes people think and that I was being as unbiased as I could be. btw I am Center Left in my beliefs. Hope I didn't come off all sjw.

@kenbowser5622

5 жыл бұрын

It takes all 3. We have never had teal capitalism. We have corporatism, cronyism and economic fascism.

@definitiveentertainment1658

5 жыл бұрын

Ken Bowser Attaining “real capitalism” would cause so much death and destruction I can only hope I will never see it in my lifetime. To see everyone cut off from their safety nets, to see regulation on pollution, building codes, proper chemical/waste management, to see the hungry turned away, to see even more people working full-time who have to choose between feeding themselves or buying their kids medications...that is a Hell I will not live through while I have any other option.

@definitiveentertainment1658

5 жыл бұрын

LunaticReason I thought the intent of your comment was great and I doubt anyone here is willing to accept the reality of it. Unfortunately, KZread is full of armchair geniuses who think they know economics because they watched Ben Shapiro a couple times. They say things like “socialism has never worked,” or “commies don’t know anything about economics”. But, of course, to say those things makes it obvious you haven’t read economic theory of any kind lol. I should point out that “trickle-down” theories/policies are anti-socialist, and propagated 100% to prop up capitalism, already-wealthy capitalists. Thinking the working class shouldn’t starve to death is not a purely socialist ideal lol. Give my capitalist brothers/sisters a little more credit than that. Trickle-Down was just one of the many lies that keep capitalism going. Of course it’s not going strong, and the system is going to crash again and again and again. Unless we start WW3. Or change course.

This is why I dont like people reading their opening statements. the sentences are too long, wordy. just say it simply so we can all understand.

@lucioinnocenzo2328

4 жыл бұрын

She has no content so she has to make the waters dirty in order to cover that.

@fraudron3455

4 жыл бұрын

@@lucioinnocenzo2328 She has a stronger arguement than the capitalist approach.

@lucioinnocenzo2328

4 жыл бұрын

@@fraudron3455 What argument? I watched the entire video and she said nothing at all.

@fraudron3455

4 жыл бұрын

@@lucioinnocenzo2328 Was your volume on when you watched it?

@lucioinnocenzo2328

4 жыл бұрын

@@fraudron3455 Do you have logic installed in your brain? Apparently you lack it.

Astonished that when asked how something becomes your own yo said thats not a real big problem when his entire ideology stands on private property. The look on his face made it seem like that question may haunt him for a couple nights. Good.

@OneLine122

4 жыл бұрын

Its like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

@zse4cft6bhu8mko0

Жыл бұрын

You didn't find the comparison to why your body is your own to be sufficient?

I absolutely agree with user 'admiralMcmufin'. He says, "Not a single point was made. I was looking for an actual debate not conformation bias." This wasn't a real debate.

Instead of Bryan Caplan... how about Deirdre McCloskey on the pro-cap side? That way we would get a quantitative scholar of Caplan's ilk who knows how to engage in rhetorical debate in the way that Breunig does.

I have few questions for capitalists reading that comment, I'd like to understand better your point of view : What do you think is the role of a state toward its citizens, and who are those citizens ? What is you own role toward people ? And reciproquely, what are their role toward you ?

@manonalmeida398

5 жыл бұрын

@Josh M thanks for your answer. I'd say that to me, the role of the state is to care about its people, this means : giving them the same opportunities in therms of health, studies etc... so I think public services are really important, even with a capitalist point if view, if everybody has the same chances to socially succed, there will be more successful people and a richer population. I dont think socialism can't find a balance with capitalism. I do believe in a free market, but I think its not uncompatible with public services and the respect of each social classes (although I don't really think its possible to finish with social classes unfortunately,). I found that really bad that this guy directly linked socialism to USSR dicatures, this is the wrost picture of it, like usa is for capitalism. But I also thought that no matter what the poor arguments he said (the one about his consent of buying his french fries for instance) well he made people laugh and react when the socialost girl was just cold as a stone and tiring. Too bad.

@manonalmeida398

5 жыл бұрын

@Josh M Let's say you're born in a non-rich family and with a disease, than are you the failure ? It's foolish to blame your country of birth for your failures, I agree, but only if the country in question has put the good volontee and means to help you succeed. The american dream is...a dream, it's not as easy as it was before because the capitalisation of the world to a larger scale (so capitalism itself) made life really hard and unafordable even for occidentals. At some point capitalism isn't like an elevator to social success, but an impassable wall

@jnewgot

5 жыл бұрын

@Josh M Taxation is part of socialism, fuck off you Australian dipshit.

@bigvinnie3

4 жыл бұрын

You should have no legal obligation to other people. Maybe a moral obligation but not a legal one. It's not the govenments job to enforce morality. They're there to protect life and property from foreign invasions/threats and domestic threats that's it. This idea people should be forced to help each other is asinine. Some people are born better off than others but why is that any one else's problem. They have plenty of opportunities to succeed. 90% of millionaires are self made. Look at all the people who pull themselves out of poverty. 3/4 of people born in the lower class will die in the middle or upper class.

regardless, i liked the philosophy of this debate. the moderator was very refreshing.

I don't think either debater made good arguments for their position. I also think more time may have been helpful.

@davruck1

2 жыл бұрын

Because both systems suck at large scales. But I see most people are too brainwashed to consider that option

there was a malfunction at 43:50

She takes a long time to say much of nothing. She speaks fast, too, which is often a sign of a valid argument.

Am I the only one who disagrees with Bryan Caplan with his assessment of what Capitalism actually is? He seems to connect Capitalism with Democracy and Socialism with State Owned Capitalism. Where would countries like China and Russia, capitalist economies with a dictatorial governments, fall? North Korea is a monarchy with a state owned capitalist system. The state employs its workers and pays them like the private capitalist of the US, China, and Russia pay theirs. Also Capitalist Democracies protect their plutocrats as much as any other system of government or economy. The most recent and prominent example of this is the DAPL protests and police response. This is not a criticism specific to capitalism, every power structure fights to preserve itself, be it religious, economic, or governmental. Elizabeth Bruenig did a good job in pointing out some of the moral issues that arise out of pure or unfettered capitalism, but I do not feel that she gave a good baseline for what she wishes to accomplish with Socialism. She doesn't advocate for State Capitalism like the USSR but what does she advocate for? Does she advocate North American Indian socialism? Employee owned companies as opposed to plutocratic owned companies? She doesn't seem to put forth a clear alternative to the current capitalism we currently have. All in all a decent debate but neither candidate really presented their positions clearly enough to be very convincing.

@plateoshrimp9685

5 жыл бұрын

You're not the only one.

This Woman was amazingly articulate and able to explain the philosophically relevant content, through an historical lense, which would elicit such reflection as to demand an absolute overhaul of the established Order. Hegel, to merely note, has himself denoted the necessity of negating the "positive conditions", which He Held as both necessary consquences and expressions of human efforts. We, as Alexandre Kojeve pointed out, are beings who desire our own desires. We seek to move beyond the condition we find ourselves in and then desire further. Hegel had properly subdued Kant insofar as the latter understood the possibility of freedom as the movent beyond the established forces on the individual level, yet failed to synthesize his judgments historically and according to the way people actually behaved. Marx revolutionized this whole trajectory by way of applying Hegels Logic to Capitalism itself. He demonstrated how capitalism could simultaneously abolish and maintain itself

@AmidstTheLight85

3 жыл бұрын

Any books you recommend on this?

@raiklaub975

3 жыл бұрын

It's easy to abuse philosophers for sugarcoating reigns of horror that happened to take place 100 years after their dead and still do. A true answer to the question "What would Hegel and Kant probably have said to the alleged high moral standards of this theory and the outcome where millions died?" would be more helpful to diminish human suffering.

One idea Caplan needs to embrace is the separation of state and economics. There was a reason that Western civilization adopted the separation of state and church. The state is force and you cannot mix that with an institution whose goal is to promote a specific belief system. The force of the state should only be used to protect individual rights. The result of this separation was an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity (after a disturbingly long period of religious wars). Likewise, there should be a separation of state and economics in order to prevent businesses from using that state power for their own purposes-such as strangling competitors (which is what happened during the pre-capitalist guild system). True 100% capitalism requires all people to be free from coercion. And how does a thing become your property? When you create something, it is yours. Or if someone voluntarily gives you something (which they lawfully own) then it becomes yours. Now, in the case of a joint effort (such as a worker making a sandwich in a deli) the individual participants who contributed to the creation are all compensated for the creation based upon an agreed exchange (such as wage for time and prices for ingredients). So the worker who puts the sandwich together gets to keep that portion of the sandwich’s value which he is responsible for-in the form of cash.

@OneLine122

4 жыл бұрын

Rights are a belief system. The separation of State and religion was so the liberals could take the land the monarch had. So they would reinstate this state of nature, so things became unowned, which justify its appropriation under the current belief system of liberalism. Socialist revolutions usually wanted the same, and they did, the only difference is that now the owners were liberals or capitalists. That is what the American revolution was about. They also tried the separation from the economy, but it failed to deliver the unity necessary to protect the country, so the Constitution was written to tax people, and give value to the greenback, which of course helped with politics and trade. The free market as people know it, rely on the power of the State, not just for protection and rights, but to protect the value of the money and create that same money. The woman talked about those things in the exchange, or at least alluded to them. Also I don't know if you ever worked, but there isn't a fast food that asks the worker how much the price of the sandwich should be, so the is no consensus here. Its a take it or leave it proposition, and once you accept things can change, and there is nothing you can say, except leave that "consensual" contract. Its contracts that have no value, since they are not enforceable. You need coercion to have valid contracts, as well as full knowledge. But those aren't contracts, people rent their time and body only. What they produce goes all to the person that will sell it for a profit. Its the merchant that owns everything, the producer gets only the barest possible. Its even true in the farming industry. They have to sell to whatever the merchant wants. Its designed that way.

I was thoroughly disappointed by both of these people. The guy constantly tried to prove why we should fear repealing certain laws, followed by why we oughta be 'vewy vewy afwaid of the evil socialism'. On the other mic was someone so caught up in fancy terms, word use and direct quotes from literature that she made herself and her argument appear extremely convoluted and complex.

@blackviking2079

4 жыл бұрын

I listened for two minutes and couldn't grasp what she was saying so I moved on

Wow very thought provoking discussion. Her question at the end "how does a thing come to be yours" is a very important and deep question. Does anyone actually unquestionably own something? Is it because they harvested it or built it themselves? Or because they used money to purchase it? If they harvested or built it themselves who's to say the resources and materials they used belong to them? Is it because it came from land that they own? Well how do they own that land? How can someone say this area of the earth belongs to me? Is it because they bought it (or technically are leasing it and making annual payments on it in the form of taxes) from their government? Then u can go even further and ask how can a government own land? Is it because they staked their claim and simply declared that they own it and are willing to defend it with the use of or threat of violence? Why does one group have more of a right to own a certain area of land than another group? And finally do they actually own it or are they just occupying it because in reality all the land on earth is the habitat for all humans and no single human, whether they are wealthier or stronger or more powerful, has more of a right to our habitat than any other human. So in conclusion, i personally don't believe anyone truly owns anything. Also i believe that all humans have pretty much the same goals in life of wanting to be happy and free and loved and live a purposeful life where we advance and learn as much as we possibly can about as much as we possibly can. Because of that, I think we should have a group of leaders for the whole world and the whole human race. Since no one is more entitled than anyone else to the resources on our planet and in our habitat then i dont see why we shouldnt be able to move freely and live wherever we choose to live on the planet without passports and visas and all that. If we all vote on one group of leaders for the whole world and have those leaders agree on the best possible set of rules and laws and regulations and guidelines and economic structure and political structure and get everyone on the same page then there will be no more war (besides the possible but unlikely chance of civil war, especially in the very beginning before everyone gets use to this new way of life). Also it will greatly decrease poverty because wages and worker rights would be regulated and resources would be shared and wealthy people will migrate much more freely which would bring wealth and opportunity to poorer places that would otherwise never get that chance. Humans are alot more similar than we are different and i think the more we mix the more we will be able to share resources and ideas and eventually form one language that the whole world speaks and that type of universal cooperation would exponentially expedite our growth and advancement for the human race.

@lilgarbagedisposal9141

2 жыл бұрын

You'd like John Rawls and Thomas Nagle. Google luck egalitarianism

@yang8244

Жыл бұрын

jesus dude. You own something when you aquired it yourself and it wasnt owned by anyone else or claimed by anyone else prior or if you purchased it or it was gifted to you by an owner. taking by force is not legitimate ownership.

@onetwothreeabc

Жыл бұрын

@@yang8244 What if B took something by force from A, then C bought it from B? Does C own the property or A?

@yang8244

Жыл бұрын

Then that depends on several factors like if the original owner or his offsprings are alive to claim the thing. The rights of the person who baught it from the one who took it, how long ago it was etc.. Since many elements are involved you need a proffsional to consider all relevant matters. But, the initial presumption of rightful owner should still be the one i mentioned above.

@williamdevonshire356

Жыл бұрын

@@onetwothreeabc no you cant sell peoples stuff you stole. ownership is acquired from original appropriation of unowned thing, usually when you mix your labour with it (like if i build a garden out of till some land) some other people cant come up and say "thats our garden now". Also you can acquire things through voluntary trade. But taking other peoples things by force most people know from a young age that thats wrong

She talks too fast

What's the form of exchange in socialism? Serious question. Can you save to go on holidays or is that unfair?

@jnewgot

5 жыл бұрын

Oh, you can save it's just shit because of inflation. You literally have less value each year.

@ivandafoe5451

2 жыл бұрын

If you don't really know the answer to this "serious question" (you shouldn't be this ignorant on the topic) and you want a "serious" answer, why are you asking it here?

Capitalism is the pursuit of capital. Socialism is the centralized distribution of said capital. You are debating apples to oranges and thats why this "debate" never gets anywhere.

@zigoter2185

11 ай бұрын

central authority cant chase more capital?

Elizabeth's question on how does one come to own property was delightful. Whathisname never answered.

@williamdevonshire356

Жыл бұрын

he did answer tho

@kristinwatkins371

10 ай бұрын

@@williamdevonshire356 he answered poorly. Had to invent a fanciful, hypothetical scenario of how people get property which has no bearing in the real world.

My brain about fell out of my skull when she complained about the _"bondage of the will"._

37:00

What is the smallest commune. I have believed all my life, I am living in a commune. A commune with one member. How about you. What do you think is the minimum number for a commune?

@jnewgot

5 жыл бұрын

Well, you're not a community therefore not a commune.

@pipsantos6278

5 жыл бұрын

@@jnewgot So at what point can a commune fractionate and the constituent fraction may not be considered a new commune?

@jnewgot

5 жыл бұрын

@@pipsantos6278 Less than 2.

@pipsantos6278

5 жыл бұрын

@@jnewgot Then I guess my dog and I will be just fine.

@jnewgot

5 жыл бұрын

" I have believed all my life, I am living in a commune. A commune with one member." I guess I changed your mind.

Why do we need two introductions?

Not a single point was made. I was looking for an actual debate not conformation bias.

@Oners82

5 жыл бұрын

admiralMcmufin Not a single point was made? Are you deaf or stupid?!

@giantsloth126

5 жыл бұрын

Oners82 he’s stupid

@OsefKincaid

3 жыл бұрын

You won't find actual debates about capitalism because there isn't a coherent defense of capitalism.

@admiralMcmufin

3 жыл бұрын

@@OsefKincaid okay so you have a highschool level understanding of the world, got it.

@OsefKincaid

3 жыл бұрын

@@admiralMcmufin Luckily you're here with the adult retort.

Elizabeth Bruenig is super cute. And Bryan too.

i advocate humanism , i want a society which sets minimum standards for individual rights and property rights(including those for women) but also living conditions, particularly as children and wards are effected. however i believe in free market solutions ,rather than big brother statism. native peoples practiced that from extended family based tribal communities for thousands of years. I strongly oppose forced "equality" as a grossly inhuman policy of crushing creativity and individuality.

@ivandafoe5451

2 жыл бұрын

"Free markets" are an unobtainable source of solutions for anything other than oligarchy...you can not be a humanist, nor can you reach humanitarian goals through "free markets".

43:14

@zander1011011

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks that's what I came here for

@whothis9949

3 жыл бұрын

It was a weak question, reminds me of the Dukakis abortion question in the 88 debate, throwing a totally implausible situation at him that created an exception to the rules of his beliefs. It doesn’t meaned it disproves every level of his beliefs, it just means there’s an extreme limit to them & the current situation in America does not meet that limit.

@ozb8884

3 жыл бұрын

@@whothis9949 This isn’t a situation. It’s a philosophical question that when answered will show the technicalities of capitalism. It’s a question to point out the flaws of hereditary ownership.

@garrywellman

3 жыл бұрын

@@whothis9949 It wasn't a gotcha question. The question of where exactly private ownership comes from is a problem that's always existed for libertarian thought.

I'm sorry but I don't want to get my money away

The moderator could have not screamed every word into the mic. That would have been nice.

good debate

What a pathetic defense she made. No one is saying that an individual should not help and support their family member. What the gentleman did say is that no one is legally bound and will be forcefully made to support a family member.

None of your comments matter.

@mecha37000fighter

4 жыл бұрын

👌

How we got here? you mean the slow improvement of the world and failing of socialists regimes to out do capitalist ones? The more you approximate socialists regimes the more tyranny you get. Where we are is due to capitalism, I agree, but where we are is better than where most of Europe has been for most of its history.

You cannot put 100 in,get 100 back,disperse 5,put 95 in get 95 back disperse 5, put 90 in etc... You need profit(capital) to sustain. This is a mathematical issue not a political issue.

uhhhh i can see how ppl are initially put off by her she quotes many philosophical scholars and that gives off the impression that what she's saying isn't relevant to current life but by the rebuttals i enjoyed her individualistic thought. when she speaks i personally get a sense of free thinking and a charged brain and when he speaks i personally get a sense of something i've heard so many times. idk.

@mrmateojones8368

4 жыл бұрын

Jon Doe that’s actually not true, we do not live in a capitalist society we live in a MIXED society. Most governments of advanced nations do. In a capitalist society, welfare is the people’s responsibility not the government’s

@bigvinnie3

4 жыл бұрын

@@mrmateojones8368 and it should be it's not my responsibility to take care of others and it's not there responsibility to take care of me. I think it's a very good and honorable thing to take care of your neighbor but it's wrong to force people too.

Clothing choice is a about respect and looking your best to show both self respect and respect for your employer. It actually indicates your sense of professionalism and expertise. It has nothing to do with corporate pressures of repression. If your customer sees you dressing “casually” he will probably assume you’ll handle his business casually too....not a good business practice.

@DoomCycle

5 жыл бұрын

Dennis Diamond depends on the business and clientele

@AlexSciChannel

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. It is human nature to judge one's personality on external qualities regardless. It's simple psychology, even in a socialist society, more formal working positions would still dress accordingly what is deemed formal by that culture.

@kokokokow1760

3 жыл бұрын

Tell this to IBM during the 60s. If your necktie wasn't properly set or your shirt not properly ironed you'd get fired. Also what does it matter how I look if I never meet people during my work day? I can understand having to be presentable when working with customers, but why wear a white collar and black necktie when you'd be alone at a desk all day?

@robertromero8692

Жыл бұрын

@@kokokokow1760 "what does it matter how I look if I never meet people during my work day?" But you do meet people during your work day. That's the point. If the company has a dress code, and you don't like it, don't work there. It's that simple.

@kokokokow1760

Жыл бұрын

@@robertromero8692 "if you don't like it, don't work there" is not a good argument. If that's your only argument, it's like not having one. There is respectable work attire and there is being forced to loose time and money on work attire that's not for safety or official public spaces that demand one. What's wrong with going to work in a t-shirt or sneakers or not waring a necktie, when you don't work with customers? I'm not saying you should go in pajamas or in underwear only, just other attire that's publicly presentable.

Okay so I'm seriously trying to make an opinion here so please share some of your own with me because I'm just unsure. It seems like there are a lot of problems on either side, but I'm not one to find a problem and abandon an otherwise sound idea. Pretty much everyone I've spoken to o the subject says that socialism "works great on paper but..." and then list off the issues, but to be fair I've lived in the us (a generally capitalist economy) my entire admittedly relatively short life. So I guess my question is, what is the best ways to solve the issues with both sides like capitalism creating monopolies and socialism being under the reign of corrupt governments for example. To be honest I dont have the answers but it seems like to many people forget that we want the same thing. For prosperity for us and future generations, for everyone to be alright and grow and be happy. whatever our varied view of that is. There has to be some kind of middle ground that works for everyone otherwise what's the point?

@plateoshrimp9685

5 жыл бұрын

Look up Richard Wolff on youtube if you want to learn about socialism.

@harpsmith8570

5 жыл бұрын

We live in a mixed economy where we take elements of socialism and capitalism and combine them. You have the right mindset, there is a middle ground. Not strictly socialistic or capitalistic.

@bigvinnie3

4 жыл бұрын

Cronieism creates monopolies. Under proper capitalism there would always be a competitor that would pop up. Part of why the school system in America sucks so bad is the government sanctioned practical monopoly they have over it and why when private schools exist they're so much better. Competition is the heart of capitalism and what drives innovation. Socialism stifles that by unifying the means of production removing incentives to innovate because you get the same no matter how hard you work or succeed. Capitalism is just voluntary transactions between adults. Dont like where you work find a new job. One company sells a product that no one else sells but they do a terrible job start your own company to compete. Under socialism you're expecting the state to control all of this and bringing the state in to anything only adds coercion. In a socialist society if you dont like where you work. Too bad government says you work there. In a socialist society want to compete with a govenment run comapny because they do a bad job and you could do better to bad your not allowed. That's why you're seeing more and more socialist countries adopting capitalist econmic policies while retaing political control because it doesn't work.

Social... i don't want to work then what i am thrown in jail or forced to work? Capitol... If i want more and work twice as much have i not earned more or should you take half of what i made and give it to those who don't want to work? This is what really happens?

How is this a debate? Obviously capitalism, which was once surely Seen as a means of freedom, has Long become its opposite and thus revealed how it was never free for the majority to begin with.

You might have an obligation, but it's not one that should be enforced by the state. You have an obligation to return library books, but to argue that a state should get involved is mystifying.

@itisnateyork

4 жыл бұрын

Drew John then the state should not enforce my obligation to respect their property distinctions

The audio is terrible

wooyaa!! Bryan Bryan!

Sorry but I'm going to listen to the economist on this one.

@abcw114

4 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 The fallacy mainly occurs when people cite an illegitimate authority. Caplan is not an illegitimate authority. Your dismissal of his credentials based on your ideological bias is irrational.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

@@abcw114 Okay so when I cite you an economist who says he is comletely wrong are you going to vhange your mind? Or are you going to stick to your own views and by your own standard be irrational? Second, I did not dismiss his credentials, I said that his credentials didn't make him right. By your logic it would be irrational not to listen to a young earth creationist or climate change denier just because they happen to have a PhD in a relevant subject. And finally, my disagreement with him is not an ideological bias, onthe contrary my disagreement is based upon the fact that libertarianism as an economic model fails empirically. It has got nothing to do with ideology or bias, it is an empirical fact.

He made better rebuttals. Especially when he asked her his first question she seriously didn’t know what to say. She then was supposed to ask one question but asked two in a row which threw him off and why moderator had to correct her. The moderator definitely did her job very well.

@malifex9922

2 жыл бұрын

Most likely because the question was a lose-lose proposition to answer. Asking what your favorite dictatorship is isn't far from asking which concentration camp was your favorite in WW2. She should have just said "none" and left it at that.

Q. Will life under socialism be better than under capitalism? A. Of course it will. Life will be better yesterday than it's going to be tomorrow!

@dionysiuschiu5995

4 жыл бұрын

Capitalists: Wow. socialist Russia is so bad. Russians: wait till we get to communism

@kurt44mg42

4 жыл бұрын

@@dionysiuschiu5995 Russian humour under socialism: A new inmate arrives at a Soviet gulag in Siberia whereupon he's met by a group of other inmates and asked "So, how long did you get?" The new arrival replies "I got 10 years...for nothing!" The others look at him, and one of them says "Don't lie to us! We know that 'for nothing' is only 5 years."

@dionysiuschiu5995

4 жыл бұрын

@@kurt44mg42 😂😂😂

She is just using other writers opinions to validate her own. Nooo facts. It's so frustrating that people actually buy this.... Do you not THINK?

@postfab

2 жыл бұрын

She's using the words of philosophers, so yes she does think. Or she's using the words of people like Karl Marx who wrote the book on socialism, which makes perfect sense. . She's also using social history to compare, which is not opinion.

Emily asked Caplan "what makes property yours"? The answer is that without property rights there can be no rights; since all rights under all jurisdictions are logically obliged to treat and regard the concept of 'rights' as properties. There's no other way available or possible. The moment stone age Ug wants his brothder's sculpted arrow head or axe and is willing to swap it for the comfyest spot in the family cave: then we have a transaction of property rights as opposed to bullying/theft dominance. All the way through History up to the Medieval period, the strongest and most ruthless warrior screwed the rest at the point of a sword. Blunting the bully's unjust powers with collectively enforced legal rules was the primordial step forward of humanity. Deals create rights. Bullying alone denies them.

@cohemo077

6 жыл бұрын

Nayo Tawken socialists advocate for private property, or rather, personal property.

@Grounded4

6 жыл бұрын

Great! What's the difference?

@Grounded4

6 жыл бұрын

What's the difference?

@andrewbrekus8111

5 жыл бұрын

@ad altiora tendo A property right is a just claim to a resource, self ownership is a private property claim. So you do need private property rights to be able to coherently argue against assault. Take your kidney. It is a means of production, without it you can't produce anything. You have two of them. If we believe the socialist theory, the worker must give up a kidney if someone needs one. In a socialist society, you have no rights. The community has rights, because property rights are communal or democratic. That is pretty disgusting to most humans, and goes against all our intuitions.

Does anyone else tire of debate? Let's have living laboratories instead. Choose two pieces of trash, uninhibited land and allow for the establishment of two city states for a period of 100 years. Let Bruenig get the ball rolling on her ideal socialist state and Caplan get the ball rolling on his ideal capitalist state. Two rules: Neither state can have a military/police force large enough to be a threat to the larger nation and neither state can have nukes. Then see what happens. As an anarcho-capitalist, Caplan might have to compromise a little and go for some kind of minarchist state, but the experiment would be wonderful. For my part, I'd choose to live in the capitalist state.

I'd rather not be taught what is the infallible truth, the way, and the light. If nothing else, science has taught us that we don't know shit. Those who have enough conviction to die for their beliefs can do just that under capitalism's egocentric setup. Who is to say that is wrong? The infallible YOU? Freedom to make mistakes (and to strive/die from them) is not just freedom, but the only true guard we have from people who DOUBLE DOWN in the face of mistakes off the backs of others. Also, about consumption culture... what would happen if we check saving habits in relation to the number of government safety nets in countries where people do make more than enough for themselves? I think that's important information that would make or break the entire argument regarding freedom. --- If I can produce "x" on average, but with the help and advice of others I can produce "5x". If I choose the latter and give up 2x, or even 3x for the help and advice, I'm a slave??? O_o Unless if the person helping me gets nothing from helping me other than an absolute waste of their time, and be called a shitter for not helping literally everyone (a slave to all)... you might need to rethink the alienation argument for everyone who isn't a total scumbag who thinks themselves infallible gods, and might also prefer teamwork. We know this is the case given the one thing capitalism does well if nothing else is excess production. The problem is the alienation that comes with the excess production. The problem is with people who don't think themselves some kinda infallible gods. The problem is all human beings. Oh god. Don't use kant about masters of the self. He assumes we some kinda super ai computers with the will power of all the gods combined. --- capitalism doesn't shape our base desires, it manipulates and baits it. If we removed all systems, we'd still be some kinda animal. This coop impulse... does this happen in real life or is this just magical thinking without any understanding of game theory, biopsych, culture, and politics? BC last I checked, trade ended most wars.

Caplan, this is some low tear robottle to a socialist, can we advance the argument to 2021 please, nowieee

@ivandafoe5451

2 жыл бұрын

Despite your poor spelling...I couldn't agree with you more. Advocates for capitalism unsurprisingly never want to talk about the real world or the present day capitalist/corporatist disaster that is simultaneously destroying human society and the livability of our planet. It is vital for them that the debate always remains in the safer realms of the abstract, the aspirational and the mythological...the smallest whiff or jolt of reality and their house of cards collapses.

Matt Bruenig's rebuttal to Caplan's final point: "The problem with the method is that the general folk morality of people, when taken as a whole, is not libertarian. Any assessment of how people generally feel about things in the economic realm would not generate the conclusion that they generally feel like laissez-faire capitalism is correct. We know this because no society ever selects those institutions and because libertarians write books all the time about how democracy is bad precisely because people as a whole are not sympathetic to the libertarian worldview."

@kafst26

6 жыл бұрын

Democracy is bad because it bases justification on a logical fallacy.

@TheRandalf90

6 жыл бұрын

Comments on facebook produce a bad outcome, because people don't feel the cultural constraints (personal) to be polite. Democracy works in the same way: People who wouldn't dare to put their hands on someone else pockets, vote to rob people...

@toddtoddleston2553

6 жыл бұрын

Y'all seem to have missed the point here. It's Caplan who is relying on a supposed democratic ethical consensus for the justification of his libertarian property norms. Its at 44:10, and he explains it even further in his blog post on the debate. The democracy vs. autocracy debate is fun, but tangential, since it is Caplan who is relying on democratic consensus for justifying his property claims.

@toddtoddleston2553

6 жыл бұрын

Let me quote Caplan's blog for you to read it yourself. There's no way to interpret him here other than as an endorsement of basing property norms on democratic folk-morality, (since even though he acknowledges that socialists don't share the libertarian ethics of property, he discounts them due to their supposedly smaller proportion of the populace) Caplan says: "Toward the end of the debate, Bruenig asked me about initial property acquisition. How does someone come to own what they own? My live answer was subpar, so I'll try again. There are many clear-cut cases of righteous acquisition; once we understand them, we can use them to analyze fuzzier cases. What are some clear-cut cases? An individual living alone on an island grows some food, builds a house, carves a sculpture, or quarries some rock. If someone else shows up on the island, the new arrival seems morally obligated to respect that property. This isn't just 'seems to me' or 'seems to libertarians'; it's 'seems to almost everyone other than self-conscious socialist philosophers.'"

@abcw114

6 жыл бұрын

Todd Toddleston That's not democratic folk morality. That's ethical intuitionism - commonsense intuitions about moral principles. He's a good friend of Michael Huemer who authored a book on this topic and that's likely the inspiration for it. The goal here isn't to justify property on it being popularly endorsed. Rather, it's to suggest that most of us, even non-libertarians, have an intuitive sense of just property acquisition.

Even granting both sides their caricatures of the opposition, it seems I'm giving my money to one rich, powerful, and evil group or another (corporations or government officials). But only with one of those groups can I suddenly decide, on my own, to stop giving them money and not end up dead or in prison for my trouble. I think I'll stick with capitalism.

@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube

4 жыл бұрын

10/10

@seankelly378

4 жыл бұрын

Not if you have democracy , or elections to the council , like in the council of Soviets in the USSR , Government is accountable to the people, corporations aren't

@Vic2point0

4 жыл бұрын

@@seankelly378 1. I still have to give them my money until that specific law (or group of laws) changes, and 2. Corporations are nothing *but* accountable to the people. That's the whole point. Everything from sales going down to bad press can steer any given corporation around real quick. Certainly far quicker than anything government does to "fix" shit.

@seankelly378

4 жыл бұрын

@@Vic2point0 no corporations are accountable to profit and the shareholders , they don't exist to simply meet human needs , they only do that IF, it's profitable . Whereas a government controlled by the people does whats considered best for the people , not what's the most efficient way to produce profit . For example we have restaurant in Capitalism , who throw away food in bins , and lock the bins , so the homeless can't get it and to keep prices high , what's economically best ,isn't always what's socially best for the people . They don't care what you think unless it's profitable for them to appear to do so

@thome581

4 жыл бұрын

Y u assume that there has to he a government bro

All she did was spew talking points and name drop. Most of what she said was read off her paper, which does not seem to indicate she was presenting her own firmly held views

Why is she reading instead of speaking from her brain. When someone reads than she is just a robot.

Comparing free-market politics with state socialism in a binary framework may be an intellectual dead end.

@fraudron3455

4 жыл бұрын

Free-market does not exist, especially when corporations control politics in a capitalist economy. In a sense, you can call that state socialism for the billionaires which is absolutely working for them.

LMAO when the baseball question broke his brain. That was fantastic.

@williamdevonshire356

Жыл бұрын

just took him a bit to answer, but he did answer it

@kristinwatkins371

10 ай бұрын

@@williamdevonshire356 He answered it poorly though. Because what his concession does with regards to giving up his baseball to save the universe is that he admits there are instances when property can be taken away for a greater good. The question then is, why wouldn't taxing the rich or expropriation and nationalization of industry not fall under that rubric? So property is not sacrosanct as libertarians believes.

@XFT8

4 ай бұрын

​@@kristinwatkins371 You're holding him to the standards of "libertarians"? Instead of just his own standards?

@kristinwatkins371

4 ай бұрын

@@XFT8 I don't understand you're comment.

@XFT8

4 ай бұрын

​@@kristinwatkins371 you said it shows property isn't as sacrosanct as libertarians believe. Well which ones? They're not a monolith. Clearly Caplan doesn't believe property is sacrosanct.

Well her opening speech was terrible. I mean I was chiming out and thinking about my own life during it, while she sighed twice. I mean if your own opening statement is boring you, and you had time to think about it, you should probably reconsider taking another angle. I mean she works for several journals, know your audience, right? But I like her point of, how do you own something? if somebody owns multiples of billions of times more than you before you are even born, how is it possible to compete when they can dictate every stage of your life?

Okay so I still have no idea what side I'm on when it comes to this. But I will say when the girl started off taking about her hair I was thinking awh sheeit she going to be ditsy af and then she talked so fast it hurt my head. WHAT THE FUCK DO I EVEN BELIEVE GODDAMNIT

How does something come to be yours? You trade your labor for it.

@raiklaub975

3 жыл бұрын

They deliberately mix up slave and employee to make the old story of oppressing a true one. A slave can neither negotiate nor leave. An employee can. An employee can also start a business at his own. That's what freed slaves could do. Since then they were no longer slaves. The incorrect use of clear terms (here: slave) that btw are full of emotions are typical for this dishonest kind of reasoning style.

@zacnieprawisz9171

3 жыл бұрын

@@raiklaub975 you can in theory but in practise not everyone can leave their job and search for another one, or else they will die of hunger or go homeless

@raiklaub975

3 жыл бұрын

@@zacnieprawisz9171 not everybody can do everything. That's right and will always be. In any society. But that doesn't equal to be a slave. And in a free market there is lots of supply and demand also in the area of working.

@StarsAbovetheCity

3 жыл бұрын

@@zacnieprawisz9171 you sign and agree to a contract when you get hired. You agree to get paid a certain amount. No one is forcing you. No one forced you to be unprepared, or not skilled enough for a job that shit is on you

@davruck1

2 жыл бұрын

@@raiklaub975 there’s not much difference. Slaves could negotiate their freedom, so again you’re wrong

So she just read quotes/opinions of philosophers?

@definitiveentertainment1658

5 жыл бұрын

Joshua Byram She said she’s making the moral case. He’s the one whose saying “let me find a bad Marx quote! Who cares what my opponent just talked about for 10 minutes?”

Talking about success of countries due to some model you must concider outter factors investment/sanctions also size of different secrors like military / common goods or else it looks like the capitalist starts with strawman statenemt

Calitalism is for WINNERS

@republitarian484

2 жыл бұрын

Communism is for LOSERS!

Is socialism now a history class?

@ivandafoe5451

2 жыл бұрын

Only when the capitalists find it convenient to demonize its history of failures while ignoring its areas of limited success. They then attempt to dwell on capitalism's mythical past instead of critically examining its problematic present.

If we rely on people to give charity out of the kindness of there hearts, especially in a capatalist system, the coffers of charity will become as bankrupt as a capatalists morals.

@AlexSciChannel

3 жыл бұрын

Which is why we need more robust social security as in some form of a welfare state. Keep in mind this is all possible under capitalism. The problem is large companies have so many of our politicians in pocket, such cronyism doesn't allow for any progress.

@xavier4519

2 жыл бұрын

@@AlexSciChannel and how do you expect this to change, ever, under a capitalist system? benefits always get rolled back in short, medium and long term

Third Position

@13:00 can someone tell me where Mr. Kaplan gets the idea that North Korea, a dictatorial necrocracy is the most socialist country alongside Venezuela? I know he’s not one for hyperbole... lol... his whole schtick was hyperbole.

@ggt8194

5 жыл бұрын

Ok then you name a socialist country that has ever existed?

@Oners82

5 жыл бұрын

@@ggt8194 If you define socialism as it has always been understood (worker control of the means of production) then there has never been a socialist country in the history of the world. If however you accept the revised term developed during the Cold War for propaganda purposes (state control of the means of production) then North Korea is indeed socialist, alongside the USSR, Maoist China and other famous examples. However when Caplan says that Venezuela is one of the most socialist countries in the world, he is talking utter nonsense. The VAST majority of Venezuela's economy is privatised and it has a smaller public sector than many European countries, so to call this the most socialist country in the world is pure fabrication (maybe he watches too much Fox News!). Countries such as Norway and even France have bigger public sectors than Venezuela but isn't it funny how nobody calls them socialist! I mean this guy literally said that Venezuela is jointly the most socialist country in the world, but Sweden is only slightly less socialist than the US. WTF?! Sweden's public sector employs 29% of the population whereas Venezuela's employs only 18%, and to this guy Sweden is capitalist but Venezuela is the most socialist country on the planet??? He's nuts! But hey, he is a libertarian so we can't expect too much truth out of him!

@saikatmitra2585

4 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 according to the ILO sweden employs 25% in public sector where as Venezuela employs 29% but this has no relevance to whether a country is socialist or capitalist. Sweden has a frée market with a high tax based system much like the other Scandinavian countries it infact did kind of enforced some socialist policies during the 50 or 60s, i am not too sure about that, this resulted in the drop in economy and overall wealth in the country to such extent that it was on the verge of going bankrupt sweden then againg opted for a free market which pulled back its economy so basically its the economic structure that defines a country whether its capitalist or socialist. The means of production in Venezuela is controlled by the govt. Which is the core philosophy of socialism. I think the guy is quite right to point out that Venezuela is one of the most socialist countries in the world.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

@@saikatmitra2585 Of course it has relevance. If a country's economy is dominated by the private sector (as it is in Venezuela) then to call it socialist is completely idiotic. Any economy dominated by the private sector is by definition NOT SOCIALIST. Your claims about Sweden are complete nonsense as well - its economy was soaring in the 50's and it has never enforced socialist policies. It is a mixed economy - it is not and never has been socialist. "The means of production in Venezuela is controlled by the govt" WRONG. Even according to the figures that YOU presented only 29% of employees work for the public sector meaning that 71% work for the PRIVATE sector. And since you are clearly retarded, I obviously need to explain to you that the private sector is by definition NOT state owned. "I think the guy is quite right to point out that Venezuela is one of the most socialist countries in the world." *EPIC FACEPALM* 71% of employees work in the private sector according to YOUR figures and yet you genuinely have the stupidity to still claim that the state owns the means of production??? You my friend are a special kind of stupid!

@saikatmitra2585

4 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 dude dont just blabber stupid shit out do you even know what happend in Venezuela. The govt. Started printing money in order to tackle poverty, which caused inflation, the private sector had to raise the price of their product to tackle the huge inflation, after that slowly most of their businesses were confiscated by the govt. And run by beauracrats they thought ownig these businesses as public sector undertakings would allow them to control the price of the products so that it could reach the poor. These are purely welfare based policy which only takes effect in socialism. Go and study economics first dumb fuck. Those figures that i mentions were as of 2015.

Can there be subtitles for whenever Elizabeth talks? I don't speak "college liberal nonsense" very well and it's extremely hard to follow her. From what little I did understand she seemed to tell the audience that the only reason why they are dressed in suits is because society tells them they have too. She also said Sweden is "democratic socialist" which they aren't. And she continued to focus on companies marketing to people as evil. I constantly see advertisements for things, but if I don't want them I don't buy them. If I do decide to buy a shirt for $20 it's because I feel the shirt is worth more to me than the $20. So I get a shirt while the seller gains $20. It's a free and open transaction between 2 parties. It's as free as you can be.

Caplan had some good points, and all were well-intentioned, but I can’t help but feel a lot of it was spent fearmongering about authoritarianism. Similarly with the fries example- of course you’d still want the fries in a socialist society, eating and enjoying food is one of life’s necessities and greatest pleasures. The difference is when you go to get your fries and you’re blasted with advertising for foods, toys, little deals priced in certain ways to tempt you as much as possible- and all the waste that comes from unused food. Now one could retort and say it’s the fault of legislation that waste is so high, but it’s just not true. Communal ownership and sharing of food would totally eradicate hunger overnight, same with homelessness if hotels for example were repurposed as government housing. Drug abuse, education etc would all still be issues there, but it becomes significantly easier to deal with these issues when people are raised in a culture that really CARES and is happy to give away whatever is surplus. A lot of prejudices towards socialism or communal living arise by virtue of our minds already being so consumer programmed and class-lensed.

@soulfuzz368

3 жыл бұрын

Sharing! Damn why didn’t we think of this before

@davruck1

2 жыл бұрын

The whites man told you tribal living was “primitive” when it was actually more advanced. Large societies lead to waste and inequality.

No economy is one or the other, they are called mixed market economies. See my post.

Wake me up when Bryan starts again...

Her points are just... Painfully and obviously... Oblivious to any logic

Sweden is a small country but thanks to the usa paying for the military power that they dont have to pay tax money on it.

@MicahErfan

3 жыл бұрын

That’s a myth

her intro was very long

Bruh wtf is this audio

Where does one draw the line regarding what is private property? "If my baseball is required to save the universe, then it [private property] is not absolute." It's telling that he can say that while defending the billions of dollars people hold in wealth in a world where people starve and go unhoused--not to mention how a handful of property owners degrade the streams, air, oceans, and soil of the world they share with others, the only world we can all call home. But then we have his bumbling at 43:49 which is a glimpse into the melting brains of him and all those like him. Caplan is a morally bankrupt and depraved thinker.

A journalist vs Bcaps? On economics?! Preparing myself for a bloodbath.

@lilwage6910

6 жыл бұрын

I feel like Bruenig explained herself very well and had an opportunity to showcase ideas that are seldom considered, and Caplan came off as kind of stuttery and nervous, and presented no argument that everyone didn't already know.

@dustinseth1

6 жыл бұрын

Lil Wage He’s always stuttery, that’s just how he talks. You’re right that many are aware of the points he made, because they’re correct. Which is why advocacy of socialism is so mind-boggling to me. Breunig was more articulate than expected, but the content had no argumentative strength. Squaring the circle of socialism relies on either bizarre, counter-intuitive views of property, justice, and responsibility, or a flat-out denial of self-ownership. That’s just philosophically. Economically, socialists never address the knowledge or calculation problems, but she’s not an economist so I wouldn’t expect her to. That and there is no answer to them.

@paullap88

6 жыл бұрын

--"You’re right that many are aware of the points he made, because they’re correct" There is no necessary correlation between the widespread awareness of an idea and the correctness thereof. Caplan himself even alludes to this point, though his formulation is more rigid, myopic, by stating at 41:34 ..."what's popular is bad." That some argument or idea is popular doesn't mean said argument or idea is correct. --"Breunig was more articulate than expected, but the content had no argumentative strength. Squaring the circle of socialism relies on either bizarre, counter-intuitive views of property, justice, and responsibility, or a flat-out denial of self-ownership." That those conceptions are necessary components of your existing ideology doesn't mean they are intuitive ideas. Her ideas are only "counter-intuitive" relative to your ideology that is definitionally contrary to Bruenig's political philosophy. So you've made a non-argument, or an argument with no content whatsoever. You effectively said that her arguments had no strength because you don't agree with them/because her ideas are inconsistent with your ideology. --"...Economically, socialists never address the knowledge or calculation problems, but she’s not an economist..." Caplan has addressed this... "Ever since Mises, Austrians have overused the economic calculation argument. In the absence of detailed empirical evidence showing that this particular problem is the most important one...current events do nothing to show that economic calculation was the insuperable difficulty of socialist economies. There is no natural experiment of a socialist economy that suffered solely from its lack of economic calculation. Thus, economic history as well as pure economic theory fails to establish that the economic calculation problem was a severe challenge for socialism..."-Bryan Caplan, Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm Also, you're wrong. Socialists have addressed the tired economic calculation problem... "Mises' argument only applies to a command economy, where a central decision-making body, directs production of first-order goods, and in which there is no markets for those first order goods. Mises assumes that "socialism" implies a central authority that directs production of first order goods, and which has no markets in first order goods, and therefore no prices in first order goods.. However, this is not the "socialism" of all socialism, whose bottom claim is for workers to have autonomous control of their own means of production; this claim of socialism is perhaps best reflected in decentralized worker syndicates, where workers self-manage their own production processes. Therefore, Mises' assumptions do not encompass the conditions of all socialists, therefore Mises' conclusions are irrelevant for socialism in general, only particular centralized command-economy variants of "socialism"...."-Pyotr Malatesta facebook.com/notes/adam-b%C3%B6mb/debunking-the-economic-calculation-myth/10152236523489741/

@thorondor4012

6 жыл бұрын

dustinseth1 yup. The result was to be expected. All she did was name drop philosophers.

@dustinseth1

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, I did not make an argument. I was just making a statement. I stand by it, but it was not an argument. As far as what's counter-intuitive, sure it is/can be different person to person based on ideology/perspective. No way around that I guess, but nonetheless I feel comfortable calling her conception of the will as something other than the plain understanding bizarre. I was aware of Caplan's "not an Austrian economist" paper, but haven't read it yet. Though I've heard him discuss it a bit. As far as these "decentralizeed worker-syndicates" I can't confess to knowing anything about it so I can't really comment. I will say that it's hard to conceptualize how a group could intelligibly be said to "own" or "manage," since the individual is the only unit that has those capacities as far as I can tell. But I'll check that link and see what it says.

What if the whole issue why this debate between capitalism and socialism never ends is we fixate on an ideology that we somehow need freedom. Isn't after all the reason we participate in a society is so that we would make a better life than what we would have if we were to do it alone? Consequently, shouldn't freedom just be a variable and the outcome becomes the standards of living of the citizens?

breunig’s opening speech is impressive for its original, yet solid framing of socialism vs capitalism. She eclipsed the pro-capitalist argument by appealing to reason.

This women is very smart, but she needs to know her audience. A crowd of pro-capitalist people will not be familiar with her ideas. She needs to start with basics. The claim that "you work hard to make your boss rich" is more accessible than a Marx quote saying the same thing with sixteen letter words

@sybo59

4 жыл бұрын

Asher Scott But how could she get to me, someone who has read Das Capital and is more certain than ever that Marx is evil?

An expert in economics/social scientist versus an opinion columnist. Should tell you all you need to know.

I would say most things that people own don't cause others to thirst to death... I would say If I change the water and make it cleaner or use the current to make electricity I should own it! Sure If I own my bottle water that prevents you from having my bottle water... but If I can say you can prevent me from damning all the water, can you fucking let me have my bottled water? There has to be a line drawn between communism where no one gets anything vs one person owning all the fucking air we breathe... Yes, we are not going to agree on that line... it's totally subjective! You can't say let them eat cake or just like in France the many will kill the few... but you have your own desires that are best for you and not the collective......................... So what do we do? I think the only way to live in peace with people who draw the line in a different place in to move the power from the federal level down to the state or city level...... It's harder for Crony Capitalism if the power is local and not to mention is you want to change the way things are run, there is a smaller group of people you have to convince. If you can't convince them... there are more choices of places to live. The state where the most people like the line placement will see more people and if others want to also succeed they have to change their line for more success. The only reason anyone would not like this idea is that I can't have pure capitalism and you can't have pure socialism. Obviously, the Federal Government would still exist just in a different way... FBI for interstate criminals, army for protection, maybe global warming, and roads. Idk but if an issue is 50/50 or even 75/25 on an issue why the fuck do we have it on a federal level? 25-50 % of the population pissed on an issue is way too much! Shit 5% of 300 million is still millions......

she remarks about " escaping to academia where there's little money" as though her chosen profession should result in the same pay as an open heart surgeon's , for example . she observes that capitalism does require a "muscular" government strong enough to enforce things like anti trust laws , but is completely blind to the escalating levels of government intervention required to make everyone "equal" in outcomes when biology clearly makes us different/unequal in every way.

@Hunterchuck

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah i also don't like equality. Imagine if my friend Bob were to work for a company and got paid the same amount of money for doing more work than others. That is stupid isn't it? That's why my friend Bob joined a socialist company called a 'worker coop' and he finally gets paid for work he does. Before, he was told what to do, what to wear, how much his owner wanted to pay him (which was a wage equal to the others). This crazy place he worked at basically controlled his life. Now he's working alongside others in a more democratically run place where the people who bring success get to keep that success. No longer does Bob have to give the fruits of his labor to that 'owner' anymore. He owns his own life now and i'm very proud of Bob!

@pennyxiao7431

4 жыл бұрын

bademoxy lol I wonder how did she got into oxford and Washington post.