I was a socialist too , but then i grew up

@maartenlabrie6628

4 жыл бұрын

so mature

@davidthereasonable

4 жыл бұрын

@@maartenlabrie6628 that's what happens when you grow up!

@Pseudify

4 жыл бұрын

Like so many others!

@johnscanlan9335

4 жыл бұрын

Sadly that's a very rare experience for most socialists!!!

@petermaquine8173

3 жыл бұрын

@@maartenlabrie6628 Collectivism is an old idea, pre-date civilization, not a new one

It depends on what you want. If cultural and economic decline, and millions of deaths are your goal, socialism is the way to do it.

Spoiler: It's 50 min of "It doesn't"!

@roastmaster2000

3 жыл бұрын

Doesn't take a super genius to work out that its click bait.

@petermaquine8173

3 жыл бұрын

@@roastmaster2000 Deprogramming is the word. Don't fear.

@roastmaster2000

3 жыл бұрын

@@petermaquine8173 I'm all for Stephen Hicks. I just thought he was going to do a devil's advocate run.

@petermaquine8173

3 жыл бұрын

@@roastmaster2000 Yes, he did. For that line of mine, I was just making some fun of the socialists being disappointed, because of the title. ;)

These days people “respect” a person that has the power to give away lots of other peoples money. Something seriously wrong with that.

@Pseudify

4 жыл бұрын

And the worthy today are those who are supposedly being oppressed by some imaginary boogie man.

Dr. Hicks is literally one of the best philosophers of our time, imo. He's so clear and easy to understand. .his books have taught me massive amounts. Fvck 👍

Is there a video recording of this so we can see the slides that he is referring to?

I don’t care if socialism “works” or not. It fundamentally undermines the notion of the individual and steps on many rights of such. Capitalism is about responsibility and respecting everyone’s individual rights and socialism is about forced generosity through stepping on those rights.

"Where socialism works" would be a real short video.

As far as economics vs philosophy courses influencing students differently (7:10) it’s not clear if the already biased students are self-selecting into those disciplines.

@nickwilliamson6726

3 жыл бұрын

Post modernism is taught at all levels of academia is the answer to your question.

@Pseudify

3 жыл бұрын

Nick Williamson. Well I think you would be hard pressed to make that argument in the STEM fields. But even if you could there’s no question that it is much more emphasized in the humanities and social sciences than other disciplines.

Has to be the best one he's ever given.

Anyone know the source he sites at 5:30?

Maybe this should be titled “Why theistic socialism works and atheistic socialism is always a disaster.”

The sound-visualizer makes the speaker seem far more nervous

The story of Gyges (40:39) of course has many real world manifestations. What do we all do in the privacy of our homes or the privacy of our minds that we would be utterly horrified if it were to become widely known? Perhaps even in who we vote for and why ...

Dr. Peterson 🌠

You can't give it away if you haven't made it.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT RE: THE BRAN CEREAL MATH QUESTION: Just checking: the correct answer was 70%, per the bran question, right? If I messed this up, I will be so frustrated with myself! 😆

@mattstapleton9584

3 жыл бұрын

Correct

@performancetesting1

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattstapleton9584 Thanks, Matt! It wasn't as intuitive as I would have thought, but my drawing a picture of the concept revealed to me what was actually going on more obviously.

In every story, there are two sides of the coin! Which is right and which is wrong?

We can't see the diagrams!!!!

Socialism is just like Fallout 76... "iT jUst WoRKs" :D

@hariseldon3786

4 жыл бұрын

Oh man... why did you mention Fallout 76... Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

@ged-4138

3 жыл бұрын

Uh... Nobody said that Fallout 76 "Just works". Todd Howard actually said that "sometimes it DOESN'T JUST WORK". But socialists always clamour that socialism works and then through mental gymnastics convince themselves that USSR "WaSN't ReAl SocIALism!"

@jaspermcminnis5538

2 жыл бұрын

16 TIMES THE DEATH RATE!!

What a wonderful lecture. I'm just a little concerned socialists will watch it and conclude we should be regulating sex

It works everywhere except for here on earth. "Those who can do, those who can't teach". Share you enlightenment with the poor people in Venezuela or Cuba. A live stream of that would be far more entertaining.

The title is grossly misleading.

Good talk. It's really refreshing to imagine socialists as normal humans with naive moral ideas and not screeching murderous mob they appear when they implement their utopia. I mean really, if you start discussion from values and not politics you can probably in private convince people that pursuing their noble ideology will lead to disasters.

@psychcowboy1

3 жыл бұрын

See my questions above, and offer some answers if you want.

Even in socialism there's competition but it's a healthy and productive competition. There's also monopoly of the state with some control if there's a fair and just society in a democratic socialist system.

Still we have thousands of people rooting for socialist changes in their countries. I just dont get it, how

@paddygoes3746

4 жыл бұрын

It´s really simple. Most socialists live on public money - in the public services, health, academia, government, NGOs, unions, etc. Socialists like to grow government so public services are a block vote. The rest are the kids which the universities miseducate and the financially comfortable, who vote left out of guilt. Then there is the rest of us, who pay for it.

Atlas Society - Do you have to add your stupid flickering line to your podcasts, it's most annoying, distracting and childish. Disgrace on you!

BS. Where is socialism working?

At 40:00 'Can these people function in the high tech world? No. They are babes in the woods. What we need is people like my students and people like us who know that we are smarter than the average person.' [Chuckle. Hicks also calls Jordan Peterson smart, although by even a superficial analysis Peterson is a joke, a guy whimpering on stage that we are remarkable creatures who can get out of bed and do things.] Here are some open questions for Hicks fans: 1. Who are these socialists Hicks is describing, and what is his definition of socialism? 2. Who are these post modernists he defines, anyone fitting his description? 3. Has Hicks ever proposed a solution to anything? Here is my hypothesis. Conservatives use socialism as a label. It is an easy way to build up hatred and angst. Sort of the same way Peterson uses the term tyrannical patriarchy and Hicks uses the term post modernism. Their underlying message is that conservatives are the good smart ones and liberals are the dumb, bad, post modern Lefties. This is a valid question though. Are Hicks/Peterson and their fans the smart ones, or could any smart liberal or STEM person rip Hicks or Peterson into tiny pieces in a debate? The closest thing to either of them debating a smart liberal is probably Peterson in the GQ interview. He made a fool of himself in that interview, calling her foolish, laughing at her, telling her she was wrong when she was right; generally an arrogant prick from start to finish. His fans of course don't see that, and claim that he destroyed her. Not even close. But anyway, if anyone wants to offer up answers to my three questions above, please do.

Let's randomly check in at like 18:00. 'There are value judgments, Apple had 85 billion profit off-shore revenue to evade their tax liability, students were outraged with poorly articulated arguments, if Apple earns we should get a share of it, a collectivistic notion, Apple is not fulfilling its duty, Apple earned this money, that is alien to students.' [Let's unpack this, students wanted Apple to pay taxes on their profits, and this is alien and poorly articulated to Hicks? What is Hicks saying? Mega billionaire companies should be able to hide their profits from tax liability? Hicks says he is not a conservative. Looks like he is to me.] 'Bill Gates has given away billions to charity, people admire that, that is an ethical value judgment, the students respect his creations as an inventor and entrepreneur, but they admire his philanthropy.' [So is Hicks confused here? As another example, if Bezos cut his salary back to say $500,000/year so he could raise the salary of his entry level employees he would be admired for that, same way that Gates is admired for charity. Basically Stephen, we don't admire greed, why should we? We do admire caring for others. I hope that helps. I am not sure if Stephen is rejecting the value of making value judgments, but that is what it comes off as; either that or some confusion as to why people respect giving of yourself to the less fortunate. Off hand I would rate Hicks as a proponent of selfishness.]

@SeekingNamelessly

3 жыл бұрын

Why not be selfish? You have to look out for #1, and that's you. It gets tricky when drawing the line that defines what's adequate

@psychcowboy1

3 жыл бұрын

@@SeekingNamelessly I think Hicks says be good and decent, so I guess you disagree with him.

@SeekingNamelessly

3 жыл бұрын

Nope. Just synthesizing what he's saying. Maybe you should try. I'd rather teach you to fish than give you free fish

@psychcowboy1

3 жыл бұрын

@@SeekingNamelessly How do you synthesize good and decent to selfish? Maybe Hicks disagrees with himself. He says be good and decent but appears to support greedy billionaires.

@ZENOBlAmusic

11 ай бұрын

Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are very bad examples, they have both received government handouts, that is completely against free market system. But even so the idea is that these two individuals do create many jobs for other people. That is something that is more valuable to society then hand outs.

At around 7:30 Hicks implies that he understands economics. Ok Stephen, what is an economic solution to regulating greed? The average American regardless of party thinks the ideal income equity gap should be close to 10x, although it is now close to 350x, up from about 20x before the Reagan era tax cuts to the wealthy. What do you think the ideal is, and how do we get there? 'We are interested in a freedom of religion and free love life, sex...' [Apparently Hicks is trying to link freedom of speech, religion, sex to support his theory that greed should not be regulated. Pretty wimpy argument. We want free speech etc because that makes a better society, we don't want the government regulating personal choice. The difference that Hicks is apparently trying to conceal from his gullible Atlas fan base is that greed has collateral damage to others; free speech and religion is personal choice, no collateral impact on others. Greed however rests on the wealthy controlling and compressing the lives of others via high rents and low wages. Cheap trick, but smart people see through it. But later in the lecture Hicks labels Atlas and their fans as the smart ones? Whoops.]

@templewashington7193

3 жыл бұрын

Your question is based on biased and wrong premises that beg the question. Namely that greed is immoral/bad and that income (or wealth) inequality is something that needs to be addressed, limited, regulated or diminished. The rebuttal to your premises is extensively proven by Ayn Rand. Do your homework and stop preaching down to others that want to improve the lives of themselves and their family. Socialism and collectivism are typical or the systems based that sanction initiation of force justified on envy, on greed for the unearned. Capitalism (free markets) is voluntary exchange based on what one earns or produces, not steals through state forced theft.

@jerrygreene1493

3 жыл бұрын

@@templewashington7193 Do my homework? On what? Check the Scientific American article 'Income Inequity it is worse than you think'. 50 years ago the income gap was 20x, now it is 350x, most Americans want it closer to 10x. I am preaching down to people that want to improve their lives? Where the heck did you get that from? Here is one of my plans. List the benefit and harm to the mental and economic health of the nation: INCOME EQUITY: The most common political solution to the struggling poor in the US is raise the minimum wage. This has the flaw of harming some small businesses and increasing inflation. It is also a temporary solution. Here is my solution, described in detail at jgreene4prez2020 on FB. Guaranteed federal housing program; you work 3 years at any job and you qualify to buy something, with a mortgage at 30% of your income. This is funded by a 70% marginal tax rate above $500,000 per year including capital gains. Get the working poor out from under the thumb of wealthy investors.

@templewashington7193

3 жыл бұрын

@@jerrygreene1493 So, your solution is to enslave the taxpayers with servitude (aka slavery of some percentile) to redistribute 70% or 90% or whatever to others , to some favored group(s). That's a Marxist (collectivist-totalitarian) premise -that government's purpose is to favor some men or class at the expense of another, rather than treat all men equally, without favor or disfavor. The progressive income tax (the favorite tool of the statist collectivists) is based on the principle that all men and their property all belong to the state - there are only subjects but not free people. Ownership of men is called slavery. Just because it may be less than 100% ownership or taxation doesn't;t change the nature of the tyranny.

@jerrygreene1493

3 жыл бұрын

@@templewashington7193 Don't be an ideologue. Address the truth even if it goes against your agenda. I repeat my question; List the positive benefits to the mental and economic health of the nation from my 'work three years to own, funded by 70% marginal tax including capital gains'.

@templewashington7193

3 жыл бұрын

@@jerrygreene1493 You confuse the difference between being principled versus an ideologue. Your collectivist and statist agenda is based on the premise that the state, tribe, collective or group owns the individual, who then is the property of that group. They can tax him at whatever rate they deem, force him to sacrifice his labor, property and income for others. Not by his voluntary choice but as the leader or fuhrer of the collective decides. This is tyranny and a form of slavery. Socialism is just a form of stealing from others, based on envy. It's the majority or stronger group taking advantage (exploiting) the minority or weak. It's immoral (violates individual rights) , impractical (doesn't 'work') and leads to divisions and resentment. It produces quite negative mental consequences - the victim who is punished and robbed is resentful at this injustice, while the 'beneficiary' gains something they did not earn. If it were all voluntary on everyone's choice, then you might have a commune, but that's not what you're talking about. Mis-using the power of the state to use force to make some individuals sacrifice for the benefit of others is neither voluntary nor just.

Is Hicks addressing some form of socialism that is under consideration in the US? According to Hicks, you have two choices, be moral and fail or be capitalist and succeed. Hicks always uses the label Socialism, but he never seems to identify what it is. This is convenient for him; if you just put a scary label on it, it makes it easier to attack. It is a form of straw man argument. 'The freedom movement is different from the other side.' [Is the other side to freedom socialism Stephen? You are a professor right? So why don't you demonstrate the basic academic standard of at least defining rather than just labeling your antagonist?] 'We are interested in free inquiry, free love life. People don't want the government regulating love life, or religion, art. People however buy into anti libertarian arguments about money.' Given his low academic standard on the use of labels as opposed to descriptions, and the apparent inability to grasp the nuances in the gray areas between complete socialism and totally unregulated greed, I don't think I would rate Hicks as very smart. He seems befuddled on the libertarian freedom bent concerning matters of free choice [sex, religion, art], but the non-libertarian bent on issues of income inequity. I can help you out on this Stephen. Sex/Religion/Art are personal choice; your choice and actions does not effect others. Greed and complete free market however results in your actions affecting others. With unregulated greed, most people stack up near the bottom, their financial stability and choice at the mercy of wealthy landlords and business owners, who profit off of low wages and high rents. So my two pieces of advice, to be more academically credible anyway; 1. Define your antagonist, don't just label it. 2. Recognize the difference between issues of complete personal choice, with no collateral effect on others, and capitalism and unregulated greed, where there clearly is collateral impact on others. I hope that helps so you are more fully informed or prepared for your next lecture. You are welcome.

@thanoskoutroumbas356

3 жыл бұрын

Did you really hear this video?

@psychcowboy1

3 жыл бұрын

@@thanoskoutroumbas356 Here is a snip from Socialism Impractical Immoral video: Let's punch in again at around 10:00: 'Socialism compels people to believe and to act and to belong to certain social organizations whether they chose to or not.' 'Socialism is immoral and impractical.' 'People's understanding of socialism varies from a little to a lot, I cut young people a lot of slack, older people deserve less sympathy, I am harsh on intellectuals, to know the politics, the bar is higher...' [Ok let's apply Hicks standard that old intellectuals deserve no sympathy or excuse. Hicks is an older intellectual, but he is attacking this unspecified immoral movement that compels people to believe and act and belong to approved organizations. I guess he can convince this college student, or anyone else with massive amounts of gullibility. Anyone remotely paying attention however offers up this simple question; Who precisely Stephen is advocating for compelled belief, action, and obligatory membership in approved organizations? Should I excuse Hicks for being effectively a dictionary definition of Straw Man? According to his own standards, No. Stephen 'straw man' Hicks.]

@psychcowboy1

3 жыл бұрын

@@thanoskoutroumbas356 Find any example of Hicks being smart in this video; some theory based upon actual evidence.

@bcshu2

3 жыл бұрын

The Molecule FX boulder sounds awful lot like your own personal unfalsifilable statement. But got em with that one.

@bcshu2

3 жыл бұрын

The Molecule FX boulder unregulated greed ... good thing there are forces that do regulate that. Some merely are more productive.

Let's check in at about 10:00. 'If you take the arguments for government regulation of the economy, and apply them to sex, who get to have sex, and regulate the dating argument, students are horrified, we can date who we want. Should we have state regulation of religion, no, people can believe what they want. People can enjoy the art they want. We have won all the debates in those areas. What we do really well, how we like to argue, rich and poor, life expectancy, the case for freedom is really good, all the rich countries are the freest...' [Apparently Hicks argument is that if you are for freedom in religion, dating, sex; but you are for regulating greed and economic equity, you are a hypocrite. Pretty wimpy comparison Stephen.]

@benbell9170

3 жыл бұрын

Are you for regulating greed in dating and equity in sex?

@jerrygreene1493

3 жыл бұрын

@@benbell9170 Where did you get that from that I want to regulate sex and dating? Here is my idea to regulate greed. List the benefits to the economic and mental health of the nation. INCOME EQUITY: The most common political solution to the struggling poor in the US is raise the minimum wage. This has the flaw of harming some small businesses and increasing inflation. It is also a temporary solution. Here is my solution, described in detail at jgreene4prez2020 on FB. Guaranteed federal housing program; you work 3 years at any job and you qualify to buy something, with a mortgage at 30% of your income. This is funded by a 70% marginal tax rate above $500,000 per year including capital gains. Get the working poor out from under the thumb of wealthy investors.

@petermaquine8173

3 жыл бұрын

@@jerrygreene1493 Equity is not equality, at the end of the day, equity leads to have the same outcome, and that implies from the beginning the be less fair to some, just because of natural abilities, and the state will be the system that manage that. Goodbye liberties

@jerrygreene1493

3 жыл бұрын

@@petermaquine8173 So equity is not equality but equity leads to equality? You lost me. What is your solution to regulating greed? Here is mine, list the positive benefits to the mental and economic health of the nation: INCOME EQUITY: The most common political solution to the struggling poor in the US is raise the minimum wage. This has the flaw of harming some small businesses and increasing inflation. It is also a temporary solution. Here is my solution, described in detail at jgreene4prez2020 on FB. Guaranteed federal housing program; you work 3 years at any job and you qualify to buy something, with a mortgage at 30% of your income. This is funded by a 70% marginal tax rate above $500,000 per year including capital gains. Get the working poor out from under the thumb of wealthy investors.

@petermaquine8173

3 жыл бұрын

@@jerrygreene1493 The meaning of a composed word is not the meaning of the words that compose it. You ended yourself the conversation. Regarding greed. There are far more basic mechanisms to deal with, the chain food for example and learn controlled behaviors are two differents two example. But that you choose greed shows that you focus on human nature see the bad in it and thing that you can fix it. You can't fix life, you can enhance it by focusing on the good in people, but you will never get rid of the bad. People who think like you usually do not accept that there are natural laws and man made-laws. They want to engineer the society and are authoritarian. Good day to you.

I have heard many of his videos and my conclusion is: that even though I do agree with him in some of his criticism of postmodernism, I also find him very confused on the real nature of concepts like socialism, the philosophical works of Nietzsche and other contemporary philosophers. In general, Hicks is fighting any criticism of the Western intellectual establishment and by doing so he becomes another defender of the status quo.

@jerrygreene1493

3 жыл бұрын

Hicks laments a lot about Socialism, but never identifies any. According to Hicks 'Socialism wants to control your mind, your actions, your church, your love life, your organizations.' If I was going to make such a bold allegation, I would have the integrity to identify who I was talking about.

@051963mf

3 жыл бұрын

jerry greene good point.

What about "actually existing capitalism"? Its main feature is profits over people. Market crashes are periodic and expected. Wars over resources are periodic and expected. Socialism works in the north of Spain and Italy.

@ZENOBlAmusic

11 ай бұрын

No country in the world is 100% Capitalistic. All countries are a mixture of social concepts and free market concepts. By definition full capitalism means, 100% free market systems without any outside intervention from government. All of the so-called western countries have a lot of intervention from the government on their markets. When government subsidises banks and big corporations that is the very antithesis of "capitalism" or free markets. When companies pays taxes to the government that is against the free market system or minimum wages. Welfare benefits, free education, national health systems, paying taxes and licenses, all of these inventions are socialist. Any actions takes by the government for the collective is a socialist action. Now I am not saying that it is wrong to take some of these actions. But it should be understood that there is almost no "capitalistic" or free market enterprises left within the economy of most counties. The current market or economic system for most of the known world, has very little to do with "free market systems". The Milton Freedman economic model that is used in most parts of the worlds, was invented to usher in more socialist ideals. If the markets are unstable at the moment, it is due to government intervention. Free markets is the complete opposite of government intervention. Free market simply means free trading without any intervention. Northern Spain and Italy are not explicitly socialist countries. Watch Puplic vs Private - The Historical Definition of Socialism and Capitalism from TIKhistory.

Let's check in at like 35:00: 'There is injustice, corruption is bad, justice is good, that is a moral judgment, we want a fair system, that has to be socialism. People sent her brain puzzles, socialists like this, you have some bran in a bowl, one cup 100%, one cup 40%, three people had wrong answers. These people vote. What does this imply? Can these people function freely, no. People like us are smarter...' [So some anecdote about three people getting a math volume problem wrong proves that Hicks, Atlas, and his fans are smart? Whah? Hicks also calls Peterson smart. You seriously cannot make this stuff up. Hicks delivers some of the most passive aggressive moth eaten straw man arguments of anyone on the public stage right now -- socialists are stupid people who don't get percent volume problems? Let's sift this idea through some moldy cheesecloth and see if it remains.] Let's continue: 'Socialism is driven by benevolence for incompetent people, there was a lonely shepherd boy who finds a ring that makes him invisible, he started stealing stuff, power gives you freedom, we know what people want, we need control over power, if we want what is best, people have to be protected from themselves. There was this student who went to Africa, she wants moral repentance for guilt, privileged life, make a moral choice, as you become aware, things are bad in other places, how can I get rid of my guilt, I can help them. These arguments are convincing people. We respect freedom and happiness, the greatest happiness for the greatest number, prosperity not poverty, helping the poor, sexual and racial equality and peace, these are not socialist. Their values, our values, some socialists are ignorant and depraved, they over prioritize, the heart and soul of our strategy...' [Hicks is a professor right, self claimed intellectual, part of the group of smart people who know how to divide all bran and part bran? How the heck does a shepherd finding an inviso-ring, or a person joining the peace corps somehow provide osmosis that turns Hicks and Atlas into smart people who want freedom and happiness and prosperity? And how does any of this lend credence to the existence of some unidentified socialists who don't want happiness and prosperity and peace and freedom but love incompetence? Even a superficial analysis quickly uncovers Hicks and Atlas as purveyors of the weakest and most transparent of arguments out there. What a joke. Hicks is at least capable of dividing the bad bran (socialism/postmodernism) from the good bran (capitalism/modernism). However the nuances of a blend of free market and regulation of greed and socialists who actually believe in reality and evidence, seem to go right over his head. He gets black and white over simplification, like Peterson's 'agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace' and 'the Left don't know about lobsters', however I think the mix of 100% and 40% bran as a nuance of bran types, figuratively, would fly right over Hicks head also, same for his fans probably.]

Hicks got debunked so hard about his views on philosophers like Kant, Hegel and also about Postmodernism, I wouldn‘t trust him to spell his own name correctly. What a disgrace for an academic. 😑

@petermaquine8173

3 жыл бұрын

Debunked, socialist definition. Word used to avoid to present any arguments while trying to keep the moral high ground.

@thenicolascage4355

3 жыл бұрын

@@petermaquine8173 wtf are you babbling about, you ideological mouth piece of the anti-sjw narrativ? 🤨 Have look for yourself you idiot.

@thenicolascage4355

3 жыл бұрын

@@petermaquine8173 kzread.info/dash/bejne/d3yo2LaAkbPgdpc.html

@petermaquine8173

3 жыл бұрын

@@thenicolascage4355 Why should I look at that video? explain yourself, that's the point

@thenicolascage4355

3 жыл бұрын

@@petermaquine8173 Did you just ask me, why you should watch a video, which totally proves Hicks being an absolut embarrassment of an academic? Oh boy ... 😑

Is Denmark a failed state? This whole talk is absurd, and utterly dishonest.

Let's check out Hicks at about 30:00. 'According to AOC socialism guarantees a basic level of dignity, dignity is a value, dignity should be given to them, there should be guarantees, she is adverse to risk, for us life is about risk, we think dignity has to be earned, risk has to be embraced, AOC argues that risk should be taken out of the equation.' [Hicks is an academic right? Just a tip Stephen, allegations are one thing, evidence is another. Can we see a quote from AOC stating that dignity should be given to people and risk shouldn't be a thing? I would rank AOC as probably the easiest target that Hicks could take aim at. More integrity would be to steel man current socialist ideas in the US.] I also think this wimpy black and white of socialism vs. capitalism does not rise to an academic standard either. And I am curious, what exactly does Hicks see as the ideal economic standard or policy. No regulation of greed, some regulation of greed? Maybe in some lecture he will move away from the black and white over simplifications and actually start describing an ideal economy in his view.

@petermaquine8173

3 жыл бұрын

Seriously, you need our help to find the source? Dignity is part of her plate-form here is one: www.businessinsider.fr/us/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-explains-what-democratic-socialism-means-2019-3 "Ocasio-Cortez, who is still paying off her student loans, also believes in tuition-free public colleges and universities. Her platform includes guaranteeing Americans a living wage that maintains "basic levels of dignity so that no person in America is too poor to live," Ocasio-Cortez said. "That's what democratic socialism means in 2018, and not this kind of McCarthyism Red Scare of a past era.” Now you miss the point, but Hicks should have recall it. Risk avert goes back to Rousseau with his social dilemma the Stag hunt (risk bound), which opposes another social dilemma the prisoner dilemma (outcome bound). Behind the risk avert is the control of randomness and that's what the state provides. However people become dependent of a system. That's where our definition of what it means to be human differs.

Spoiler: It "works"... for the Nomenklatura/New Class, and s***s for everyone else