Ayn Rand Fan Debates ‘Objectivism’ With Sam

[@Crylar44]

- If you were stuck on an island but you got to bring one thing, what would it be? - I would bring an employer, I would be better off with someone taking the exploits of my labor. Brilliant take dude.

[@Saltybuher]

Or he recognises that on a desert island on his own without a mind that can create and innovate - he sees his talents elsewhere - then he would need such guidance. He will be sat in a nice warm dry hut and fishing nicely every day and building a society that is not brutish but built on trade. The person on their own if they are NOT a creator will not enhance their situation to that existence and will die in squalor but hey he was free right? Free to suffer.

[@Crylar44]

​@@Saltybuher Trade proceeds employment, capitalisms and even serfdom. Your argument could just as well be made for him having a King to Rule over him on the island. Now you could argue that what he want is a Leader, and of course he might be of the faculties that he could gain a great deal from having someone who could coordinate their labor, but that is not what Employer means.

[@Crylar44]

@@ryankuchinskas Not an employer. An employer would own all fish you catch. You know how farmhands don't own 75% of what they reap. Employers own what you produce, and give you money for it, keeping the exploits. You could even spend your money buying some of their fish, that they paid their employees to catch for their business.

[@servoaugusta513]

@@Saltybuher Being an employer doesn’t automatically mean being creative or innovative on anything.

[@Crylar44]

@@ryankuchinskas I don't know what input you are looking for, there is nothing wrong with your scenario. It just doesn't sound like paid work. It sounds like some one is renting a net. And does not sound like what the caller meant by an employer.

[@Junebug89]

"I love the idea of a desert island but there's an employer there". This is the TRUE capitalist realism lmao. Forget imagining a world without capitalism, you can't even imagine a deserted island without capitalism.

[@blankblank2370]

Capitalism is the best system though.

[@SpoopySquid]

@@blankblank2370 so great that it caused multiple wars and is currently driving us to ecocide

[@blankblank2370]

@@SpoopySquid And communism hasn't/didn't?

[@SpoopySquid]

@@blankblank2370 No one mentioned communism until you brought it up, and doing so doesn't address the fact that capitalism as the dominant global socio-economic system is grotesquely destructive

[@blankblank2370]

@@SpoopySquid You responded to my comment saying that capitalism is the best system with the accusation of mass death and ecocide. I responded by bringing up communism's failures, because I am not saying capitalism is good, just that it's better than the rest :)

[@powerboon2k]

"are you a libertarian?" "No, an objectivist." Sam gets an instant semi.

[@mandatorymyocarditis]

He should have responded 'what, you don't like libertarianism? Oh you must be an authoritarian then.' most people are, sadly

[@QuantumPolyhedron]

Objectivists are just libertarians who call themselves "objectivist" to pretend like it is some sort of deep and complex philosophy, but if you actually read what they write, all objectivism literally is is just libertarian + "we believe in objective reality." Almost everyone on planet earth believes in objective reality, that's hardly a belief constituting its own philosophy, and they don't have anything particularly interesting to say on it either.

[@ripleysigningoff1231]

Most republicans are, yes​@@mandatorymyocarditis

[@WordAte]

Hahaha.

[@user-fl5fn7ev4q]

semi?

[@WillCrigler]

I imagine him creating a boss made out coconuts to order him around the island.

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

Like a capitalist ghoul version of Wilson from the film Castaway??

[@ismeal231]

Ah, a fellow Vaush fan I see

[@katipunanball4799]

It’s funny How rand was so against the idea of a state but is totally fine with being completely subservient to bosses

[@UsenameTakenWasTaken]

@@katipunanball4799 Sounds like a state with extra steps. Because it is. A supernational corporation is just a shitty form of government.

[@humblegamer7876]

the irony of his example literally only working if you choose to exist outside society and live on an island alone

[@canadian97]

“You are alone on an island, but there is an employer” Talk about being the most unlucky person in the world!

[@ryuukin178]

And he has all the coconuts

[@hollandscottthomas]

The good news is, you're going to have to eat them.

[@ryanwhitaker4444]

All the horror and loneliness of being stranded on a deserted island with none of the benefits.

[@zetanone7211]

“You are alone on an island, but we need to talk to you about your car’s extended warranty”

[@rajabuta]

DUDE I QUIT! xD

[@hadara69]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." ~John Rogers

[@flamerunnerreviews1163]

Okay, I hope I don't sound like an idiot for asking this but which one is which? Is Atlas Shrugged the prior quote or the latter? Or is the joke that it could go either way. Lord of the Rings could be either one of these statements and so could Atlas Shrugged. In the case that Atlas Shrugged is the latter, the meaning would be that only Orcs would believe this evil garbage.

[@hadara69]

@@flamerunnerreviews1163 Haha You’re gonna make me explain this joke like a dad? Okey-doky... It’s meant to point out how STUPID Ayn Rand’s writing is and how Libertarians are even dumber for thinking it’s anything but pure fantasy. That’s it.

[@flamerunnerreviews1163]

@@hadara69 Okay. I figured that was it but I also thought it could be interpreted in the inverse. That Atlas Shrugged is about Orcs, in that it's a story involving characters that are so unintentionally despicable that they are comparable to orcs. I have a tendency to over think jokes and therefore don't know which interpretation is correct, lol.

[@oldishandwoke-ish1181]

❤

[@TenzinBeifongIII]

@@flamerunnerreviews1163 WAY overthought that one champ...

[@bierce85]

For those who don't know this same guy called in complaining a week earlier to "talk about their youtube chat policy" because someone called him "impotent" and instead they just made fun of him for ten minutes. So now we know Dan believes wholeheartedly in objectivism but thinks podcasts should diligently regulate their youtube chats to provide him with a safe space. You're a piece of work, Dan.

[@desecration171]

Mean words are a violation of the NAP.

[@TheGreatAtario]

Excuse you, it was "infertile". Damned mistake-making statists!

[@KorAnos1]

Oh God, this was him? XD

[@bierce85]

@@TheGreatAtario lol my bad.

[@ToxicTerrance]

People like him "objectively" need their own safe spaces for their ideology to flourish. Naysayers be gone! It all makes sense if never challenged.

[@TheMotiveDJ]

The fact Ayn Rand's "me before my community" philosophy got taken seriously at all is what made getting through a pandemic a lot harder than it needed to be.

[@christheghostwriter]

Yup The combination of ignorance, arrogance, and selfishness that has infected half the country is a pandemic itself. I don't understand how so many people can fail to grasp that individual health and community health are inextricably intertwined

[@michaeltelman1209]

I think there is value in what she said, but you are right

[@OwlsEyelash]

Absolutely 100% correct!

[@drzaius844]

This comment should have more likes.

[@jamesmcmillan2656]

@@christheghostwriter if you believe a guardian angel follows you around it’s not a stretch to believe that reality is false. This pandemic has unmasked so many narcissists who where hiding in the shadows and now feel emboldened to sing from the mountain tops about how selfish they are.

[@williamjameslehy1341]

Ayn Rand fans are the dictionary definition of "confidently incorrect".

[@MichaelRussell3000]

Enlightened Rational Self-Interest, is correct. Religions are what you are looking for.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

@@MichaelRussell3000 You have absolutely no idea what you mean by that.

[@QuantumPolyhedron]

@@MichaelRussell3000 Why add the qualifier "enlightened"? It just makes it sound like you have a neckbeard and are writing that in a trilby.

[@Jazzper79]

You just made that up - so no.

[@hotlinemiami2fan957]

he wrote down the quote. that's how much this shook him.

[@UsenameTakenWasTaken]

Absolutely demolished.

[@harrywompa]

Almost like a religious person encountering blasphemy

[@leydon6946]

The only thing worse than being alone with a boss on an island is being alone with a military recruiter on an island.

[@al4nmcintyre]

I think being a libertarian, alone on an island with Sam Seder would be much, much worse.

[@HocusPocus6969]

@@al4nmcintyre Well, CONTINUING to be a 'libertarian' alone on an island with ANY other person is even worse.

[@leydon6946]

@@al4nmcintyre think of the brutality, we’ve only seen sam debate libertarians when he’s on camera. Think of how much worse the libertarians debate etiquette would be, the unmoderated dumpster fire that would only be on a cheap knockoff wwe

[@greycoloris7665]

Burn. Also. 69 likes, nice!

[@biggiouschinnus7489]

"Damn! You look confused, boyhhh! You ready to join the army, n***a!!!!?"

[@hollandscottthomas]

He's conflating "work" (employment) with "work" (labor), and they're not the same thing. Like, yeah, you need to labor to gather food and make shelter. But you're not employed by the island. Also, LOL at defaulting to having an employer rather than an employee in this scenario. Your brain didn't immediately think "it would be nice to have some help with this labor" instead of "if only I could do twice the work to support someone else telling me what to do".

[@manchesterunited9576]

escape from freedom

[@whispersmith]

Nail on the head

[@oldishandwoke-ish1181]

I'm a confused authoritarian who needs a rich daddy to tell me what to do, but I so yearn to be free!! Help me, Ayn Rand, tell me that by submitting to daddy I'm being objective!!

[@jewsco]

exactly you can do as much work as you feel like doing , starting and stopping when you please . while also taking as many breaks as you like which one cant do at a job

[@lukes9192]

Don't even need to go that far, he mistook the notion that you can't just lay down on a beach for a week and not die as being coercive... A concept that by definition involves two parties

[@matiasyannuzzi9655]

"Imagine you're alone on an island" *hardcore Vaush flashbacks start*

[@bozcomics]

Sam has gathered all the coconuts…

[@Johnywang1]

I SWEARR

[@watamatafoyu]

Isn't this the same guy that messed it up before?!

[@pocketzed3481]

oh man, I just made the same comment before I saw this. straight up, my brain heard that and just 🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥

[@classiclife7204]

Very generally speaking, Objectivism/libertarianism is popular among self-centered youth, and tends to abruptly disappear when those youth have kids of their own. Seder treats these people like the immature adolescents they are. Good for him.

[@vogelvogeltje]

Are all adults that don’t have kids self-centered?

[@itcouldbelupus2842]

@@vogelvogeltje obviously not, but it's especially common among white American men.

[@marcning918]

@@vogelvogeltje that wasn't what he was saying just that once these people find themselves with actual responsibility they understand the value of social structure, and how instead of thinking they're being robbed they understand they're helping secure that structure so it benefits everyone.

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

@@vogelvogeltje No I’m a adult who doesn’t have children I’m not self centered. At least I’ve never been called self centered and I try to always do for others and let others do for me as Pete Seeger would say.

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

@@marcning918 did Ayn Rand have children??

[@lewa3910]

Objectivism sounds like cowardice, considering the number of times dan ran away from the points Sam, Emma & Matt made

[@6dragondaddy913]

Dan: "Let me see if I can think this through" Narrator: "He couldn't"

[@thefluffyone999a]

*Time stops and we hear Sam Elliot speak:* Narrator: Now at this point in the story you're probably thinkin that Dan pulled one outta ol' Ayn Rand's cookbook... But for that, we're gonna have to go way back. *Dream sequence fade-out, Ayn Rand is seen at a podium speaking to a large crowd* Rand: The Indians did not have any property rights -- they didn't have the concept of property, they didn't have any rights to the land. Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent.

[@DustWar1]

I assume that narrator is Ron Howard.

[@rtensor]

I'm wondering what exactly he did think through beforehand, because it seems to be nothing.

[@skyeplus]

I think the phrase "I haven't given it much thought" sums up libertarianism pretty neatly.

[@50733Blabla1337]

@@thefluffyone999a Is this a real quote? I wanna puke wouldnt have thought I could hate her more

[@KznnyL]

The only question about Libertarianism is how many questions a Libertarian can answer before their philosophy breaks down. Usually it is between 3-5 before they enter the ThunderDome.

[@vgaportauthority9932]

Didn't take many steps for the guy to first propose going on welfare (oopsies I did a socialist again!) then living in the public streets (oopsies I did a public good again!) and then ultimately hoping that a rich guy will build a hobo park. LOL.... I can't even with these clowns... Their solutions are always so, SO MUCH WORSE than the current model which is already pretty bad. Press them on it and they snap back to "well if it's horrible, why don't they just get a job?" while at the same time not realizing that they just made a horrible ultimatum.. get a job, or live in horrible squalor... NO COERCION HERE! NO SIR!

[@magellanicraincloud]

@@vgaportauthority9932 I don't think it's as hypocritical as often said for libertarians to use welfare. They can say that it shouldn't exist but at the same time say from their "rational self interest" that since it's there they may as well use it.

[@robinsss]

most regular libertarian people don't understand the philosophy well enough to defend it in debate

[@robinsss]

Sam presented the question of anti biotic effectiveness ad Emma presented the question of how is choosing to work different than choosing to pay taxes in the anti biotic situation the anti biotics help the person using them but make anti biotics ineffective over a period of time we should nonetheless allow people to use them because they have an individual right to use them ,they aren't literally harming anyone, and scientist can invent new anti biotics to replace the old ones to make them stop would be a rights violation on the choosing to work question there is difference between choosing to work or choosing to pay taxes nature , ie our human biology , is forcing us to provide income for ourselves the government is forcing us to pay taxes when government forces us to do something we didn't agree to do , then the government is doing something immoral since nature is not a human being it can't be guilty of immorality

[@Hathaw]

@@robinsss , LOL what? ",they aren't literally harming anyone, and scientist can invent new anti biotics to replace the old ones". False, they are literally harming others. Their choices contribute to the degradation of antibiotic effectiveness. Yes, scientists can invent new antibiotics. But, it can take 10-15 years and over $1 Billion dollars of investment. What happens to those with infections that are not affected by current antibiotics during that time? "human biology , is forcing us to provide income for ourselves". No. Human biology does not force us to attain income. Human biology forces us to do what we can to survive. Income is just one of many mediums that can be used to further our survival. But, if all the means of survival are privatized, then the only way would be to attain income. Therefore, we would be forced to choose between attaining income or not surviving. That is way more immoral than your assertion that taxes are immoral.

[@GeoNeilUK]

Got to love how this objectivist is relying on someone, somewhere being altruistic.

[@buck9668]

Yes, someonerejecting Objectivism.

[@thememaster7]

You should only give to those who mean something to you or deserve it.

[@GeoNeilUK]

@@thememaster7 "You should only give to those who mean something to you or deserve it." Except Ayn Rand was claiming benefits from taxpayers. She meant nothing to the vast majority of those taxpayers and considering her philosophy, didn't deserve it.

[@thememaster7]

@@GeoNeilUK Government stole off of her, so she should claim as much as she can back, as should everyone else.

[@GeoNeilUK]

@@thememaster7 "Government stole off of her, so she should claim as much as she can back, as should everyone else." No. Taxpayers paid to provide government services that she went and used. She means nothing to those taxpaters and according to those taxpayers she doesn't deserve to use those services. She stole off us.

[@TheDoneDingo]

It's really interesting that he puts himself in the position philanthropist even when asked to put himself in the position of poor unemployed

[@johnthemachine]

someone who literally cannot imagine having nothing

[@TheDoneDingo]

makes perfect sense that an objectivist lacks any empathy whatsoever

[@MNL54321]

He objectively cannot view himself as anything but privileged

[@gaybuzzlightyear1294]

Ayan Rand: “I can recite bullshit while standing on one foot.” Libertarians: “🤯🤯🤯 GENUIS!”

[@Clefargle]

That’s all they need

[@watamatafoyu]

Yah I don't get what standing on one foot has to do with explaining anything... does that mean the philosophy is really simple or that she's good at talking on one foot?

[@Ellieempress]

😂 😂 😂

[@ericfelds6291]

I read this comment before he mentioned that mystifying anecdote and I thought you were using a figure of speech, but no that’s literally what he was found so impressive he felt the need to call into a radio show and mention it

[@AliensAnonymous]

War On Drugs. Libertarian victory.

[@mynthecooldude]

Objectivism "morality of self-interest" for 5-year-olds.

[@eac92]

These “debates” are the best thing on YT

[@aspookyfox]

Deprogramming incels is awesome.

[@mtherlihy]

Go to any coffee shop in any college town and I'm sure you will run into an objectivist weirdo to debate

[@aspookyfox]

@@mtherlihy true. Just follow your nose.

[@edwardmitchell6581]

I took an environmental philosophy class and environmental economics class. So it's a bit tiresome to me. Basically there are a few way of dealing with the Tragedy of the Commons issue (Antibiotics fits this). Objectivists forget that lawyers cost $200+ per hour.

[@terrystevens3998]

@@edwardmitchell6581 not once they don't need a license anymore to practice... 😂😆😂

[@jessetorres8738]

1 of my biggest disagreements with Ayn Rand philosophy is the take on regulations. "Employees must wash hands" is an example of a regulation. Should we get rid of it to save restaurant and businesses a few bucks on hand soap and paper towels? No. Regulations (much like labor unions) are meant to be for the benefit and protection of both workers and the customers, and in the long-term be cost saving measures in case something bad were to happen, like spreading of the Coronavirus to other employees or customers. Also, Rand herself spent decades being critical of Social Security programs and other forms of welfare, yet once she was old enough to get on Medicare and Medicaid she did, and when asked why she said she needed the help and was wrong to be so critical of it.

[@appleciderhorror12]

No, you don't undestand! Great Men are the only thing required to create excellence. Any fault in the system can be attributed to the failure of the lesser class to deliver on a promise they never made! edit: I'm not a doctor in Ayn Rand wonderlandiasm, but didn't she recant her writings before she died?

[@aethionr4478]

@@appleciderhorror12 You need to parcel out those great men. Maybe that explains the South you know...few great men. Bad parceling.

[@gattaca5911]

Rand blows the gaff because she is not against charity (just not by force)...that pandora's box is open the only way to solve charity problems is collectively and you can't have some individual's benefiting from the charitable outcomes without paying in to charity/government managing it.....tithing is the same as taxes...nobody is exempt.

[@jewsco]

@@frankrockefeller3038 what ? It’s the most successful benefit for seniors ever created helping to stop senior poverty are you seriously this ignorant?

[@screamingphoenix8113]

Unfortunately, some people can only be taught empathy the hard way.

[@SymbiSpidey]

Gotta love how easily these guys can subscribe to the belief that their boss will make their life easier, but the government can't

[@serversurfer6169]

Oh, I assure you, they all imagine _themselves_ as the boss making things better. "Trust me, it'll be like having a king that you _do_ vote for, because I'm just so lovable!" 😜

[@ericsmith116]

Mean while labor theft is the LARGEST form of theft in the U.S.

[@GHOSTPLANEtable]

Amazing the toxic masc bravado and obsession with alphaism and they need a boot to lick and a god to fear.

[@Seattle-2017]

My boss will make my life easier. He'll help get rid of some of those pesky digits from my bank account balance.

[@mandatorymyocarditis]

Gotta love how you believe the government cares about you, or that you can force them to care

[@nati7728]

"I choose to work for a boss. No I'm not being coerced. Yes I'd be miserable and poor if I didn't work for a boss. No I don't have a coherent world view." - could have ended it by saying that.

[@King_Sirocco]

I get the impression that he came up with the island example because him and his libertarian friends have been working day and night to defeat Vaush's coconut coercion example. This was fun.

[@pitdarkangel2961]

Emma chuckled a bit when he brought up the deserted island, maybe she was thinking about coconut island?

[@seanbadurina589]

He kinda played into it though, didn't he? What's stopping the employer in that situation from telling you to 'satisfy' them? The employer would indeed be giving you coconuts to help you survive. Is that not coercive of the employer, who is the owner of the island?

[@King_Sirocco]

@@Bisquick Sir, this is a Wendy's.

[@alphamikeomega5728]

I believe the island example (assuming it's the same as Adam Something describes it) in turn comes from libertarians' attempt to prove natural law (i.e. the anti-empirical view that rights are somehow inherent, rather than coming from their being respected/protected) using the example of being alone on an island, where you're free to speak, move, and not be taxed. As Seder points out, the idea of property is completely meaningless when there's nobody else. In fact, all the alone-on-an-island thought experiment shows is that libertarianism works best when you're the only human around, and that as you add more people, it goes downhill pretty quickly.

[@factanonverba7547]

@@Bisquick Problem is, that system is already in place, as you say, so . . .what now? What do we do in opposition if it's to be effective. "Where must we go, we who wander the wasteland, to find our better selves."

[@50733Blabla1337]

"If you dont want to work what is your option?" "You choose to work" :) He did what we call a pro gamer move

[@khaightlynn]

"Isn't that the plot of Castaway?" Gold, Emma. GOLD. I'd like to imagine him being ordered to make a fort out of fed-ex boxes by Wilson for sand dollars.

[@thefluffyone999a]

1 suggestion for this movie: He names the volleyball after his current boss.

[@veenoir1991]

And then...Wilson gets all the coconuts...

[@developmentalist]

@@veenoir1991 Deep cut

[@developmentalist]

@@veenoir1991 Now, what do you know about Alden's Number?

[@tomaszwida]

@@veenoir1991 Wilson violated NAP! ;p

[@Literally-hw6jv]

I think Emma's attempt to try and explain the contradiction in his philosophy by pointing out that you can choose to go to work, or not, was excellent. And when she sums it up in the end by saying that it's not an issue of "coercion" but what type of coercion makes most sense was perfect.

[@robinsss]

we are being coerced too work but we are being coerced by our own biology which requires us to get up and get food an shelter that is not immoral because biology ( nature) can not be immoral forcing people to pay income taxes when they didn't agree to pay them that's done by human beings that's immoral

[@Literally-hw6jv]

@@robinsss Nature can't be immoral because morality does not exist outside of society. "Biology is not immoral" xD what a child.

[@Literally-hw6jv]

@@robinsss Also you're not being coerced by your own biology if your boss threatens to fire you, you are being coerced by your boss.

[@robinsss]

@@Literally-hw6jv why is my answer childish?

[@robinsss]

@@Literally-hw6jv you are being forced by your biology to go out into the world and find food an shelter you can't survive without food for than 30 days your boss using force but you agreed to do the job by signing the contract so if he's only telling you to do something that you agreed to do not immoral

[@Grimmbros1214]

I love that he thinks that of the two options: 1) You are alone on an island doing all of the work to provide for yourself 2) You are alone on an island doing all of the work, but you have an employer who you have to give a portion of the products you make to survive, and he does no work the second one is better

[@Seattle-2017]

The obvious benefits of slavery.

[@montecristo1845]

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." --John Rogers

[@greatestever8514]

had me in the first half. lol

[@50733Blabla1337]

@@ryankuchinskas I think its literally internet law at this point

[@mtlewis973]

@@Raelspark who was talking about marxism?

[@mtlewis973]

@@Raelspark to be clear, you think that marx wrote that his philosophy was to destroy the human soul? because if you know he didn’t (you know he didn’t) then THAT is the strawman, you’re not engaging with what marx actually wrote you’re engaging with what you’re pretending he wrote. that’s called a strawman argument.

[@michaelnovak7674]

*Sam gives example* Definitely Not Infertile Dan: If only you could give me an example. Sam: I feel like I jus-- Definitely Not Infertile Dan: Alas, you can not. *Definitely Not Infertile Dan runs away into publicly owned park*

[@Seattle-2017]

In a world where there is no public space.

[@grahamsmith5396]

I follow my dad's advice on Rand ,"Ayn Rand said selfishness is good, but in real life that won't work for most people."

[@ouwebrood497]

It's actually really complicated to be really selfish. What seems selfish in the short term hurts you in the long term, so you're not selfish but just stupid.

[@mckenzie.latham91]

It didn’t work for her very well either she died miserable and alone in subsidized housing on medicare, now while she was convinced to get on these programs by her friend going by her own ideology if she hadn’t, she would have been left to die slowly and brutally in the street or in a hole in the ground...

[@MarcillaSmith]

​@@ouwebrood497good point! If only humanity could ever find some sort of underlying - I don't know - "golden rule," if you will, which connects it all.

[@maccoll2375]

​@@ouwebrood497😊😊😊99😊0😊

[@maccoll2375]

​@@ouwebrood497😊😊😊99😊00😊

[@zacg_]

Okay, the argument at 20:55 that business owners will just build a park to keep all homeless people away from their business is now my favorite libertarian/objectivist argument of all time. I applaud this man's creativity when it comes to total fantasy.

[@Noisy_Cricket]

I love when they just said: "A park? Why not just go with an incinerator?"

[@Phlebas]

I don't know, it's hard to beat "we don't need taxes to pay for roads because under a truly free market, we'll all have jet packs"

[@zacg_]

@@Phlebas You've got a point. And what's more, when the business owners need to get homeless people off of the privately owned street in front of their business, they will just instruct the homeless people to put on the jet packs that they totally have and fly over to the free market homeless park.

[@shady8045]

Yeah and I’m sure they will take good care of it too, make it really aesthetically pleasing, like all other things capitalism does for homeless people right? /s

[@robinsss]

the whole conversation is ridiculous because we have homeless shelters where people sleep at night they survive every year without a job

[@PandaNFriends23]

My friend is disabled. Where do disabled people fit into this philosophy? Are we supposed to go back to pushing them over cliffsides because they take more than they're able to give?

[@itcouldbelupus2842]

They don't. I think 99% of libertarians have never once thought about disabled people, it doesn't even factor into their irrational utopia. Libertarians only think about themselves and I doubt there are any disabled libertarians.

[@Saltybuher]

Who says that being disabled means you are taker? Not Objectivism. A relative of mine is autistic and struggles in some ways but is a far better human being and member of society than many who are more 'able.' It isn't reductive to work.

[@Zarastro54]

@@Saltybuher And if your relative wasn’t able to work?

[@deannasmith4443]

@@itcouldbelupus2842 disabled "libertarians" usually take a hard left turn and end up among those of us in the anarchist or syndicalist end of the pool.

[@antipsychotic451]

They either don't factor it in or they find a way to excuse the system's treatment of them. They try to apply the "just work hard" philosophy to disabled people like they're pushing a square peg in a round hole.

[@jameshicks7125]

In the 1990s I became obsessed with Ayn Rand. I had just come out of a psychotic break resulting in catatonic depression resulting from religious psychosis as a Pentecostal. One extreme to the other. Her work was a bridge towards my atheism, and it was the first "philosophy" I was exposed to. I've read all of her work multiple times, I consider myself an "Ayn Rand" Scholar, and I had psychotherapy over the phone with her "John Galt" Nathaniel Branden before he died. He did not help. He also did not embrace her ideas at this point. Her criticism of other philosophers like, Plato, Kant, Hegel, Hume and Marx only fueled my curiosity to understand their work. I thought if I understood them, I could shore up my objectivist position. It actually broke down. Because of my mental illness I was also studying psychology, human behavioral evolution, and cognitive neuroscience. In the face of all of this her philosophy falls apart. Objectivism flies in the face (that as awful as humans and primates can be) of the fact we are inherently a cooperative species. Many hands make lighter work etc.. But the most damning condemnation of objectivism or any idealism for that matter, is that human beings do not have free will in the sense of consciously directed self-actualization. Humans have enough neuroplasticity to optimize their conditions and behaviors but not freely choose an arbitrary goal. Her ideal economics of Laissez Faire capitalism requires this, and it really is nothing more than a neurotic unattainable object of desire. Making matters worse for miss Rand, is that her cobbled together philosophical ideas, are merely rehashes of basic premises. From a psychoanalytic perspective, her narratives and hard charging polemic arguments are presentations of the Melanie Klein's paranoid schizoid position. Observe carefully that there is an emphasis of opposites in her ideas, she is constantly presenting in the split position. It's all or nothing, absolute good or absolute evil, she rejects nuance and presents in black and white terms, all under the background of a "big other" oppressor ready to emerge from the background. From the Virtue of Selfishness: “Morality is a code of black and white. When and if men attempt a compromise, it is obvious which side will necessarily lose and which will necessarily profit.” -Ayn Rand

[@Frank22164]

For someone who is or was obsessed with Rand I am puzzled. Capitalism and laissez faire economics encourages the highest level of cooperation. The difference is between people, freely cooperating and being coerced to do so. The latter is always detrimental.

[@Frank22164]

@nickers7409 thanks it would be helpful if you cited one. I reread his comment or hers and was struck by the black and white comparison. The truth isn't in shades of gray. It is black or white. If you have a Principal and you compromise it you're going into the gray area.

[@Chatrbuug]

​@@Frank22164the tendency towards monopoly is not a natural consequence of a system built upon cooperation. Capitalism is built upon competition. Competition is antithetical to cooperation in the long run.

[@Frank22164]

@@Chatrbuug competition requires a huge amount of cooperation, just producing a single product may involve dozens of countries and manufacturers

[@Frank22164]

@@Chatrbuug i'm not sure what you mean by cooperation are you saying Steve Jobs should cooperate with Bill Gates when he develops an iPhone?

[@Seattle-2017]

23:38: "Why are you asking about this really weird case?" 23 seconds later: he brings forward the "alone on an island" scenario, with an employer! Classic objectivist train of thought!

[@pocketzed3481]

Man, I wish I lived in a world where someone getting evicted and being homeless was a really weird case. But it's not this world and it's *definitely* not that guy's world.

[@Seattle-2017]

@@pocketzed3481 Yeah. "Objectivist" thinking: A) Getting evicted and having nowhere to go: REALLY weird case - you mean this kind of thing happens? B) A fully functional society without a government: NOT weird - could EASILY happen.

[@leealexander3507]

If he read The Fountainhead might start to realize that what Ayn Rand loved, admired and wrote about was sociopathy. Of course they might have to learn at least a fair amount about psychology first.

[@dimitraBlissDk]

Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. (from Mayoclinic)

[@djgroopz4952]

That's definitely a misdiagnosis of what sociopathy is.

[@mckenzie.latham91]

Ayn rand was a sociopath but objectivism is less sociopathy in terms of mentality but sociopathy in terms of practical effect on society the reason why objectivism is only a small niche like belief system of a bunch of entitled fucking dipshits most of whom are entitled middle class or rich assholes, or a bunch if 14-13 mentally stunted children is because if that ideological system actually was put into widespread application, the society would collapse

[@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025]

"I caught 100 fish, sir! Here you go!" "Well done, my wise objectivist employee. Here are 6 fish back, not a bad paycheck! And guess what, when you finish building my large, six-room beach-side hut in the shady coconut tree grove there, I'm gonna pay you with not 6 but 7 of the hundred logs you cut. You can use those to build your own little hut over there in the swamp. That's like a 15-20% raise because you've really shown some gumption with these 18-hour days you've been putting in. And guess what... you are now the Desert Island Limited Corporation's Employee of the Month." *Objectivist weeping tears of joy* "I've never been so happy..."

[@flrnGM]

If that guy ever ends up on that lonely island and is lucky enough to find an employer there, I hope it's Vaush.

[@pocketzed3481]

🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥

[@VicStrange9]

The moment where he said "well imagine that you're in an island" I was like "oh no, he's gonna step on the landmine, isnt he".

[@sirius1696]

He didn't step on a landmine, he strapped a bomb to his chest

[@jacobtrost5048]

Whoever was complaining about them giving this air time needs more joy in their life, this was hilarious

[@hydrogen3266]

Sam: “are you a libertarian, Dan?” Caller: “I’m an objectivist” Sam and emma have the knowing look and “oh, I see”

[@Not_that_Brian_Jones]

"Work" as he wants to use the term does not exist if you're alone on an island. Labor, sure, but not work.

[@alphamikeomega5728]

_One Bushman, when asked why he hadn't emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"_ *- Jared Diamond*

[@KirkHowle]

I thought the same thing. By the caller's definition, me pouring myself a bowl of cereal in the morning before I've even gone to work would technically count as "work".

[@buttistedsuidice3296]

The meta of Infertile Dan is progressing nicely. He's certainly fertile ground for entertainment.

[@greycoloris7665]

65 years of Objectivism and they can't even properly determine his sperm count. It's sad.

[@Asshat237]

@@lookbovine Dunning-Kruger effect. The dumbest are the most confident because they are too dumb to know how wrong they are.

[@zvendiearschficker6664]

“Objectivists” can’t even follow along a simple conversation. They literally don’t understand their own ideology. I always love seeing Sam tear into these delusional people. You can slowly see them go into an existential crisis, but they will not give in. They see the flaw in their logic, and try to go around it like they didn’t heart it 😂

[@banquetoftheleviathan1404]

why would they tell people right? like it's not a popular opinion so how is telling people good for business.

[@jacquelineleitch7050]

Sam was incorrect to say that taking anti-biotics wasn’t harmful to others. Medically taking antibiotics is a danger to other people; therefore harmful to other people. Sam’s disreason is the same argument that California uses to say that date rape drugs are not violent. Objectivism doesn’t exclude matriarchal community and medicine; however Rand’s problem is shallow enough to be fascist rationalizations not objectivism per se.

[@J77199]

​@@jacquelineleitch7050tinfoil hat time for you

[@jacquelineleitch7050]

@@J77199 lol. Absolutely. But yes we have over medicated with antibiotics as we all know. Rand is just a pain in the 50s cartoon romance ass.

[@Pushing_Pixels]

@@jacquelineleitch7050 Except Sam didn't say that. He said it was harmful to society, which means others.

[@cameronthaijohnson]

I'm playing Bioshock right now. Perfect timing.

[@MBarberfan4life]

Ayn Rand was an actual “philosopher” in the same way that conservative “humor” is actual humor. It’s just not accurate.

[@greycoloris7665]

True, should read Kant instead. 'Closed the door to reason' my a**, maybe to just assuming her reason is determining stuff correctly just out of itself.

[@NeverBeenOnMaury]

But, but Tim Allen

[@terrystevens3998]

Some day they will be claiming Ben Shapiro was a philosopher too.. it's part of the "dumbing down" of America

[@Vhlathanosh]

@@terrystevens3998 Jesus, no!

[@vgaportauthority9932]

@@terrystevens3998 You are 100% correct. Just look at how people view Buckley at this point. He was the Ben Shapiro of his time, telling dumbfucks what they wanted to hear with absolute conviction and confidence. Doesn't take more than that to become a hero amongst the mouth breathing rabble.

[@Thunder-Chief]

When Matt mentioned 2 people on the island, I was sooooooooo hoping he was going to say, "and the other guy has collected all of the coconuts..."

[@tinamoul]

"If I were running the show" pretty much sums up the libertarian philosophy, but you're not running the show, why do you think you would be in this your hypothetical untenable world. They always assume they would be running the show. 🤦🏿‍♂️ It's selfishness and self-centeredness masquerading as a rational philosophy.

[@sonic8005]

Essentially yeah. The guy in this could not admit he wrote himself into a corner.

[@Kropothead]

Yeah, in their ideal world they’re always at the top of the hierarchy, owning land and giving orders. Their beliefs are pure power fantasy.

[@VincentTroia]

my weed dealer is a libertarian. he also thinks he’d be running the show. he’s missing teeth and lives in a shack in rural michigan

[@sonic8005]

@@ryankuchinskas Actually the libertarian mindset is a lot more dominant in the US than you might think. Social programs are what help many people but the US has been very much into cutting them down and in favor of stronger policing rather than helping people out of poverty. Besides that, you completely missed the point. You see, callers like this guy *instinctively* think their ideas for the world are better by default and are good ideas... because they keep imagining themselves at the top or near the top of the pecking order and thus immediately skip out on thinking of what happens to those who are less fortunate than they imagine they would be

[@hermeskun3274]

@@ryankuchinskas The idea that "Libertarians just want to be left alone" is bullshit. They want to create a "country" with a system of governance that is so weak, that it cannot stop them from doing whatever they want. Completely disregarding the impact such a weak government would have one everyone else around them, including those who did not consent to live in a Libertarian "paradise".

[@yoredeerleader]

Objectivism is the libertarian’s core brand proposition.

[@mydogsbutler]

The funny thing is both Libertarians and Conservatives tend to love Rand.. and she hated both as perversions of the "real" capitalism.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Objectivism is the strong fanatical support of objectively bad writing.

[@Michael-kp4bd]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 lmao can i borrow that quote

[@danubeisreallypeculiarrive7944]

Objectivism is surprisingly not that objective.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@Michael-kp4bd Actually I borrowed it from my old buddy "B. Kite" who does film criticism. thanks - feel free to pass it along.

[@theoneandonlyroelle]

As the child of a microbiologist, I rolled my eyes so very hard at this guy…seriously

[@onomatopoeia162003]

Micheal would love these type of calls.

[@ChewyThomson]

Rest in power, Micheal 😭

[@__D10S__]

damn

[@antipsychotic451]

RIP

[@dutchmiramar3037]

If he is going to keep calling and keep giving this comic gold, you will need to cut him some profits.

[@itcouldbelupus2842]

If he wants money he should start a business, he isn't entitled to any of Sam's hard earned wealth!!! S/

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

That would be communism bro and that would be his least favorite thing. He would burn those checks on principle alone.

[@claudemadrid4950]

The line "Objectivism is an entire philosophy" did cause the biggest laughter I had today. 😁

[@1993MovieMan]

It`s not even a philosophy.Rand called it that but as much as she claimed to be an independent thinker and champion of individualism in politics,philosophy and especially economics,she took elements of Aristotle,Plato,Max Stirner,David Hume,Alexander Hamilton,Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche and twisted their words to absurd sophistic extremes,ironically oftentimes to justify her own whims as she loved to accuse others of doing!As much as I dislike Kant, she also misrepresented his deontological ethics!

[@18skeltor]

@@1993MovieMan Oh man, wish I read as consistently as you 🙂What's your favorite book?

[@1993MovieMan]

@@18skeltor Well, I have a number of them,actually."Paradise Lost" by John Milton,"Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley,"Dracula" by Bram Stoker,"War of the Worlds" and "The Invisible Man" by HG Wells."Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein,"Anarchism:What It Really Stands For" by Emma Goldman,"State and Anarchistic Socialism:How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ" by Benjamin R. Tucker,"Treasure Island" and "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" by Robert Louis Stevenson,"The Soul of Man Under Socialism" and "The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde, pretty much anything by Godwin and Blake, Rand,Nietzsche and Orwell are overrated and of course "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.

[@18skeltor]

@@1993MovieMan oo, THANK YOU!!!

[@Jazzper79]

When presented to jerks, all you get is laughter.

[@joshuafreeman3609]

Wow, Ayn Rand managed to define objectivism while standing on one foot?? I guess it must be true!

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

Yeah she did it as a 1940’s version of owning the Libs.

[@phillgornall2296]

Yeah… but which foot?

[@tinamoul]

@@phillgornall2296 Has to have been the wrong foot. Because that woman was daft.

[@zoobrizz]

Wow. Simple minds have simple thoughts 🤡☝️

[@rookpwnd]

I can't believe he called again after last week's humiliation.

[@coldcoffee1506]

Don’t judge people’s kinks

[@appleciderhorror12]

You know some people pay to be humiliated? Calling in is free...

[@andrewk2250]

Glutton for punishment

[@robhernandez5520]

Which other call was his? Has it been updated to the channel?

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

@@coldcoffee1506 🤣 🤣 that’s great

[@Julez60]

Imagine being an Ayn Rand fan... LOL!!

[@GHOSTPLANEtable]

Used to be, chuddery and all, it's such a hindrance to perceiving reality. Empathy is non-existent in that mindset, like running on ID by itself

[@Here4TheHeckOfIt]

​@@GHOSTPLANEtable I agree. I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as a teenager. Her comments about William Hickman was despicable. Her "philosophy" is pretty toxic at the end of the day.

[@looper2586]

@@GHOSTPLANEtable My God you really didn't understand the book at all. That's what happens when you are unable to forget your own self-defined words in order to understand how the same symbols are used to describe concepts different from your own.

[@Markadown]

Listening to libertarians ponder their own world view is the most hilarious thing.

[@Seattle-2017]

22:01 - "Alright, let me uhhh, see if I can think this through" The most honest thing Dan said in the whole call. He then comes up with the desert island scenario, with an employer.

[@Markadown]

@@Seattle-2017 and that took me out. You’re on a deserted island with a boss 🤣😂🤣😂

[@Seattle-2017]

@@Markadown Yeah, it's like the ultimate nightmare, and objectivist utopia at the same time.

[@zoobrizz]

I know. It’s like listening to old Joe or Bernie

[@thereturnoftheprodigalyams6763]

I think objectively that Ayn Rand was an odd looking human being.

[@thereturnoftheprodigalyams6763]

@@ryankuchinskas so is inspiring millions of conservatives to be heartless, racist, sociopathic monsters. Look I'm not the type to point and laugh at people for there flaws or imperfections just for giggles BUT when you're a sociopath like Ayn Rand, well that's just how i roll.

[@thereturnoftheprodigalyams6763]

@@ryankuchinskas I mean he did have an odd beard. He was kinda odd looking himself. Great man.... weird looking though...

[@thereturnoftheprodigalyams6763]

@@Raelspark lol, he was a philosopher, writer, and political activist for working people. Give me 1 instance of him displaying a symptom of psychopathy.

[@thereturnoftheprodigalyams6763]

@@Raelspark really? Her claim to fame idea "objectivism " was at is core nothing but a moral justification for the pursuit of selfishness with no regard for the people that pursuit hurts in its path. Sorry bud but the whole concept is sociopathic. Why is it that so many CEOs love Atlas Shrugged? Could it be that most corporate CEOs are sociopaths?

[@thereturnoftheprodigalyams6763]

@@Raelspark I am sorry but i just see a sales pitch. That at its core is a justification for worshipping wealth, greed. And I'm not even going to get into explaining the differences between Mao's and Stalin's communism and Marxism. It's happy hour ive had a long day and its bourbon time.

[@nellurban7826]

“If you were stranded on a deserted island and you could only bring three things with you, what would you bring?” “Well, first and foremost, a boss, obviously.”

[@StuntedSlime]

I don't think there's an ideology more utopian or pointless than objectivism

[@fyzika_]

It's honestly more idealistic than any other ideology I've come across.

[@greycoloris7665]

@@fyzika_ Rand explicitly rejected questioning the efficacy of ones own judgement. I'd say we're pretty on the money with that claim.

[@Habeebea]

This criticism bites the hardest against the people who argue for it, in my opinion, as well.

[@anthonynorman7545]

@@greycoloris7665 what? How can one have philosophy without epistemology?

[@greycoloris7665]

@@anthonynorman7545 Read Rand i guess xD. She basically answers the question by going 'well this wouldn't work the way i wanted to if i had to principally doubt the quality and preconditions of my reason itself' and at another point dismisses Kants argument about the relation between Noumena and Phenomena with no argument outside of 'that reason wouldn't be mine'. I'm paraphrasing ofc, and I think she actually argues some reasonable things on that basis, occasionally - but yeah, her epistemological foundation is pretty wonky.

[@Jake0Miller]

My favorite part is when Dante says industrialists would need to establish parks to have somewhere to put all the dead bodies so that don't just build up in the... I would say streets, but his ideal world of course wouldn't have streets

[@vgaportauthority9932]

Their alternatives never seem like an improvement on what we have, and what we have is already pretty bad... Wonder why, it's almost as if objectivism doesn't really have any solutions to problems..

[@harryb451]

Hilarious

[@brennam954]

It kind of presupposes that all those homeless people who died from their conditions caused it themselves, so it's "normal" to have souch callousness towards their death...to see parks as needed to "house" their dead bodies. Just yikes Dan.

[@KirkHowle]

It would be private streets with toll booths at the beginning and end of each section of road that a person owns, and you'd have to pay a toll to move from one section of road to the next. You'd have to pay multiple tolls just to get from your house to a nearby park (which would also be privately owned with an entry fee). Oh right, and the park would be full of dead bodies. In other words, an objectivist's paradise!

[@Dhamma_Nomad]

Jet packs.

[@IAmNumber4000]

“Objectivism” is a faceplant right off the bat because it violates the is-ought problem… it purports to derive an “objective” value judgement about the world. It’s considered a pseudo-philosophy primarily for this reason. The whole point of value judgements is that they’re subjective. People form judgements in relation to their own subjective interests. You can’t derive an “objective” or “absolute” value judgement about the world, Ayn Rand simply tried to grant her own subjective opinion additional legitimacy.

[@darksoul479]

Great comment❤

[@NeillGuitars]

Dan tried to do a libertarian version of Vaush's coconut question and failed miserably.

[@doctorthirteen5499]

What the hell is an Ayn Rand fan? That's like being a fan of toenail fungus.

[@charliekowittmusic]

This is like reverse idpol. You can only understand if you’re a cis/het 20 y.o. White Guy who thinks all his privilege was somehow earned. “Oh I was born in the most prosperous time/place and I’m a white man? We should start the No-interference/No-state clock RIGHT NOW!”

[@stvnsvids]

Ask Paul Ryan, ex congressman…

[@MrBadExample]

Well played!

[@claricehenderson1937]

"Ayn Rand Fan" = Mysocist

[@torrb420]

What is an Ayn Rand fan? A miserable little pile of secrets.

[@tinstrings6312]

Damn, that was brutal. Sam was like a cat toying with a severely wounded mouse.

[@georgesprat9697]

"I would assume the free market would have evolved a mechanism by this time to handle the kind of... you know..." -totally non-religious Ayn Rand fan

[@vgaportauthority9932]

Yup, that line really cracked me up. Faith based ideology where the market is the deity and Rand is its prophet.

[@georgesprat9697]

@Packster Mosk I'm sorry for not responding to you within 15 hours. But I have a life, like we all do, right? Your reply about faith-based regulations assumes positions I don't hold. Namely, that I don't care about a reality-based approach with regard to government regulations. On the contrary, I like regulations when I can be confident (through empirical evidence) that they produce desirable outcomes that aren't outweighed by negative ones, i.e. when a cost/benefit approach places the benefit as greater than the cost. There's nothing faith-based about that. I attack the idea that the market "regulates itself" as faith-based because that's what it is. There are numerous examples of market failures, and when Sam presented a problem the free market can't easily solve, the caller said "I would assume the free market would have evolved a mechanism [to address that]". That's religious, not empirical. I've had discussions with libertarians where they have this exact same line of thinking. I'll present to them, for example, the limits on people's knowledge about the products they purchase. That is one reason for government regulation: to impose standards on products that consumers wouldn't easily be able to find out about. I've had libertarians say "well companies would exist in the free market that would investigate products to be able to properly inform consumers about it, and consumers would use the services of those companies to be informed about their purchases". It's pure invention in their minds, with no empirical reality to support it. Just because you can imagine how some problem would be solved under a purely free market system, doesn't mean it would be solved under such a system in the real world. Believing otherwise is religious, plain and simple.

[@georgesprat9697]

@@ryankuchinskas See my reply to Packster Mosk. If someone asks you how a free market would handle some social problem currently handled by the government, and you don't reply with a variant of "well under a perfectly free market, I would imagine XYZ would happen and that's how the problem would be dealt with" then that's good. Such statements are religious by nature, because they are inventions of pro-free market people that lack empirical support. They represent the faith-based idea that free markets will just somehow find a way to solve problems, as long as one is capable of imagining how it might be done. In a sense, it's worse than simply a faith-based idea, because there's plenty of empirical support for market failures - the exact opposite of the faith-based assumptions often held by supporters of perfectly free markets. As you heard in the video, the caller engaged in this kind of thinking. If you're more humble than that, then great! Also, you shouldn't assume that people who think a more-than-absolutely-minimal government is necessary believe that they have all the answers either.

[@georgesprat9697]

​@Packster Mosk Ooooh boy, I've got a live one here! I see we were referring to two different things. I was referring to government regulations generally, whereas you were referring to "preventive" government regulations, which I see you define as "a regulation the government imposes on the assumption that it will prevent some harm, without that harm having been observed or demonstrated in the real world". If that's what a preventive government regulation means, then sure, I would oppose it too. I don't think governments should regulate for regulations' sake. That being said, in my experience libertarians tend to oppose all government regulation, except perhaps whatever is needed to secure negative liberty for people or to give effect to the non-aggression principle. Some libertarians might think of these concepts in broad enough ways that they can justify common-sense regulations like seat belt laws or driver's licenses. I don't know where you stand on this, but again in my experience a lot of libertarians will oppose even such common-sense regulations because it violates their dogmas. A cost/benefit analysis is simply a recognition that even if policy-makers observe a social problem that they would like to address, they should be careful to ensure that whatever regulation they propose to address it should not have worse unintended consequences. A classic and ongoing example is the criminalization of recreational drugs. In my view, the balance sheet of this set of policies is very clearly in the negative, i.e. the costs outweigh the benefits. I presume you agree with me on this one, as most libertarians do. Where we might disagree is that I would never want to see drugs legalized without a strong set of regulations aimed at discouraging their use, because their use causes serious social harms (some of which are exacerbated by their criminalization, however). With regard to experts, I'm not opposed to economists being consulted on policy-making. On the contrary, they can provide useful insight into how best to deal with certain problems. Serious (i.e. non-Austrian) economists generally recognize the limits to markets. Where markets are useful, they should flourish. In other domains, they should be regulated. If that limits "freedom" or economic growth, then those drawbacks should be weighed against the benefits of the regulation. Just like how governments shouldn't aim to only maximize security (because it would destroy privacy and freedom), governments shouldn't aim to only maximize freedom or economic growth. Different values must be traded off with one another. Market failures happen all the time, unless I suppose you define what I call market failures as "groups of people that can fail". I don't use the term "market failure" because I'm trying to impugn markets, I use it because it's a known and recognized term that people usually readily understand. Certain words and terms are useful for communication, and that's why I choose to use them. If you'd like to know more about market failures, a great starting point is Wikipedia. The reason I know consumers aren't aware of all available information about the products they purchase or consume is that it's obvious. But if you really need me to make the case, just think about the history of asbestos. Before it was banned, it had myriad industrial uses. It caused a massive number of cancers in people exposed to it, who largely had no idea they were exposing themselves to such risk. Without regulation, people got sick and died of mesothelioma, the specific cancer that asbestos causes. This wasn't because science hadn't yet discovered its harms. Its toxicity has been known about since 1920, but it wasn't banned until 1978. Prior to government regulations, the "free" market did a terrible job of protecting people from it. Sure, those who got sick could have sued and encouraged companies to stop using it, and they did sue. But they faced huge hurdles at winning those battles, because it's hard to sue big companies with deep pockets, and it's hard to prove what exactly (and which company specifically) caused your cancer. The cancer doesn't develop until decades after exposure. Anyway, that's just one example, which shouldn't have been necessary to bring up. I find your conception of what I believe to be an odd caricature. I fail to see how anything I believe about policy-making is religious or faith-based in nature. I don't believe that government ought to impose more and more regulations until we achieve "perfection". How on earth did you get the idea that that's what I support or believe? Do you think of people who think government is necessary as benighted "statists" who have a utopian vision of ever-expanding government? Because I'm not such a person at all, nor do I know anyone like that. I'm neither utopian nor naïve about the tradeoffs of government policy-making. All I care about is what is practical and leads to the best outcomes.

[@georgesprat9697]

@Packster Mosk No worries about the length, I'm not a lazy reader. Plus a lot of it was copy/paste specific portions you were replying to, which is a good way of tracking the conversation. We would disagree on the extent of justified government regulation because I favour policies that promote positive freedom, rather than only negative freedom. I also disagree with the non-aggression principle, not because I think it's completely wrong, but just because I think it's more of a starting point than a good self-contained all-encompassing principle on how to delineate justified government action. With the slavery example, I get your point. Namely, that if we assume it's true that a society with slavery is economically more productive than one without it, then that would seem to justify it on utilitarian grounds. But obviously in my calculus I would consider more than pure economic output. The misery brought about by slavery as an institution, which also has an overall debasing effect on a society that tolerates or sanctions it, is a moral cost too high to overcome through economic justification. However, you seem to imply that this same calculus then applies to regulations that do more than protect negative liberty. I think we would part ways at that point, but it would depend on the example. Let's say it was taxing people to fund the arts, which I assume you oppose. I think I support this, though I'd want to understand it better before really committing to an opinion. In any case, if we compare that to the slavery example, I would disagree that the case against funding the arts is anywhere comparable to the one against slavery, even if you could point to a unifying principle to oppose both. Even then, I'm not sure a unifying principle would truly apply to both. The principle you allude appears to be that you favour opposing something with greater long-terms costs than short-term benefits. I like this, but I think it's hard to apply in practice in many instances. If the time horizon is long enough, it's very hard to know the long-terms costs or benefits of something. If we go back to my example, calculating whether the government funding the arts is beneficial overall is probably impossible, assuming we're doing it on other than purely economic terms, of course. So some of these questions are difficult, and might require applying a certain amount of intuition, unhappily. Regarding free markets, when I use the term "market failures", I'm not saying the concept of the free market is a failure. On the contrary, it's a useful concept, though one that exists only hypothetically as far as I'm aware. But I do think it's very instructive to be aware of the categories of market failures, e.g. information asymmetry, externalities, etc. So far I haven't found that libertarians have good answers on how to solve these issues without government. As for whether the US has had a free market, I'd say no. Moreover, I'm not aware of any government or society anywhere that has ever had a truly free market. I'm not sure it's even possible. The asbestos case I happened to learn about in Tort class, and when I was young my grandfather happened to mention one day that his whole life they knew asbestos was toxic. I haven't read the Wikipedia page on it, or anything else, so I wouldn't be able to tell you the best place to look to read about it. When I said "practical" I didn't mean pragmatic philosophically speaking. Now that you've explained that to me it wouldn't reflect my views. That being said, I do strongly favour empirical evidence over a priori reasoning. Not because there isn't a place for the latter, but because the history of human knowledge (and science) as I see it teaches us that our ability to figure out how the world works by just thinking about it has consistently been incorrect when it's been put to the test against reality (e.g. by experimentation or trial-and-error). I suppose I would broadly describe myself as a consequentialist, but either way I think trying to create a philosophical foundation for a generalized theory of policy-making is not the wisest approach. I know it's an approach that is highly favoured of libertarians, e.g. Hans-Hermann Hoppe trying to come up with an a priori way of justifying property rights by equating self-hood with property, then saying that anyone arguing against property rights is then performatively contradicting themselves. I suppose that's what I mean by being "practical". I think time is better spent learning about, say, competing health-care policies than evaluating Hoppe's a priori argument for property rights (but I have done that, and my conclusion is that it's not good...).

[@ThePC19996]

0:54 "Yes, bullshit." Just, the way he said it has me dying with laughter, it actually hurts, ffs someone clip this xD

[@julianborges1569]

Do you find it bullshit and why?

[@vivithegoblindruid]

There's an employer on the Island... So... is the employer collecting my supplies? Or am I collecting my supplies and have to give the majority of them to the employer? Do I have to work for him and then go collect my own supplies? seems like I'd be worse off, really

[@eelvis1674]

I love that libertarian ideology boils down to "everyone has to promise to be super nice to each other and never ever break that promise" because if they do the entire system breaks down.

[@nosuchthing8]

I always assumed this was something Putin made up to try to destroy America from within.

[@ouwebrood497]

Essentially every political philosophy boils down to something ridiculous. If you are statist, you have to assume that the people that get the power are the least suspect to misusing that power. Everything is about power, political ideology is futile.

[@eelvis1674]

@@ouwebrood497 Absolutely not. You do not need to trust the state, or people in power, that's what democracy and constitution and checks and balances, and eventually protest and revolt are for. Right wing 'Libertarianism' is solely reliant on trust and nothing else. It doesn't exist without everyone just agreeing to not hurt each other. I have never seen another ideology that relies on such nonsense.

[@ouwebrood497]

@@eelvis1674 LOL, you need to trust the state, because they are the one providing all the checks and balances. Every ideology is based on nonsense, because people can't accept the idea that there is no solid foundation for any moral.

[@eelvis1674]

@@ouwebrood497 you don't need to trust the state. You didn't read my comment. Step one: the state checks itself, systems are designed to prevent or achieve certain things; constitution Step two: the people check the state through means provided by the state; democracy, civil servents/beaurocrats Step three: the people check the state by themselves, if both the above steps fail, you protest, and eventually you have a revolution EXCEPT in "Libertarianism" where systemic violence is not violence if its done by private companies, and so there is no backstop without violation of the "non aggression principle" I don't see how "solid" moral foundations enter into this discussion at all. A moral system doesn't need to be based on anything in order to work, it just needs enough followers.

[@AltheHealer]

This is the kind of content we get as soon as MR is no longer affiliated with peacock, Amazin!

[@OhNotThat]

>Are you a libertarian? >No, i'm an objectivist hooo boy, we're gonna be playing silly word games aren't we, kids? **grabs a bottle of whiskey** Let's begin...

[@yrasphong]

Matt is funny as fuck tho..an empty island with a boss on it...lol..I actually like these episodes..it takes me away and gives me a break from everything wrong with our country

[@vgaportauthority9932]

Imagine being on a deserted island doing allright, and then an industrialist comes along and tells you he's gonna pay you a small portion of what you harvest and you go "YAY! A JOB CREATOR!!! JUST WHAT I NEEDED!!!" That's what hardcore right wing indoctrination looks like. He's only as free as his employer lets him be, and he thinks that's more freedom than self employment somehow. Pretty amazing mindset...

[@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342]

Listening to dumb callers like this reminds me of everything wrong with our country lololol.

[@50733Blabla1337]

@@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342 HA! Not for me objectivism aint a thing outside of the US :P

[@lylegardner7260]

How can it take you away from everything wrong with our country, when this mindset is behind so much of what's wrong with our country?

[@ludokerfluffle6232]

I thought we all knew that objectivism is fatally flawed.

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

Apparently not everybody got the memo.

[@vgaportauthority9932]

@@Baelor-Breakspear Some people spend a lot of time making sure they'll never accidentally read that memo. Feels good to believe in a simple ideology that justifies your greed, am I right? Why put that good feeling at risk by looking into things. Look away I say.

[@danielcrafter9349]

​@@vgaportauthority9932- and that's why those people aren't invited to the Gay Agenda®️ annual meetings - and that's why they miss out on Taco Tuesdays 😂

[@aaronbonita2042]

I shrug every time I go through Barnes and Nobles and see Atlas Shrugged. I immediately picked up Marx.

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

Need to get a dose of a actual thinker to wash the stink of the eyes.

[@aaronbonita2042]

@@Baelor-Breakspear If Ayn Rand wrote for Marvel, she'd make a movie where Hydra was the good guys.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

like when Howard Roark used "physical force" as promoted in her book?

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 is that the fountain head? Or fountain pen? That book??

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@Baelor-Breakspear yep - Fountainhead

[@theespers5263]

Coconut Island! Coconut Island! Coconut Island! 🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥

[@burtgrabmore2972]

Coconut Island under heavy shelling today by Lime Island. Apparently they will under no circumstance put the lime in the coconut.

[@julianborges1569]

Please explain this

[@VicStrange9]

It was absolutely perfect: the example had him alone on the island but he NEEDED to bring other guy to pick all the coconuts before him.

[@whiskeybuddha1995]

I have a copy of atlas shrugged, but I keep it under the sink in case I run out of toilet paper

[@ombra711]

"Whose we?"..after that that, the callers entire philosophy was turned to ash.

[@marcning918]

Wait when did it have structure?

[@Netrunner1197]

We? Sounds like communism to me

[@brennam954]

@@Netrunner1197 Well, after all, there is no "we" in me. - Dan probably

[@Void7.4.14]

There's a reason no Humanities Department takes "Objectivism" seriously lol It's an incoherent mess. There are thousands upon thousands of people who have tried their hand at philosophy and very few have had anything original to add or the ability to form one that's applicable in real life, even if you're talking about hypothetical conditions. One of the big problems with "Objectivism" is that it, like the dominant ideology of the so-called US, is that it fails to account for the fact that, try as the might, we are not atomized individuals, we never have been, we couldn't ever be, and there's no scenario in which it's even remotely desirable. They don't even try to reconcile the individual with the collection and there are multiple philosophies that do and even ones that align with the things people like this guy would say are important to them just in a coherent, realistic manner. They also have such an absurdly narrow definition of coercion, force, aggression, violence, etc, to the point that the vast majority of forms are completely ignored and moralized against. That definition of "work" in the island scenario is outta wack. You aren't "working", you'd be engaging in necessary and productive "labor" of which you maintain control of the entirety of the fruits of. They aren't the same thing at all. It definitely doesn't meet the full criteria, but it's also basically a cult lol Just Google Murray Bookchin for a more realistic, workable, desirable, consistent, coherent, and intuitive set of alternatives 💯 🏴

[@5amsound]

“I admire her tremendously” “That comes across.”

[@connorhalleck2895]

emma's smile in the beginning "oh yes, let's discuss it. good luck"

[@sparki9085]

Wants examples, and when given one of the best ones possible, rejects it as even real. Truly the peak of intelligence.

[@YourLocalZombie]

"You're avoiding the question" This is the end point of *every* conversation with an objectivist.

[@ismeal231]

You all danced around the coconut island analogy, and didn't even realize.

[@diallo1347]

I know I was thinking the SAME thing! Vaush is somewhere smiling.

[@MartinGrozny]

"Howdy, friend - you finally woke up! As you can see, i've collected all the coconuts..."

[@heatrez1518]

Ah yes, objectivism. The philosophy where it's not necessarily evil to help a drowning child.

[@ImNotThereYeti]

If you are working to survive on an island 100% of the labor you do directly benefits yourself. Your personal labor isn't being used to benefit some random corporate ahole you'll never meet, that already owns 5 houses, 12 yachts, and 37 cars, while you struggle to eat and keep up with the payments/maintenance of 1 home and car. The rich people who cry about paying taxes also refuse to honestly compensate the employees who do all the tangible labor that makes their gratuitous lifestyles possible. These people are a big part of why we need taxation. Our government has to make up for their greed so our citizens don't starve to death in the streets.

[@Danny123a]

I think Wilson would have fired Tom Hanks because of his poor work ethic

[@NoJusticeMTG]

"no instead of gathering all the coconuts, I would rather gather all the coconuts and then have my boss tell me how many of them I can keep"

[@naota3k]

The fact that the 2nd person on the desert island is an employer and not a "friend" is so wild lmao. The idea of the both of you getting off the island is not enough; you need a Capitalist hierarchy to enforce a traditional, Western business relationship in order to work together in any capacity.

[@gabeasher187]

That was the funniest call ins they had in a long while.

[@SuperWolfkin]

I LOVE the libertarian interviews. I think this was an especially good one because we got to walk him (slowly and stumblingly) all the way through the logical conclusions.

[@robinsss]

Sam presented the question of anti biotic effectiveness ad Emma presented the question of how is choosing to work different than choosing to pay taxes in the anti biotic situation the anti biotics help the person using them but make anti biotics ineffective over a period of time we should nonetheless allow people to use them because they have an individual right to use them ,they aren't literally harming anyone, and scientist can invent new anti biotics to replace the old ones to make them stop would be a rights violation on the choosing to work question there is difference between choosing to work or choosing to pay taxes nature , ie our human biology , is forcing us to provide income for ourselves the government is forcing us to pay taxes when government forces us to do something we didn't agree to do , then the government is doing something immoral since nature is not a human being it can't be guilty of immorality

[@SuperWolfkin]

@@robinsss just to be clear you know that doesn't make sense right?

[@robinsss]

@@SuperWolfkin why doesn't it make sense?

[@SuperWolfkin]

@@robinsss mostly because it's all wrong. You can't just "whip up a new antibiotic". Each time you do that it becomes harder and harder. It's not like printing money. on the second part you don't choose to pay taxes. Taxes by their very nature are compulsory. If it's not compulsory it's not taxes. Also the government forcing you to take or refrain from an action is not the definition of immoral likewise just because something is natural doesn't make it moral. That just makes it natural. Not healthy, not righteous, not good, not moral just natural. These are all different concepts. If you want to argue that doing things the natural way is moral then you have to make that argument and justify it you can't just presuppose that natural = moral.

[@robinsss]

@@SuperWolfkin '''''''''mostly because it's all wrong. You can't just "whip up a new antibiotic". i didn't say they could but over a period of time they can create a new one anti biotic users are helping to inconvenience other people who need those anti biotics but they are not violating anyone's rights '''''''on the second part you don't choose to pay taxes. Taxes by their very nature are compulsory. If it's not compulsory it's not taxes.'''' compulsory only means required by law that means that the tax has to be attached to a certain activity in the case of income tax it means that if you earn an income you have to pay taxes in the case of sales taxes it means that if you buy a product you have to pay a tax attached to it if you want to avoid the income tax it's impossible if you want to avoid the sales tax you can just walk out of the store so with sales taxes there is a way to avoid paying the tax for many items '''''''''Also the government forcing you to take or refrain from an action is not the definition of immoral''''' it is if i am not harming anyone by engaging in that activity ''''''likewise just because something is natural doesn't make it moral. That just makes it natural.'''''''''' i was bringing up nature in reference to our human biology that biology requires that we eat some food every 30 days and that we have shelter so biology is pressuring us to get those things biology is coercing us to get those things but since biology is not a human being it can not be immoral because only a human being can be immoral the government is made up of human beings they force us to pay income taxes when we didn't agree to pay them that's immoral

[@ReflectionsonFilm]

"He sounds older than I imagine he must be." lol, what a burn.

[@totalcontrol4205]

Never met a Libertarian who was disabled or poor... it's a philosophy or way of thinking which only works in a perfect imaginary world where bodies and minds are strong, etc.

[@YorickReturns]

Thanks to the extent that we live in a free market, the wealth exists to spend on disabled people.

[@someonenotnoone]

@@YorickReturns Specious reasoning. There's no unicorn orbiting the earth, that must be why we're doing so well.

[@policevanposition1993]

This guy sounds like he burns atleast 10,000 calories in every one of his conversations.

[@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342]

@@metabolic_jam Nah she owned Larry David just fine. She's in perfect health : )

[@rayRay-pw6gz]

I was in a small group and one of our friends was a libertarian/Ayn Rand follower . After he went thru his detailed explanation, we were a little stunned . Then one person spoke up and said, tell us what country has successfully used this theory of government ? TOTAL SILENCE !

[@FelisImpurrator]

And the name of the boss is Alden, and he has all the coconuts.

[@icemeoutlikeelsa]

Another person who in the attempt to be mr rational and principled basically just ends up justifying the status quo , the worst aspects of capitalism, or bigotry. So refreshing!

[@leealexander3507]

Sam succeeds in amusing me. Dan fails to even do that.

[@randallsmith5631]

Ayn Rand acolyte: I'd go to a public park. Sam Seder: No.No.No.No.It's all private property. There are no public property.

[@jnananinja7436]

What’s humorously ironic about Ayn Rand is that her “philosophy” only works in her fictional novels. She creates a very unsophisticated, ego driven ethics and then convinces her followers of its efficacy by?.. demonstrating it in her imaginary fictional worlds. Hmmm.. (I actually enjoyed a couple of her novels, such as The Fountainhead and Anthem, and consider her a fairly talented children’s author. Her works can inspire a self-determined independence and a spirit of achievement.. when you are in junior high)

[@JudasMaccabeus1]

Anthem was fun

[@mattlodder]

Funny thing is, it doesn't even work in her own fantasy universes. Case in point: there's no competition in Galt's Gulch. Just one capitalist per industry. Funny, huh?

[@kkimberling]

24:00 imagine you’re on an island. You and someone else are the only two survivors… But they woke up before you and… … coconuts…