Debate with the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida

From the Majority Report, live M-F 11:30am EST and via daily podcast at Majority.FM:
The Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida called into the show and debated Libertarianism with Sam Seder.
PLUS...the challenge remains! Can ANYONE defend Libertarian principles? Call into the show 646-257-3920 anytime Monday-Friday between the hours of 12:40pm-1:30pm EST.

[@roguetool8869]

I'm addicted to these libertarian calls from 5+ yrs ago

[@benjaminpark5460]

RogueTool absolutely! Whenever I’m bored I always turn on an old majority report libertarian debate

[@tianamaycry]

Me too, I wish this was the show sometimes. We need so much more of this! lol

[@donnadicasa]

RogueTool I've been bingeing on these for a couple of days. And I second Beavis De Jesus' comment. Michael's laugh was so much fun.

[@BruhWhyDidTheyChangeThis]

Same, I’ve been running into a bunch recently and I come here to recharge

[@roguetool8869]

@@Randomuser2329 I miss him

[@johnedwards1968]

Native Americans didn't have government? What exactly do libertarians think a tribe was? This is the core problem with libertarian ideology. It has no basis in reality.

[@alaroche]

+Despicably Irascible Rapscallion not only that, but Native American tribes warred with each other constantly over land and resources. There was no body to govern the bartering, so if a stronger tribe didn't feel like honoring the barter, they would just kill and enslave the weaker tribe or just flat out take the resources. The fact that he used Native Americans as a litmus just goes to show how delusional these people are.

[@moonlitegram]

+Alain Laroche And governments haven't done the same thing? I don't get this argument that says we can't have a system based on free markets because people might war with each other. So instead lets have a state based system where people war with each other. But you're right, libertarians are the delusional ones...

[@johnedwards1968]

moonlitegram I'm pretty sure using native tribes as an example of libertarian utopia is what we were talking about. It's fantastical nonsense, but then the whole premise is. - Please try to keep up.

[@moonlitegram]

Despicably Irascible Rapscallion You didn't address my point at all and resorted to what essentially boils down to an ad hominem. Nice try though.

[@alaroche]

moonlitegram yes, governments have done many ill things in human history. but there is literally no proof of their being a successful society with no established government. Libertarians live in this drug-induced utopia that doesn't exist.

[@cjdabes]

Libertarianism in a nutshell: when asked to cite an example of something or any kind of evidence, use a hypothetical scenario.

[@Seattle-2017]

Sam: "Cite one example of anthropolical evidence that markets pre-date any type of govenment." Libertarian: "Sure. How 'bout, I have a yard full of chickens..." Laughter erupts.

[@maltaian14]

Why does every libertarian sound like they troll on Xbox and live in their moms basement

[@Moosesoup]

Majed because they definitely do!

[@elizabethbennet4791]

funny because a few comments up someone says "native americans didnt have government? these libertarians have no basis in reality" which is explained by your comment.

[@elftax]

The libertarian is confusing acts of barter with a functioning market. I was expecting him to use the darknet and bitcoin as examples, to which Sam would have said they work on internet which was created by the govt and is governed by international treaties.

[@davedammann741]

I bought a Toyota for 8,000 chickens.

[@gaiusgrdn]

I like how the period where there was a free market included the Great Depression and when we recovered from this is when it ended.

[@pdoylemi]

If the government doesn't regulate the markets, the rich will. There will never be a free market. But the Libertarian does have one point - a completely free market could generate more wealth. But is the the purpose of a strong economy? If all the wealth goes to a few? And then idiot boy thinks that free markets allowed single earner families and savings is ludicrous. Before unions, and the social safety net most families had husband, wife AND children all working just to stay alive.

[@alexd5637]

+Pat Doyle The more the Government regulates the economy, the more the rich individuals (like Bachmans) or groups of individuals (like unions) are likely to get access to politicians to propose their regulations. The more free market you have the less you can stay rich forever. One of the reasons the economy didn't skyrocket until 19th century was the slavery which kept capital around keeping the slaves rather than R&D. As bath as those families were, there must have been a reason why so many people went to USA and why the USA got so reach, or why UK got so rich after abolition of corn laws and so on, creating a lot of free market. P.S. Government are not some weird aliens or robots programmed by Jacque Fresco, they are just people, mostly rich, who regulate everything they can! They tend to lack any remorse (look how they smile when they evaporate people in wars, or how Albright said killing 500 000 children is a good DEAL) and they are completely driven by self-interest, way more than regular players in the market. The last point is why the anarchist Graeber mentioned by Sam .. is also sort of a free marketer, as he doesn't believe in initiation of force too.

[@pdoylemi]

Alexandru Dragoi No - sorry. The economy took off because of the industrial revolution - the end of slavery had nothing to do with it. The places where the most wealth was being made - the Northern US states, and Europe, did not have slaves. And slaves are NOT free labor, so having them would NOT mean that people would not try to improve productivity. Slaves cost most, and have to be fed and cared for at least like a horse, or other animal being used for work. If someone came to a plantation owner with a machine that would allow him to sell off 90% of his slaves, and the price was right, he would buy it. Free markets created all the European "noble" families that have mostly stayed rich for longer than our nation has existed. Free markets without regulation ALWAYS result in rich, semi-permanent oligarchies that use their economic power to crush any competition. Unregulated free markets are always horrible for the vast majority of society.

[@josuebarboza9809]

And in which countries at the time was there NOT high levels of poverty.

[@pdoylemi]

Josue Barboza What countries are you talking about? The levels of poverty almost everywhere at that time were terrible - including the USA.

[@josuebarboza9809]

Pat Doyle exactly. Sam was implying that free markets create rampant poverty, but there was rampant poverty everywhere lol

[@alexmatthews8162]

In case you guys didn't know, this caller is Adrian Wyllie, and he is currently running for Florida Governor

[@danieltobin4498]

Alex Matthews Florida man strikes agaib

If I hear this guy right he wants a social system designed for the maximum benefit of profiteering. Does he expect all the rest of us to build it for him? And what do we get out of it?

[@ElasticGiraffe]

"Libertarianism should be opposed because there has never been a libertarian, free-market society." That is a hopelessly "conservative" objection. o_O

[@seanmower3926]

Libertarianism only creates rugged individualism, if you think wealth inequality is bad now just put a libertarian government in charge and watch the absolute destruction of our way of life

[@tianamaycry]

I mean, his argument is more that a free market cannot possibly exist because once the market becomes too free it ceases to be a market. That's the reason why he is asking for an example of one. He is not saying it cannot be because it has not been, he is saying it cannot be because it is self contradictory.

[@ironlamb]

Weren't there frontier towns in the American West that had no government? Hence no government controlled markets for certain amounts of time?

[@top_gallant]

I would say semi government control. the government was essentially always close in some way. Since the towns still ran on the u.s. dollar. the banks were still regulated by national banking acts. the telegraph could send 30 words a minute to ask for assistance. and the rail road could bring whatever was needed in town from the territorial capital within a day or two.

[@tannersanta]

I actually saw the 'invisible' hand of the free market at work the other day, it flipped me off and sent my job to asia! Ron Paul 1812!

[@hellnah1688]

I actually don’t like the notion that a political ideology should be dismissed on the basis that it has never been fully realized. That actually is a dismissal of many political ideas on the left as well. Not a libertarian by any means, but I think Sam’s starting point here is unfair. The main issue I have with libertarians is that, while they hoist up ideals like freedom and personal liberty as reasons to restrict government power, they ignore the fact that unaccountable private power has been consistently in opposition to freedom and personal liberty. They want a very certain and very narrow kind of freedom: the freedom to submit oneself to control by private tyranny.

[@pigeonnnn]

One fundamental problem with libertarianism is that it completely disregards citizens ability to organizr society. A government is essentially an extension of the people at it’s root. That means that if you removed government intervention or remove it entirely people would sooner or later get together and form governments once again. So basically the libertarian ideology would only turn back the clock on our societal development. But the libertarian argument is often that the government initiates force and is inherently corrupt. This is true to different extents but bad government does not mean there can’t be good governments. So if there ideology sooner or later ends up with government as well the conversation should be around how we keep power in check and organize society, not whether we should have government at all.

[@harshitmadan6449]

Libertarians aren' anarchists. Duh!

[@Derekthompson83]

I think we are agreeing on the same principle. I thank you for the discussion and open debate. No hard feelings on the matter of the video nor our discussion.

[@sparkloweb]

The government doesn't provide access and reliability to the opium market (in general), but the market has persisted for thousands of years as governments and gangs and cartels rose and fell. It continues to exist in places where government doesn't.

[@gregkahuna1]

2. Under a free-market, few banks would make subprime loans because the benefit does not match the potential risk (except during housing booms where the risk is temporary low). But with regulations such as the CRA, banks are prompted to make subprime mortgages to meet the housing mandate and to compete with other FDIC insured institutions. With this increase in mortgages, you end up with an overinflated real estate market.

[@democrazy69]

Some serious libertarian butthurt on these Seder debate videos. They swarm here just to down vote. lmao

[@Ithil-00]

A Mortgage is an unfunded liability from the perspective of the debtor. People typically have access to loans when their income is commensurate with the payment schedule. US Bond holders also expect the government to repay the present value of debt with interest, because the economy is expected to grow. Since the future hasn't occurred yet, that's an unfunded liability, and therefore, no different than an unpaid mortgage.

[@XandersArcaneStudy]

Summary of the debate: Libertarian: "Barter predates currency." Sam Seder: "No, that's not true; there's no evidence of that." 23m06s

[@thetruthalwaysscary]

lol...if I hunted a wolf with big fur you have two rabbit with small fur but edible...we exchange....if this happened hundred thousand years ago there were no currency....no evidence? barter is popular and native tribes all around the world even American natives used barter...there are plenty of evidence

[@STylerStafford]

He's talking about a economic system based on barter not individual trades. If the tribe all agrees that 10 chickens equal 1 cow then that, by definition, is an exchange of currency (chickens for cows) established by govt (the tribe).

[@thetruthalwaysscary]

S. Tyler Stafford In many civilization they had fixed values of merchandise similar as you just said. In the Amazon some tribes had exchange values set similar as 3 birds worth a small pig and so on. There are documentations of such, there are plenty of evidence.

[@STylerStafford]

+Jon Snow exactly my point. When a group of people come together and agree on the value of a thing that is the establishment of currency by a governing body.

[@thetruthalwaysscary]

S. Tyler Stafford lol....I guess in your dictionary has no such thing as barter. When a fur of a fox, a wolf, a rabbit or a bear has an exchange that also can include some pigs, some clothing, some caught fishes and a long long list...you want to call that currency ? Seriously? The guy makes the best bow and arrow exchange it for a pig and his fee is a pig for each bow is a pig so suddenly all tools and food are currency....NOT.....it is called barter. When the weather is mild and there are lot of pigs the value of the bow can go to 2 pigs instead of one...lol. In barter the item you exchange is the currency, but there are no such thing as real currency because if the person does not need a bow will not accept it for a pig. To be a real currency it has to be accepted as a generally and circulated. Primitive tribes do not have such. They only barter for needs or to gain "wealth".

[@yourfavoriteanimal]

Matt, I would like you to explain which philosophy does NOT, "assume the existence of a system of law and justice that cannot be corrupted, leaned on, or outright destroyed?" Are you saying that because your since your system CAN be, "corrupted, leaned on, and outright destroyed," it is therefor is a valid positions to take?

[@Pentazoid111]

"Its a known fa"Unions are government supported cartels. Most economists described them as cartels for they seek to raise their wages at the expense of everyone else. Labor unions have harmed low skilled minority workers the most. Samuel gompers and the AFL were strong proponents of the chinese exclusion act of 1882 that barred chinese workers from the united states because he and the AFL members did not want to compete with low skilled chinese laborers

[@Gadsden45]

"yes people barter, but a market based on bartering doesn't exist." makes sense if you don't think about it. Bartering was exclusively how payments were made back in the day.

[@rastaman24211]

Also, at some point you began to misrepresent both what I am saying and what Sam was arguing by substituting the word free market with Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not an economic system. It is a political ideology that favors capitalism among other things. Please stop doing that.

[@sajfen]

So you define a free marked as something that cannot exist and then point out the fact that it has never existed historically (duh) and somehow that means striving for freer markets is undesirable?

[@doubledown3084]

Barter has never existed...... HAHAHAHAHAHA

[@genestarwind928]

+francis mccormick Yah, idk wtf he was talking about there, and I dislike libertarianism..

[@hrsqsiest]

Barter "economy". There has never been one. Barter yes, barter "economy" no.

[@harshitmadan6449]

@@hrsqsiest why not?

[@wuyeelok]

@@harshitmadan6449 because of 2 situations: if buyer and seller trust and know each other, they share things just like you did to family, gifted economy like system. If the buyer and seller don't trust each other, they will not trade or they both require some kind of authority enforcement system to guarantee both sides will not cheat or punish those who cheats.

[@ZombieTex1]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that employers have a certain budget for wages, which includes costs for all taxes and employee benefits. The more taxes and benefits cost, the less the employer can pay in wages. It's called balancing a budget. Everything has to get paid, and if one cost goes up, the money must come from somewhere to pay for it. That's just reality. What I endorse is the free market, which offers employees the highest wage for their skill level.

[@milesj.943]

LOLOLOLOLOL Neighbors trading goods is a fiction. Not a single person in the history of the world ever worked together by trading goods or services before government existed. Wonderful argument. I also love the fact that Sam is constantly talking over and interrupting the caller who is being extremely polite and respectful.

[@franciscofranco5133]

Miles Jensen Yeah. Sam is wrong. What about black markets? Black markets exist *despite* the government trying to get rid of them. People will always trade goods, it's called demand and supply, which is something he's basically rejecting. It's actually quite funny.

[@milesj.943]

Paul Åge In fact, they are only black markets because the government has made it illegal.

[@franciscofranco5133]

Miles Jensen Exactly. But they exist despite the government trying to get rid of them/don't want them? Yes. And of course, drugs should be legal - but that was not the point here and now.

[@robertaylor9218]

Miles J. He was referring to a market on an economic scale, not a single transaction. There are families and communities that can pull together but that doesn’t mean a nation can effectively adopt communism.

[@parker469a]

@@robertaylor9218 I think the argument that should be made is "No large, growing economy with wide spread power and authority in history has ever fully or even mostly relied on barter to maintain that power." Barter does and always will happen but is not and can not be the main system in place for trade markets because it is too cumbersome to deal with in the long term. Is this clear enough or is it still too ambiguous?

[@Fauxklore23]

When do people go around trading chickens for cows or bartering potatoes for the nails they need to build their own house? That's not how exchanges work at all.

[@K1LL_D13]

God damn Sam quit interrupting people and let them make their points!!!!

[@84Doomtrain]

Productivity increases year after year due to a mixture of streamlined corporate procedure (think the assembly line) and technology making things work faster and better (computers, the web etc.). Cutting hours or pay simply increases the bottom line which is irrelevant to actual productivity.

[@Porelorexeus]

I'm sure back in the days of slavery there were people who said you couldn't get rid of slavery because the economy would fall without it.

[@jaceking5938]

The caller's objection to Sam's definition of productivity was doing the same amount of work with less workers or with working less hours... That's efficiency bud

[@austinrogers2632]

Solid 20 minutes of Sam ranting about why libertarians are wrong, then when the libertarian wants to respond: "Okay, that's where we're gonna end."

[@mrbond59]

No. What he actually said (at 21:59) was "There is no anthropological evidence that markets predate any kind of governments...or state I should say..."

[@Alex-cw3rz]

So this guy doesn't know what productivity is, what a ponzi scheme is, doesn't evn know what you pay into social security just whatever it is it must be to much, what a market is and amazingly doesn't even know what an economy is Jesus fucking hell and he's the guy is a chairman!

[@Sovereign1201]

my mistake, I should have said "autonomous state enterprise" version of socialism. I was only thinking of one of the various versions.

[@medhue]

Nothing inherent? It is rare and it takes much effort to mine it. I'd call that inherent. This means it can't be sold for less than it costs to mine it. It can't goto zero, like a stock can. Just take a look at silver. In 1964, you could buy a gallon of gas for a quarter. Today, with that same 1964 quarter, you can still buy a gallon of gas, and a coffee. That's a good example of why you should never leave your retirement money in currencies like the dollar.

[@seanmarsh9458]

Sam... You lose.

[@LJY08]

I live in a country that has higher income tax than Americans, and I don't feel like a slave. Ultimately it comes down to the kind of society you want to live in. If people can't get adequate education or feed and cloth themselves they will do what is necessary to survive. Personally, I'd rather give them a hand up so that I don't need to worry too much about the ramifications of that situation.

[@Fauxklore23]

But why are people so confident in money that they will exchange things for it? Mostly because we just grew up with it, but people didn't always use money. What conditions in the past were necessary to build confidence in money so that people would be willing to trade for it? It was largely the government that gave them this confidence, primarily, the wars that states waged and the conditions that followed because of those wars. Money (i.e. metal coinage) is a product of warfare.

[@thomastrinkle2294]

My response “How free was the market in the early US for slaves?”

[@07Flash11MRC]

Or women, who were the men's property? Or children, who were forced into child labor instead of school just so families could survive?

[@MrOttopants]

I don't hold an opinion because it is contrary. I hold a political opinion, because it works, and it's been demonstrated to work. .

[@ZombieTex1]

At around 16:00 they start arguing about how much SS tax costs us. SS comes out of FICA which is a little over 7%, but your employer has to match that, which in total comes out to around 15%. The portion that the employer pays comes out of his budget for payroll ... which means that if he didn't have to pay it to the government, it would be available to pay to YOU, so in fact, you ARE paying 15% of your income for SS. For what you get back at the end, it's completely not worth it.

[@seanmower3926]

ZombieTex1 yes because employers would definitely pass the savings to their workers and not to themselves or shareholders. 🙄

[@gregkahuna1]

Switzerland had the gold standard up to 1999. We can also observe the effects when governments issue remove market regulations in the past 100 years.

[@Fauxklore23]

Money has value because the government grants its value and says that it is legal tender. That's where markets and money originally come from anyway: the government.

[@medhue]

Well, u didn't address why they keep changing the way inflation is calculated. I venture to guess that u have never evaluated it for urself. There is also the loss of opportunity that people experience because of the loss of income. That money could be far more productive in the local economies, starting businesses and what not, than it could ever be in some stock or fund. You can't even know or calculate what those losses are to those communities and individuals. My point is still very valid.

[@michaelkeeton5146]

Well, the economy of the US at that time was extremely localized and never achieved a national scale until after the influence of industrialization. At that point, trusts began to form and market failure became widespread when monopolies gained more market power. Now, whether or not the nationalized economy was a free market is completely debatable. However, especially on the laborer and consumer side, the beginning of America's nationalized economy was not free.

[@Defiance.]

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is a U.S. federal agency established by the National Currency Act of 1863 and serves to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in the United States. The acting Comptroller of the Currency is John Walsh.

[@Uhkilleez]

In addendum, the only reason you DON'T see blatant monopolies today is because the govt, to retain its power and authority from the people, must keep them minimally happy. So long as we are minimally happy, we continue to put faith into its authority and the status qua goes on as normal. How can the existence of exactly that which perpetuates concentration of wealth be the reason we don't see huge concentration of wealth? Your argument here is a paradox.

[@Ithil-00]

Cutting the cost of medicare necessitates instituting cost control measures on both the public and private side. If the US was paying what the Swiss, Germans or Dutch were spending for healthcare, on a per capita basis, the Incomes of the working class would be appreciable. Economic output would be a lot higher, tax revenue would increase as a result, and we wouldn't even have to consider raising taxes or cutting entitlements. Federal Spending as a % of GDP could be 15%.

[@Uhkilleez]

First off, profit is not a derivative of labor in itself, but more of the capital invested in the first place which makes labor possible. Secondly, the minimum wage is the minimum by law, but does not reflect a difficulty of position, and if many cases forces employers to overpay for menial positions. Lastly, and least importantly, I do understand the basic economics you are portraying here, however when wages are fair labor is not a cost to the employee, you get more than the exertion of labor.

[@Fauxklore23]

Gold didn't serve any of those purposes except as a decoration long ago. And it's use as coinage didn't come into widespread use until the time of the Persians and the Greeks in the 1st millennium. Gold only has value because people agree that it does. As soon as someone figures out how to fuse atoms together to make it from scratch easily and in mass quantities like it did in the stars then suddenly gold loses all its value.

[@grippicam]

that's why it's called a "free market" the value of those ten chickens is determined by the value of those ten chicken. if those ten chickens are the only ten chickens in the state, then you can name what you want for them. if everyone's got ten chicken, then you'll take what you can get. it's not regulated by the government, it's regulated by the market of supply and demand, hence, and "Free Market".

[@ebolaman48]

Both of them are kinda set on their ideas. My idea of Libertarianism is that the role of government should be to protect the rights of individuals. The problem I got with liberalism is it says we should make all these programs for the greater good but ignores how it does these things: taxation(could be considered theft), borrowing money, and printing money (lowers value of currency).

[@StormeStValle-fb2sn]

Not a libertarian by any means but the caller makes a lot of sense. I just don't see how instances of trade the way the called described them does not constitute a market. What am I missing?

[@giorgiosala6864]

the definition of market

[@LJY08]

It's not about their choices in life, it's about the environment they grew up in or the situation they have been thrust into, as everyone is different, they will react differently to these situations and to say that they simply made bad decisions is judgemental, unfair and unproductive. Assuming that charity will help these people, assumes we live in a society that cares, and that charity is enough; I dont' believe that we do or it is.

[@jonkelly2003]

Ireland was stateless for 2000 years until Cromwell invaded. Iceland was stateless for 300 years. All current international trade maintains itself without government contract enforcement. On-line trading is largely guaranteed by reputation. Late middle age merchants were self regulated. Western gold mines resolved resolved claim disputes themselves. Unfettered capitalism always raises economic power of the poor because capitalism = property rights=competition=innovation=profits=demand for labor.

[@duditsadud]

Anyone who argues against a free market either doesn't understand what a market is or, worse yet, doesn't understand what freedom is.

[@blackmichael75]

How did you get that from my comment? Do you really not know the difference between profit and wages? Profits are receipts minus costs, wages are a cost. The capital invested in the first place is also the result of labour. Lots of people do work for the absolute minimum. It's called minimum wage. Wages are recompense for labour, but not full recompense. The money that comes in is wholly a product of his labour, but he's only recompensed for a part of it. The difference is profit.

[@wvu05]

"The creation of the Federal Reserve put bankers in charge instead of the Treasury." These libertarians are so ahistorical! The Fed became a thing because there was a bank panic in 1907 that nearly caused a depression. The reason why it didn't was because JP Morgan literally sat in his office listening to appeals from banks to see whuch would survive and which wouldn't. That was one step too far for most people.

[@botchamaniajeezus]

so under his own logic, a free market can never exist? cause humans are imperfect

[@fistiza]

So If I have ten chickens and I go to this market I can get enough supplies to last me through the winter, or last me through several winters, or get nothing and watch my family die. I would have to guess what good to produce in the first place since I have no idea of any prices. No group of people would gamble with their lives in this "economy" where you don't know if your filthy rich or a popper.

[@Lacaras21]

I only got an opportunity to listen to the first 6 minutes or so, but I am confused as to what your point of "a free market doesn't exist and hasn't existed" is. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it's not a good idea, not even just on a political level, this is called resistance to change.

[@johnmont47]

Define free market.

[@LibertyWarrior68]

Of cause if you suddenly cut social security, you will create poverty, because people on social security are dependent on the government. What you need to ask yourself, why are so many people dependent on the government??? Because this is the way the government like it.

[@beeeefcurtains]

His argument was that Libertarianism has never existed before; therefore, it can't exist anywhere. That isn't an either or fallacy because it isn't a dichotomy. I said that I didn't agree with the argument, so how could I fall for it line-and-sinker? I just said it wasn't an either or fallacy because it isn't. The Latin phrasing means that if someone says one thing that is false, everything they say is false. This still isn't what Sam was arguing.

[@Sovereign1201]

the new deal helped because it introduced a lot of new money into the economy, but the ending of world war II was what really gave us a good middle class because taxes went down so the people could spend more of their own money and spending went down even more.

[@beeeefcurtains]

Are you referring to market and command economies? These are not free market vs socialism. Both are a kind of economic system. The main point is that Sam didn't make the argument that you said he did. He just asked if there had ever been a free market economy of any kind at any time in history. The answer is no; therefore, libertarianism is a fantasy. That isn't an either or fallacy. I don't agree with the argument, but it isn't an either or fallacy.

[@LJY08]

You're experiencing it right now in America, massive greed and corruption. Governments need to control those who are out of control...so to speak. 'Corporate psychopaths' is the term used. People who would see whole economies fall if it meant they could buy another hooker or boat or house or car or.......Once again, libertarianism is wonderful 'in theory', but life and human kind are too complicated for such a simple philosophy.

[@thesarcasticliberal]

Bartering has always existed, but a barter based economy has never existed. Unless there is a government in order to enforce rules and give structure to economic transaction, there is no "market". Look up the requirements to a "free market" and you will see that while bartering, pre-dates monetary policy, it has never been organized enough to be considered a market economy.

[@Teadon86]

he's arguing that there wasn't a barter system extensive enough to be called a market. Just because two halfwits can change a rock and some leather between each others every now and then it doesn't constitute a market. A market needs access to new consumers and products to trade on a regular basis to discover new prices and profits. And much more which a trade based on bartering could never be able to sustain or develop. So far I would claim that Sam Seder is absolutely correct.

[@arklow3482]

We made the move away from free market capitalism after the knickerbocker bank run in 1907, which by the way was solved without the help of government in one year. The great depression was a result of the newly coined "Federal Reserve". Why do you think Ben Bernanke said and I quote "“I would like to say to Milton and Anna [Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.”

[@gulbirk]

"""Sam intentionally mixes""" Sam doesnt call anyone, they call HIM. When people call in and call themselfes libertarians, its not up to Sam to decide wether or not they are "fake" libertarians. His whole point is exactly this, there is no consistency amoung the libertarian community as to what libertarianism actually is. Socialists arent the ones misrepresenting anyone here, the callers voluntarily call in and they get to explain themselfes.

[@blackmichael75]

Well this gets to the heart of it. The American right "libertarians" have figured out the danger of state power, but they neglect to take into account the danger of private power. If you let the bosses determine their own wages, they will pay as little as possible. This is because wages are a cost and profits are receipts minus costs. This will also drive down wages for everyone else. Since you are opposed to government, think of the private corporation as a mini-government. That's what it is.

[@thebushmaster1276]

libertarianism in the U.S. is not associated with anarchism. It is a political philosophy that (as Ron Paul has said many times ) seeks to uphold the constitution of the U.S. as it has been routinely violated to increase federal power. For example: the n.d.a.a., the patriot act, the a.c.a. ect. The constitution and bill of rights enumerates the negative rights of the federal government everything else should be left to the states. this is imperative to allow citizens dissatisfied with their state to move to one that is a better fit, in this way states are forced to comply with the will of the people. endless war. let congress meet and decide if declaring war is necessary, in this way the peoples representatives can have input. anything else is a despot's wet dream. a compromise enacted during Vietnam known as the war powers act, requires the president to make a reasonable case for an attack before congress within 60 days following the attack, in classic give an inch take a mile, Obama ignored this requirement in the Libya campaign. libertarians believe it is immoral and just bad policy to force one individual to pay for the benefit of another individual. this causes productivity to decline as compensation declines due to over taxation, it creates a dependent, lazy, criminal class of people who live miserable lives due to this condition. wealth in the hands of free people allocating capital according to their own best interests, realizing the reward or suffering the loss, is the most efficient and reliable way for capital to be used most effectively to the maximum benefit of all. To simply say social security and medicare have decreased the number of elderly living in poverty can be said of the most poorly run bloated system, as these two programs are. there are around 10000 better ways to achieve this , albeit none that so marvelously increases a citizens dependence on the state there by increasing state power. end the fed. The federal reserve in spite of its stated mission to soften the vicissitudes of the economy has been a complete failure as witnessed by history. Instead it has facilitated corruption and financed the governments usurpation of the god given rights of the people of the united states. legalize it... libertarians believe fewer people would be hurt or killed by drug use and its ancillary criminal enterprises if they were legalized, regulated and sold by the states as this would cause the price to plummet, the cartels to disband and violence to be reduced to a fraction of what it is because there would be no money in dealing. in short there would be no black market selling to kids and the state would collect more taxes and save billions not fighting the war on drugs. The fact that so many news sources are grossly misrepresenting libertarianism simply reinforces the libertarian notion that the press is not free, and the election process is corrupt. " That government is best which governs least"

[@Uhkilleez]

The formal process for making laws (a government function completed by Congress) is codification, and they are not written into the constitution, and have little to do with the constitution. The majority of regulations and government interventions come through codification, and not the constitution. The constitution is literally a means to govern any kind of formal organization which holds power, by its own definition, and is a means of limiting government. Get a history book, or a dictionary.

[@MrJrousey]

It doesn't exist as a fantasy land? What is a fantasyland? By connotation, it is a world so quixotic as to challenge the rational perception. So, by simple logic, you've proven the point at hand. It is conceivable to the rational faculty. Thank you.

[@Cabochon1360]

During the late 1860s, when the delusional Chairman thinks we had an almost perfectly free market, it was Federal government programs that built the railroads tying the country together.

[@stn321]

You think it's a coincidence that it's the world busiest shipping lane? The reason for that is that trade embargos and tariffs are illegal in Hong Kong, this means MORE economic freedom, which creates MORE wealth. China is becoming more powerful because they are adopting a more capitalist economy but it is still very authoritarian... if they ever embrace pure capitalism they will be the new undisputed world superpower.

[@TheAntiV]

And when did I say that selfishness is the highest virtue? I guess hypocrisy is the key to flexibility.

[@Fauxklore23]

There were American peoples who had nations and hierarchical chiefdoms that controlled trade across the continent. Hardly the small, isolated tribes I was describing. And the free market had driven the Eurasian beaver to near extinction in Europe which is why traders looked to the new world for fur. And this was difficult at the start. The first couple hundred years of trade between Europeans and natives was dangerous. People got killed. The free market is not as natural or peaceful as you think

[@LJY08]

In any event, at the time people lived off the King’s/Queen’s land and paid their debt to the monarch by providing food in return for land in order to survive. Some may argue that this was a very early form of welfare; that is to say a reciprocal relationship between the people and the governing body of the time, everyone worked for the prosperity of the monarch for the greater good of all and sundry…not just for the aristocricy.

[@yourfavoriteanimal]

Libertarians believe that that each individual has the right to live his or her life how he or she sees fit as long as that doing so does not infringe on another person's right to live their life how they see fit. Any force, be it corporate or state or individual, which infringing on an individual's the right to live freely, is in violation of basic human rights. Please tell me how that is not a good philosophy for which to strive?

[@SanDoggy10]

As for why they changed the way inflation is calculated, I didn't comment on it because it didn't matter in making my point. (Which was that Inflation is clearly nowhere near 16%.) Based upon things you say, I think that your sources of information are sorely lacking credibility.

[@greenvelvet]

Do libertarians know billionaires exist?

[@claypoole702]

This is ring around the Rosie. Why doesn't Samsung get Stephen Molynuex on his show if he want to debate Libertarian principles. Libertarianism basic ethical foundations involve the non-aggression principles and the rights to ownership. Know and analyzing these principles though rational thought and reasoning will provide the answers you seek.

[@catbuffalo]

I wonder if anybody realizes the real reason why (i'm assuming jefferson) changed "life, liberty, and property" in the declaration. Back then property could have been interchangeable with happiness according to locke's idea of an individual's sense fulfillment. Of course libertarians talk about property in the modern sense. Now, what do we have here? It should have been implied in the declaration that everyone has a right to a house (their definition).

[@Uhkilleez]

That's funny, because most every amendment to the constitution I see tells government what it may NOT do. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" etc, etc...

[@MrOttopants]

Have you ever looked at his imdb page? He's currently a voice actor on a Sunday Night animated Fox comedy.

[@blackmichael75]

I'm not an American and know little about the American Constitution, but I have here open before me Article I of the said constitution, Section 7 of which seems to concern the making of laws. So what on earth are you talking about. How can the Constitution be extra-governmental? It is the embodiment of government. One can't be a consistent anarchist and have any truck with constitutions, no matter how liberal-enlightenment they are.

[@blackmichael75]

"if the free market were able to flourish once again". It has never flourished, it has never existed, there has never been such a thing. Not in America or anywhere. When you have production for profit, monopolies form. It happens as a direct consequence of the profit imperative.

[@franklettering]

Free reign of an oligarchy without the constraints of a social contract would be a regressive move for the working class. Plutocrats would demand and coerce a philanthropic proletariat to provide a charitable safety net for the less fortunate.

[@Sovereign1201]

1965 was 70%. Reagan was right on lowering taxes, but it back fired when he didn't cut spending. Not really a small government conservative fiscally

[@Dante-420]

I love how many times this guy says "Libertarians believe...". Instead of interpreting it like some sort of no-true-scotsman fallacy, I like to think he's talking in third person. Like this guy would go to the ice cream shop and say "Ooo, Libertarians LOVE mint chocolate chip!"

[@grippicam]

What?? Look, if you open a business, and nobody wants that service, it will fail, and go under. Similarly, if you decided to raise chickens, when there was already a surplus of chickens, that's bad business, and you may be right, your family could starve, but that is a free economy. In any economy you have to be smart to survive. unless of course, you live in ours, where the government will hold your hand through life, & fix your mistakes. just ask farmers who grow already surplussed crops.

[@ThePocketbass]

Questioning whether a true free market exists and therefore implying that it can't be done is the same as "there is no place on the globe without rape so we should continue to engage in rape." --And yes, every day on an individual basis, people make voluntary choices and those choices are played out worldwide.

[@rastaman24211]

I don`t think you understand what the meaning of intrinsic value is when referring to money. Intrinsic value means that the material the money is made out of is not worth the value of the money itself. Fiat money does not have intrinsic value. However, gold is literally worth it`s weight in gold. With that said, I do not support us going back on the gold standard.

[@Uhkilleez]

Slavery and indentured service was a fault of the system which allowed it and the society which encouraged it. As our government has grown it has increased its power and its hold on the market this is true, but in its beginning the market was free of govt intervention. A free market doesn't always imply a free people, unfortunately. However, it was the government itself that recognized slavery, and if it had not I think that not only would African Americans be much better off, but all of us.

[@MrOttopants]

Complete state ownership is a destructive concept. Socialism is not the opposite of a free market.

[@SirSlasher33]

Are you suggesting that currency has to be created by the government?