How Four Ex-Leftists Escaped Groupthink: The Black Sheep x Reality's Last Stand

Рет қаралды 1,069

The Black Sheep

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 26

@ZanderKeig 11 ай бұрын

As the luminary Thomas Sowell once wrote, "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."

@RevolutionofOne 11 ай бұрын

Loved this! 🔥

@teamfuturism3554 Жыл бұрын

Great conversation. I especially liked Salome highlighting how nice it is to be in a room with people who don't show instant outrage anytime something controversial is said. Though I would have liked to hear more pushback on some of Jake's comments. Like his contention that America should break up into smaller states that get along better. By that logic, California alone could reasonably break up into at least four distinct states that have more in common socially and politically. And ultimately you'd have to break up all the cities from the rural spaces across the entire country. Much easier to just get along and emphasize our points of commonality rather than points of difference.

@WeTheBlackSheep Жыл бұрын

So glad you enjoyed it! Regrading your critique, you might appreciate this quote from Anarcho-Capitalist economist/philosopher Murray Rothbard's book Power & Market: “It is all the more curious, incidentally, that while laissez-faireists should by the logic of their position, be ardent believers in a single, unified world government, so that no one will live in a state of 'anarchy' in relation to anyone else, they almost never are. And once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible 'anarchy,' why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.”

@jirehla-ab1671 9 ай бұрын

@@WeTheBlackSheepdoes a centralized power on a small local municipality government considered classical liberal? How would u diff between classical liberal & libertarianism? Can i call myself a classical liberal even if i want a publicly owned transportation system at the municipality local level?

@TagSpamCop Жыл бұрын

1:59:45 That's an important caveat. In principle, adults should be able to do what they want. However, we've seen a significant number of people who were caught up in this even as grown adults. And I hear too often "adults: do whatever you want." The exhausting other options, or even at least having responsible care is still important. I'm concerned the focus on children will result in GAC being banned for under-18, but persisting with the current complete lack of any guardrails for adults, which will give us more Shape Shifters, etc. Buck and Blaire seem to be successful because nobody was just blindly cheering them on for ideological reasons. They took their time, they understood the risks, etc, and particularly, they understood what it would and wouldn't do. It wouldn't make Blaire female, it wouldn't make Buck male. And they'd be the same on the inside, not a "trans euphoria" whole new person. As far as I can see, transition needs to be outright banned for under-18, and follow the old watchful-waiting instead. And for 18+, needs to heavily focus on mental health and understanding dysphoria, not "trans as identity."

@RD12349 10 ай бұрын

This is so good. Wish we had more people like you on college campuses. How can we help our college kids who have been indoctrinated? Thank you.

@salomesibonex1594 10 ай бұрын

I really appreciate this! Thank you. And yes, wish there were more of us on campus too haha. It took me until after college to start defining my beliefs for myself. It's hard to change anyone's mind, let alone your own college kids when that age tends to be the peak of "I know it all!" (it was for me haha). My best suggestion is to model open-mindedness to them by conversing about their ideas and coming from a "psychologist" standpoint. Carl Rogers has done good work on this approach. You can share things like this video with your kids and ask what they think about it, just as you would with a friend. The point isn't to prove someone wrong or show them you're right, but to lead them to think more deeply about their own beliefs. The idea behind this approach is that unfounded beliefs will begin to crumble upon genuine examination, so the goal is to facilitate that genuine examination. Anything that makes this outcome less likely (harsh criticism, judgmentalness, misrepresentation of someone's ideas, etc) will only make them defensive and thus less likely to examine their beliefs. This is the strategy I try to use with anyone I disagree with! I often fail by getting too caught up in proving my point or emotionally upset, but even just striving toward this goal gets me further than I'd get otherwise. Best of luck! I don't have kids and I'm nervous about one day having to watch my kids adopt poisonous ideas, but I have hope that as long as people keep pursuing growth in life, they will always have a path forward.

@RD12349 10 ай бұрын

@@salomesibonex1594 Love this. I will try it. Thank you so much. Best of luck to you!

@salomesibonex1594 10 ай бұрын

Happy to help and thank you! 😊

@jirehla-ab1671 9 ай бұрын

@@salomesibonex1594in my opinion the most best solution is homeschooling

@jirehla-ab1671 9 ай бұрын

@@RD12349tbh moms for liberty is only just doing more damage in my opinion with the book banning Its a game a wackemole If they ban 1 book it easily gets replaced by publishers with 5 books Thats why this wont solve anything

@zoltan-zq3xe 9 ай бұрын

Maoist like groupthink thats exactly what it is.

@RavenC1357 11 ай бұрын

I don't understand the land owner argument. People are very affected by taxes and economics without owning land. You can be very educated and still not own land. What if you sell and are in between? You just can't temporarily vote even though you had the capacity when you did own it? It would halt sales simply for voting reasons. It's not fair or practical to me.

@1superchief2much 4 ай бұрын

Around 1 hour in, Jake argues against centralised power by saying smaller organised governments are mostly peaceful with eachother even though there isn't a centralised structure binding them to peace. But he seems to leave out the importance of competition in the landscape. If one power starts organising centrally to be orders of magnitude larger than the smaller powers, what is there to dissuade the larger organisation from conquering and/or colonising these smaller organisations if they stand no chance in war and the participants in the larger organisation get the short term gain of the spoils of war?

@RavenC1357 11 ай бұрын

I get the argument about taxes but laws are the same. People are convicted and have to pay for things that aren't their fault all the time. And it doesn't mean we don't have the laws, but it's never just and it's devastating to think about. You're never going to get a society where people pay for the things they agree with. Because when it comes to money, people won't want to believe in it anymore if it costs. No one really wants to pay for wars. No one wants the bad things and the mismanagement. But I could deal with paying if the management of things were better. And everyone has different values so there's never going to be cohesion. As far as licensing, sometimes I get it. We often pay for our own licence (when it comes to the hair salon example, the individuals acquire their own) and there's a reason why it needs to be done. You can severely hurt people with those chemicals if you don't know what you're doing. Yes I do want to know that they've gone through the process of proving that they are qualified. A lot of taxing and licensing isn't fair but I get some of it. Even hunting, the idea is to prove you know what you're doing and understand the seasons. Because at the end of it, the government is who needs to bail everyone out when there's an issue (and insurance, but certain things the government does do). They have enough funding, but in theory I get it. Also it's really important that our government doesn't become something we don't want even more so. But like you guys said, it keeps going back and forth with every presidency.

@salomesibonex1594 10 ай бұрын

For me, the big shift was realizing that the libertarian argument isn't that there should be *no* licensing requirements, just that the government shouldn't have a monopoly on providing licensing. Competition helps ensure that the best provider succeeds, even with services like licensing. If there was a private option to obtain hair stylist licensing, we'd likely see 1) a faster processing time for obtaining licenses, which is a huge obstacle to an individual's upward mobility and an industry's improvement. 2) more competitive and accurate pricing for those licenses, because whenever a business can lower the cost while still making profit, they're incentivized to do so, but there's no incentive for the government to provide competitive or even accurate prices. 3) innovation in what a license signals to customers. The opportunity to compete for the business of hair stylists would incentivize licensing companies to prove why their license is more valuable to customers and hair salons than other companies or a government license. This is how we get innovation. So instead of just "you're competent", there might be a higher tier license that says "you're competent and you have specialized knowledge in hair coloring or safety protocols", etc. The crazy eye-opening moment around this issue for me was realizing that the government holding a monopoly that "sells" you the right to do business is indistinguishable from what a gang or cartel does when they require people to pay them for the "right" to do business in their territory!

@RavenC1357 10 ай бұрын

@@salomesibonex1594 That sounds great in theory but take nursing or doctor boards for example. Like the actual test you need to pass to be licensed. This is actually an example of something that isn't government, is a private company, I'm sure with some government help. Any other company could be cheaper (it's not cheap) but will the quality be the same? They could say it is, but maybe it's slightly easier. But it should be standardized for fairness and safety. If theoretical companies really provided the same standard, they would likely be the same price and the same level of quality and we kind of end up where we started. Sometimes I just think things through and I don't think it necessarily ends up better. It's not that the government should have the monopoly on it, it's just that some things like licensing should be fairly standard across all companies and therefore competition between those companies isn't great. We have things like college though, which are competing companies for a "similar" degree, but is it really similar? It's interesting to think about. With those, we don't often even know what the content and standards will *really* be like, we can only guess based on their reputation and reports of what is going on. I definitely think some degrees and schools are easier, full of nonsense or whatever, people who get passed through with minimal effort. But still, there's always boards for the real big deal stuff like law, medicine etc. It matters less about someones variance in art or generic classes. Though it does make degrees overall more useless. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's certain things I believe should have more variance and competition, like personal choice; food, clothing, art, hobbies, and some that should be more standard like safety and agencies such as that. What my issue is, I don't always believe the government is doing it the best way or the fair way, and even if it was, it's so big that it's hard to manage (such as things like healthcare). People get lost, things get over looked, funding is misused, and there's a lot of variables that can't be accounted for when an agency is so large but tasked with that much.