Is Inequality Fair? (Dr. Yaron Brook v. Professor William Marshall)

A 2015 debate between Dr. Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute) and Professor William Marshall (UNC Law) in front of the UNC Law Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society.
Unfortunately, the camera died midway through Q&A.

[@landonwalsh7393]

LOL... wow... Yaron's book crushed everything Marshall said. Perfect.

[@singanagesh6436]

+Landon Walsh Exactly

[@michaelbrent6099]

erm no. yaron is actually more of an idealist than marshall. Marshall, at least can see both sides of the issue and favours a mixed economy. Private and social power structures are both flawed, so what do we do? we find a balance.

[@dunkleybwoy1]

that's still coercion

[@sarahcaito6937]

We need socialism because we had socialism. We need more socialism to fix our failing socialism. We need to make more opportunities by destroying opportunities. This debate was entirely one sided.

[@sajfen]

Please don't put people eating potato chips right next to the mic please.

[@sajfen]

@@mikeymouse3758 On what planet!?

[@cristianofisch]

Damn, such bad arguments from William. Show some FACTS

[@Shozb0t]

27:45 “If everyone was an Ayn Rand in this world, the system would collapse in an instant.” Well, only in the sense that Ayn Rand didn’t know how to run an electric generating station or drive a tractor trailer. But i would love to live in a world in which everyone upheld her principles.

[@Awong124]

Yaron's voice is just a lot more clear and carries a lot better. I had a bit of trouble hearing what Marshall was saying.

[@FreedomSpirit108]

Yaron destroyed Marshall

[@Extreme_Gardening145]

Yaron seemed to refute most of Marshall's points before he even made them.

[@bighoss1860]

When you know the arguments of the opposition better than they do that tends to happen.

[@Shozb0t]

Marshall may have been unprepared. Socialists believe that the debate is an open and shut case. And they are accustomed to people who don’t know how to defend capitalism properly.

[@UserNameAnonymous]

"Here's why capitalism isn't a zero-sum game and you don't have to take from one person to give to another." Followed by logic and evidence to support his position. "Of course you have to take from one person to give to another. I mean, I know you gave a good logical argument which I can't refute and I have no logic to support my own claim so I'm going to just assert it anyway and laugh because I know I got schooled."

[@swordaint2]

You have it wrong. It's not take it's trade that's the difference.

[@jonathanjakubowski8537]

I was actually attending UNC law when this debate occurred... why in the fuck did I not go to this...

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

The "you didn't do it on your own" argument is dripping with socialism. Those programmer employees could have invested some of the pay they received from Gates into stock in Microsoft and would then have a legal claim to some share of the profits that came from the sale of their work.

[@FreedomSpirit108]

James played high school basketball at St. Vincent-St. Mary High School in his hometown of Akron, Ohio,

[@acadeacumenta]

Yaron : Clear loud speaking Marsall : asofbasfubsdogsggsg

[@ToTheNines87368]

Where is part 2?

[@Meditatum101]

It would be better to ask if a natural law like gravity or electromagnetism is fair? WM didn't have a chance because he's trying to argue against an undeniable and uncontrollable reality.

[@michaelbrent6099]

well it's not uncontrolled. our governments can lean left or right and enact various policies. our businesses can pay reasonable wages. our cities can build affordable housing. the list of ways to improve people's lives is endless both on the left and the right. you just have to pick the policies that work, just like In the private sector, the ideas that work.

[@VoluntaryistSkeptic]

@@michaelbrent6099 It is not possible for ANY government policy to "work", because that government must first steal money from people by threat of violence to implement that policy...which makes that policy immoral and unfair from the outset.

[@Claudio-gt4tn]

isn't there a part 2 ? It should be!

[@PlagueOfSerpents]

just a note, having the sound of people eating in the background is distracting and gross... aside from that, informative

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

The very question isn't fair. It is far too vague. It does not address the reasons for inequality. In an absolutely free market all inequality would be fair.

[@mh_golfer]

Worth is determined by value of your product / labor, there are millions of capable teachers but very few people who can make millions as a hedge fund manager. The government is the problem, they are in the way of free market and all it leads to is more crony capitalism.

[@Shozb0t]

Yaron prefers the term “crony socialism.” 😁

[@metal87power]

Does Marshall know how to speak properly? I understand less comparing him to Rothbard's accent and that's says a lot!

[@SAMUELPEREZattias]

I can tell that Dr Brook had no strong arguments, but just weak opinions. Nobody is talking about people being equal, but allowing different people to access the Resources in order to create "wealth" as he calls it.

[@BuFFoTheArtClown]

Why should we have the same resources? Define resources, please.

[@SAMUELPEREZattias]

Anything that allows you to create wealth, to produce. Same "access" to resources is not the same as "same resources".

[@dougpridgen9682]

The primary resource is the human intellect, and we are not compelled to use our intellects correctly. Reason is volitional.

[@michaelbrent6099]

+Doug Pridgen your human intellect is useless in the face of illness or severe poverty of resources

[@Shozb0t]

@@SAMUELPEREZattias Are referring to raw materials, machines, tools, fuel, electricity, factory space, etc.? All of those things need to be created. Someone needed to create them. You can’t just take it from them (i.e., you have no *right* to those resources).