What's Right About Social Justice - Learn Liberty

[@McBenji07]

I have to say, as a hard-core lefty, I really enjoy learning about the other side's perspective from these videos.

[@btsnake]

As a not hard core anything, welcome! I'd say this isn't exactly the "other side," but I'm glad you're checking in with us to see why we'd believe what we do.

[@cannedfrootloops7803]

Me too

[@RealMajorKaza]

Here is my point: If "Social Justice" is same as "Justice" there is no need for saying "Social". If not, then is just "Unjustice". "Social Justice" is developed by Socjalists, to force central planning and redistribution of wealth, and has nothing about justice itself.

[@cdiers26]

Injustice* but yes trying to create equality of outcome disregards the responsibility required of the individual. Equality of opportunity is typically seen as racist to these social justice folks.

[@jonaskoelker]

I think there is a third option, at least as SJWs conceive of justice: that "social justice" refers to a subset of justice. By way of analogy, one might talk about "commercial justice" and state that it is unjust to deliberately breach contracts you have voluntarily entered into, and that this form of injustice is a commercial injustice-whereas, for example, murder is an example of a non-commercial injustice (when not done in exchange for anything).

[@samuelcollinsmankin9161]

I don't believe there is such a thing as social justice. Just as another form of socialism.

[@1Corinthians6Verses9thru11]

@@jonaskoelker But ironically, since social justice disregards individual Justice and responsibility in favor of "group Justice" this becomes Injustice and is not related to real Justice; we should talk about Justice within societies if we are referring to actual Justice, not "social justice" which is really just a type of anti-justice.

[@LibertyPen]

Insightful and very well said.

[@AnonyVibes]

vimeo.com/4041228 Watch and learn

[@jebremocampo9194]

Is this the same channel that introduced me to Milton Friedman?

[@redacted5035]

Nope.

[@redacted5035]

@@AnonyVibes nope.

[@redacted5035]

@@jebremocampo9194 ...why would you ask another human being that? Such a stupid way to phrase a question to ask on the internet "buhhh did i have a ham sandwich yesterday?" HOW IN THE F is anyone supposed to answer that?

[@TheYopogo]

I'd say that I believe in a social market economy i.e.free markets lubricated by a degree of limited government intervention. Healthy, beneficially functioning free markets should be the aim but they don't always act beneficially to society and that's when government intervention becomes necessary. I disagree with many of the things in these videos but I watch them because I think that if you surround yourself with ideas you already know you agree with you'll destroy your own freedom of thought. I always try to maintain respect for those I'm arguing with but the vast majority of people make that virtually impossible. Thank you for not being one of those youtubers. Amongst economic right wingers this page really is a gem.

[@ThePkmnmaster0]

Really well said

[@Chujutsu]

So you mean to say that social justice has good intentions, but we need to seriously think about the methods in which they try to achieve their goals?

[@josephchapman3407]

I think you have on a very important point that many people ignore. Most people regardless of their political views want what is best for humanity.

[@lilianedubois2539]

The corporations and business owners have woken up and realized that they are powerless without a large pool of cheap labor.

[@brucehitchcock3869]

When slavery existed in the USA, the European businessmen pointed out that wages were better than slavery because the employer was not responsible for the upkeep of the wage earner.

[@lilianedubois2539]

@@brucehitchcock3869 You are correct.

[@adambelnap]

Freedom is an end in itself. My end isn't the greater good. My end is freedom and non-violence as the basis of human action and interaction.

[@kelly980]

Adam Belnap For some there are other metrics of well-being than freedom.

[@mattwavle]

+Dent Correct, and there are names for such people. Tyrants, and such.

[@starman2671]

Anyone who thinks he represents the greater good is too egotistical to actually do the job. Pigeon holing people into groups such as " the poor " denies their individuality.

[@Kryptnyt]

​@@mattwavle In order to have security/safety you must trade away some of your freedom. It's a balancing act where too much freedom means too little safety and vice-versa. The correct answer to "How much" of each varies from person to person and place to place. You don't have to be a tyrant to put up a sign that says "No trespassing."

[@FKAAYA]

@@Kryptnyt freedom over "safety"

[@AvNotasian]

I find this one harder than all the others since it asks you to invert something that you have built off of. But it seems to make sense.

[@shock80ey]

These videos are great. Thank you.

[@LearnLiberty]

+shock80ey Glad you like them! If we could cover any topic or question, what would you like to see us do?

[@mattwavle]

+Learn Liberty A rational debate between two consistent libertarians, one pro-life and the other pro-abortion

[@mattwavle]

+Learn Liberty An honest debate between those who conclude that asking the gov't for a license is tyranny, and those who conclude that including a marriage license for same-sex relationship somehow equals freedom. -- Why is expanding the qualifications for a gov't license somehow a pro-libertarian issue?

[@mattwavle]

+Learn Liberty A quick study on Polycentric Law and other things that the market could do better, that the State is currently doing.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

LOL nice try dude. But in reality libertarians have alot to learn from social justice warriors like me

[@cx3268]

Our markets are not free, too many companies via government regulation give those companies an unfair advantage. Or others use government laws & regulations to put other companies out of business. Markets will NEVER be free if government meddles with those markets.

[@Syncopator]

The idea that markets CAN ever be completely free is erroneous. And for pretty much the same reason that anarchy is unsustainable. In both cases, the conditions are highly unstable. Keep in mind, that no matter what, gangs are going to form that you will have to deal with. Anarchy is unsustainable because it takes a government to prohibit a government. The question is, what kind of gangs do we want to allow? Ones that we have some input into (and consequently, so does everyone else)? Or authoritarian and/or totalitarian ones that we have no say in whatsoever? Exclusive gangs or inclusive ones? Why should economic gangs be acceptable but political or social ones not? SOME kind of gang or gangs are going to take charge, there's no way around it. The founders thought one way to solve this problem is to configure the rules for a couple of allowed gangs that can be set at each others throat to keep each other in check. Well, it wasn't a bad idea but the modern form of it leaves a lot to be desired. But a totally out-of-balance, inequitable societal structure is volatile, as much as you might like the free market to be in charge, it has no mechanism to protect itself from gang efforts to subvert it, and a government designed to do so is just another gang you have to deal with. If enough of the disadvantaged are unhappy, the system will come crashing down at some point, so it's best to make sure there are mechanisms in place to avoid that-- if they're not working very well, see what you can do to improve them, just criticizing them is not particularly helpful...

[@forwwater]

Syncopator No one's talking about anarchism. Free markets are not like anarchism. Just because you may not know how free markets work doesn't make them unstable (what does that even mean)? Inequitable societal structures aren't volatile, they're inequitable. Free markets are the opposite of inequitable.

[@Syncopator]

forwwater Free markets are like anarchism in that they have no built-in mechanism to protect themselves against the intervention of government. That's just what governments do-- they intervene, and where there is none there's nothing to keep one from forming in the vacuum. Why do you suppose there has never been a free market system in reality that anyone can point to? For the same reason you can't do that with an anarchy-- the systems are UNSTABLE. So unstable in fact, that no one has ever been able to form one much less sustain one.

[@forwwater]

Syncopator The market is an economic system, not a political system, and is nothing like government or anarchy. The market is just the natural social activity of people trading goods. Now, the market can only exist where social contracts are upheld, namely the right to possession. Government, whether it's Democracy or Anarchism, is responsible for ensuring that contract. Some other regulations are also necessary (e.g. pollution fees), but not so many that the market can't move (reference Milton Friedman's speeches for details). A free market can exist, it just needs to lose the fat that goes beyond the basic tenants of society.

[@jaywolf7428]

so you want a complete freedom to do whatever hell you want to do in your business? this is not civilization; this is barbarism. free market is barbarism.

[@MetaReaLizard]

'Alienation is essentially experiencing the world and oneself passively, receptively, as the subject separated from the object.' - Eric Fromm. (R)Libertarians, by definition, see the world in these terms, their belief is that alienation is human nature. Simply the path of least resistance... assume something isn't a problem or will rectify itself.

[@pelicanbird901]

The government must create an environment that is conducive to helping the most vulnerable groups of people, that is DIFFERENT than the government actually doing the helping.

[@Salatiso]

Exactly, Education is central to this but often this is one of the worst run systems in most government. So at the end of the 12 years you end up with unskilled/ unemployable people who have the same expectations for income as skilled persons because of political rhetoric. So at the end because of this fundamental failure the knee heck reaction to solicit votes is to lower education standards that create an illusion of success. Then push policies that aren't merit based in pretending to help people, minimum wage also get advocated for as if it will increases the overall employee income while it only helps the few that remain employed.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

You have a point; Free markets, when played out over many centuries, do trend towards a consolidation of capital. However, unlimited government also trends towards a consolidation of power. Too often people argue a false dichotomy, when in fact a tempered balanced between Social Welfare, and free markets has always delivered a more utilitarian outcome. I will add this: Countries don't collapse from too much business and commerce. However, they almost always collapse from too much gov. =/

[@weirdshibainu]

Social justice comes from the barrel of a gun.

[@TRECTADACTYL]

Mao Zedong is rolling in his grave right now. But hey, at least he deserves it.

[@calulo97]

Well i'm only a 15 year old but I'm unique in more ways than one. I didn't discover liberty until a year ago when I saw Ron Paul in the republican debate and since I was an Obama-loving collectivist a year ago I was only watching that debate to make fun of them but then I heard Ron Paul speak......that moment has had such a profound impact on my whole life. It just plainly woke me up and put me on this quest for liberty. Someday we'll get there because "Freedom is popular".

[@mattschol]

man, 2 libertarians subbed in a row. Anyone else notice that libertarian channels tend to have really high production value?

[@4HITMAN7]

I can't remember the title of the article but it made a analyses of big companies who survived more then a 100 years, there were only 3 that survived that long.

[@ZenCorvus]

Those who need to hear this won't be able to sit down long enough and then think things through.

[@brookvalley907]

This makes me think that any person who has a preference on how things are distributed in a society also has by definition a theory of social justice. My theory of social justice does not include "the poor" at all. My theory is that everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they do not violate the property rights of others. I think this is the most just distribution of things, and it has no concern for "the poor" at all.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

Buffet was once asked, "What is your most common holding period for an equity or security?" His answer was, "Forever." So i'm not sure how this would lead investors to dump their stock. If you want to find a single man that has too much power in the direction of the economy, its the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. One subtle statement can create huge market volatility, as exampled by the recent shutters in the market after his announcement that the Fed might taper bond purchases. =)

[@mtanousable]

"Now adjust for currency inflation and cost of living increases." UN stat, so it likely is referring solely to 1981 dollars. Even if not, inflation brings this to $2.85 in 2007. In 2001, the average wage in China was about 33 yuan a day (~$6). In 2007, it was about $12, and now it is about $21...

[@4HITMAN7]

The meaning of the phrase is that individuals may do bad things even though they intend the results to be good. Public schools ect.

[@gilbet]

Demand is the emotion each party to a trade feels, but it does not exist by itself. You cannot demand something before it exists. To want something, you have to first know about it. You have to know that it exists, know how it works or what it does and you have to have reasons for wanting it. So, since it must already exist, how did it get there? Every product originally represents a person or group's venture of effort, design and risk to produce more wealth. (money, stuff, knowledge, etc.)

[@sangaman]

This series of videos is excellent, Matt is killing it.

[@niemand262]

Mason, thanks for the reply, but I'm not sure it's really on topic. The discussion is how low prices at mega marts hurt small businesses, but you've posted about HOW the prices get low. The topic wasn't HOW the prices get so low (cronyism, govt lobying, loss leading, etc.) but what happens when they do. You are right, surely, cronyism is a factor, and likely a powerful one, but it's not the one we were discussing.

[@jasoncihlar]

Right on! Good Video. Libertarians and Progressives need to come together and find common ground.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

"I don't care how spiteful I sound.." Ha! Emotion is the enemy of reason, so you should try to avoid it if you're trying to be objective. ;) "If you wish to know the truth, then hold to no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind" -Seng-Tsan

[@calulo97]

I hate being limited in characters but I'm glad we're on the same page.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

There are three main factors that have contributed to downward pressure in middle-incomes in the past thirty years. One, Americans have decided to depend on Govt more for Social support systems, so there has been a natural reallocation of wealth from private citizens to bureaucracies. Two, there is always an disturbance in income distribution during times of great economic change (digital age), as old skills become less relevant and needed skills are rare enough to drive wages higher. (cont)

[@WorldInANutshell]

1:09, the argument falls apart. The speaker redefines the context of "social justice." It's not what you term something that gives it its meaning. Social justice has a very specific meaning; it's not a catch-all term for "caring about the poor." That would be compassion. "Social justice" specifically means interfering with free markets and redistributing power artificially. The speaker is attempting to find common ground with socialists but social justice simply is flawed logic.

[@soratsol]

Some recent studies have shown that minimum wages can help, but healthcare prices in the US are, and have been, determined by government regulation. Hospitals are required to charge lower prices for people on medicare, medicaid and who have health insurance, but must charge higher prices for people who don't have insurance. They would get in trouble if they decreased prices or did work for free. Look at medical practices that are less regulated, and you'll see decreasing prices.

[@shamgar001]

Air pollution is a difficult problem, and free market economists have offered some solutions to it. The problem certainly isn't to forbid private ownership, you just make them take responsibility for the harm that they cause.

[@Maddawg31415]

Congratulations Dr. Zwolinski, you successfully changed my views

[@eggory]

Freedom from coersion is not a means to the ends of helping people escape from poverty. It is just moral in its own right to leave people free to pursue the values of their own minds. That most people value their own financial well-being is nothing but their own private concern. That everyone can achieve more in a free economy, and that indivdual responsibility tends to make people more productive, are beside the point. The point is that you can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink.

[@cwtreadwell]

@Ranillon: 1. Context matters with regards to this criticism, because the video's intended audience don't need to be told what the solutions are or sold on their relevancy. It is a fair critique to say that the video's scope is too limited for even its intended audience, but you should go on to substantiate your critique with examples of how, especially if you want to make the blanket statement that Libertarian material is "always" lacking in substance.

[@wikicross]

1. This video was dedicated to "libertarians and classical liberals" as stated by the presenter at the beginning of it. 2. I don't want to post an essay here, so I'll quote Bill Dunkelberg, an economist for the NFIB: "Every dollar the minimum wage mandates comes out of somebody else's pocket. " If driving up wages drives down employment, then the extra money that some employee gets has been taken from another employee who has lost, or who doesn't get, a job. It is moving wages around.

[@dachickenman]

It's difficult to do the thought experiment detailed in the beginning of the video because one has to imagine a world that works in a very different manner. For instance, the axiom that a trade is believed by both traders to be mutually beneficial could not hold and the calculation problem wouldn't exist and so forth.

[@ryang2573]

The number one expense in any firm is labor. Driving the cost of labor down, drives overhead down, resulting in cheaper goods. The opposite is also true and, when applied across an entire state or the country, has the effect of increasing the cost of living. To combat this, the government raises the minimum wage again and the cycle repeats.This cycle causes inflation, which devalues a nation's currency, punishes people who save their money, and eventually leads to domestic problems (e.g. Greece)

[@MGsven]

i know, the intent is the same i mean, where it ends up, its a big difference

[@anacap007]

The corollary to this idea that the MEANS (e.g. political philosophy) in which society benefits is at the heart of the minarchist/anarchist debate. The minarchist's stance on voting adopts the means of socialism to advance libertarianism....which is precisely the anarchist's argument against minarchism. Once you go down the path of voting, you're in a three-way race on which political philosophy must be forced upon society.

[@MetaReaLizard]

A worker invests time and must take a risk that the owner's judgment is sound. Many workers don't even have the luxury of choosing whom to invest in, they take what they can get. Workers are often asked to delay gratification also, they are told to put off rises, take cuts, work harder for future gains. A capitalist may yield unsatisfactory returns, but the worker now faces starvation if he cannot find more work. The risk is greater for the worker, whom also works harder and for longer.

[@shamgar001]

Both parties are making economic choices. Just because they work is of a different nature doesn't mean one is better than the other. What the ultimate problem seems to be is that capital has more leverage than the workers, but that's the result of state interference in the market on behalf of the owners. If the markets were actually free, workers would have more options because there would be fewer barriers to entry and they would command greater purchasing power.

[@ShootingUtah]

Have you ever heard of FORD? He wanted to pay his workers more for this exact reason. To increase demand and to make his company be more attractive to better workers. He didn't do it to help them but to help himself. It worked. When other companies saw the effects wages went up across the board Whether he should have been mandated to pay more is another topic but the concept works and is real even when you think about it. If you make Ferrari's in a world of poverty who buys your cars?

[@AaronHoffman]

"Whether government programs designed to directly aid the poor are entailed by a theory of social justice, then, depends on whether those programs actually do help the poor, not just on whether we hope that they do. And a lot of evidence suggests that many programs that attempt to help the poor often hurt them in ways that are often difficult to predict." Matt Zwolinski, PhD 4:27

[@brucehitchcock3869]

So dont attempt to help? Ok ,I get it .

[@terradraca]

My answer to the initial question: Even if everything the critics say about the free market were true, I would not therefore support statism because statism has utterly failed to solve the problem. The solution obviously would lie elsewhere.

[@MetaReaLizard]

If one is not better than the other then the risk and reward should be shared equally. The only reason it is not is the issue of capital and ownership, this remains the fountainhead of coercion and a state. It's elimination frees all workers, who have equal investiture in said process to be completely self-deterministic. Capital is the remaining coercion, if one believes in their fellow man, then there is no need of it. Our compassion for each other and our creativity is incentive enough.

[@redirishmanxlt]

What would you say is the difference between "social justice" and "justice"?

[@liltimy1850]

A few questions regarding this video about the merits of social justice; WHAT is social justice? Why is this theory moral?

[@shamgar001]

Depends how you define "good at fighting wars".

[@ginam1058]

Yes to the max!!! Thank you for dispelling the false dichotomy that you can only care about either one or the other!!

[@niemand262]

Danial B. Yes, If I poison the air, which is public resource that is used by all, I should be punished. If you REALLY can't see the difference between people breathing (utilizing their fair portion of a common resource), and pumping poisonous gas into the air, you're beyond help. Secondly, breathing is not poisoning the air, regardless of how cranky you might be about it. There is a profound difference between perceived harm and actual harm.

[@iKhanKing]

I'm trying to learn more about libertarianism, and one point of the belief in social justice is confusing to me. I agree that many social justice programs are problematic, but I am also concerned about the people who are starving. It just doesn't seem right to let them starve. Yes there are charity organizations, but they don't have as far a reach as government (state).

[@BladeMage3]

The US regulatory and taxation system is one of the most limiting and constraining in the first world. But here we go: - Government regulations and favours towards certain parties mean that whenever tax cuts occur, the benefit always goes towards those with the favours. From all perspectives, the economy is strictly limited. America does not operate under free market principles, it operates under Crony Capitalism.

[@DerekMagill]

Why should a social system be designed primarily around how society treats it's weakest members?

[@MasterTaiki]

+Derek Magill Why shouldn't it?

[@nuchinuchitekton7730]

@Anchor , Don't beg the question , speak the answer if you have any ? I have an answer for you , it SHOULD'NT because they have YET to show or produce any value.

[@MasterTaiki]

Archsider Arc I meant to be neutral. We've seen bad things happen with eugenics. There's nothing wrong with a system that grants improvements in social mobility.

[@MasterTaiki]

Archsider Arc I meant to be neutral. We've seen bad things happen with eugenics. There's nothing wrong with a system that grants improvements in social mobility.

[@nuchinuchitekton7730]

Anchor Senjaro How ironic it is though, the very system(govt) that claims to "grants improvements in social mobility." is the one that produced and will produce eugenic movements.

[@spacesunseen]

I

[@shamgar001]

Modern days, no. The markets is really screwed up and it;s nearly impossible to get ahead by hard work. If the markets were more free, that kind of thing would happen more often. But investment is work in itself. Not only do you have to have good judgement in choosing in whom to invest, you also have to delay gratification. Management is a specialized skill in itself. Owners also take on a lot more financial liability than workers.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

I would agree that there are influential people in finance, and Mr Buffet is certainly an example. But i also don't know a single investor that hangs on the every word of bonds or equities gurus. Hence, why i point to the Federal Reserve board, which is the best example of a single entity that has tremendous influence with their statements and actions. =)

[@niemand262]

As to ownership in your factory, there is a reason you shouldn't 'fully own it'. Your factory does not exist in a vacuum. If your factory poisons the air, you owe us (this is an analogy). If your retail outlet ruins the market (like the Walmart example above), you are profiting at our expense. To the extent that your profit comes at our expense, you should have to pay us for it. When you buy your eggs at walmart, it doesn't just cost you a dollar, it costs you your fair marketplace.

[@MetaReaLizard]

You're using existing ideas of trade and ownership; I am talking about a mode of production where people take what they need and ownership is collective. This is the essence of alienation to focus on the before and after of two separate entities engaging in 'trade' rather than to focus on maximising the relation between those parties. People become atomised and their actions are only means to an end instead of a means in and of themselves. In fact people become means to be employed by others.

[@DoritoWorldOrder]

I'm confused. His argument starts off by saying that social justice or injustice stems from the patterns caused by the legal and social systems, i.e. mainly from the state. Then he makes the point that social justice can be achieved through markets, without the state having to do anything to help the least advantaged. I don't see how markets can provide for robust social justice operating in the shadow of a government that systemically causes huge amounts of social injustice. In order for the government to "help" the least advantaged, it would have to repeal all the laws and programs that produce social injustice... really, basically abolish itself. That seems to me like the government would have to "do something."

[@herochris]

When the premise is "suppose you're wrong," the conclusion is flawed. Flip it to "suppose I'm right" and the opposite answer arises. These are suppositions, not conclusions.

[@swordarmstudios6052]

He is trying to separate moral from practical arguments. Libertarians believe that limited government and market based approaches are both more moral and more practical. He want's to discuss the moral argument here, not the practical one in an effort to defeat the leftist arguments in support of social justice.

[@TheYopogo]

If you start it with "suppose I'm right" no conclusion arises. The argument doesn't work backwards.

[@MetaReaLizard]

You have started from the principle of capital existing in your justification. Nevertheless, your own money isn't just the product of your own creativity and willingness is relative to need. If capital didn't exist, the factory could be built without any barriers to resources. Individuals in an anarchist mode of production would share the optimal freedom to engage in their creative endeavours: the idea of employment of one person, by another, being superseded by mutualism.

[@Chimichanga12594]

I'm a little confused by this video, is he saying that there are some necessary social programs that work? Ones that teach instead of just giving money?

[@teddygrizz]

Maybe Social is used in Social Justice to distinguish from Economic Justice? Justice in the social system of the country rather than the economic system? Idk...

[@Grero]

Given that those who promote social justice have no problems with the social injustice of pointing a gun at people's heads to get their way, why do we concede that they even care about justice for anyone?

[@madmaxxmad2]

government messes up everything it touches, then says we need more money.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

It doesn't matter what the minimum wage is, the purchasing power of wages earned will not change significantly. If there is any benefit at all, it is at the expense of middle-income earners. People don't improve their lives by coercing others to give them more. They improve their lives by gaining skills that are worth more to consumers, education. Don't get upset at the market,it is only a reflection of human demand. You should be upset that people aren't willing to pay $50 for a BigMac. =P

[@shamgar001]

I can understand the argument that land ownership is coercive (though I don't agree with it), but all capital? Nonsense. If I spend my own money to build a factory, there's no reason I shouldn't own it fully, and if someone else is willing to be my employee, there's nothing coercive about that arrangement, especially since in a real free market, individuals will have far more opportunities to self-employ.

[@calulo97]

I agree with your first and last point but I disagree with you on your second point. There is a very strong incentive for private citizens to help the poor and that is virtue and this incentive drives people to be very efficient.For example, my parents give a lot of help to the poor by giving out "free"(not really free because they paid for it) lunches because their religion demands them to do such "altruistic" actions. The local church also organizes itself voluntarily and it is very efficient.

[@gilbet]

The problem with limiting wealth is you seem to think of wealth is some kind of fruit that grows in the city and the privileged people gather it all up so quickly and snatch it away, preventing anyone else from getting it. Wealth, profits, and earnings are produce, so they are very similar to fruit in that the same laws of nature apply to it. Somebody has to grow it (create it out of nothing) before it exists. So, you want to limit what people create so they will all be equally poor?

[@IMissLiberty]

Our default for all "What should we do" questions is to end them with "using government mandates?" I frequently get polling questions about political positions, asking, "What should we do about X?" implying "using government." Often, government is not the solution, it is the problem, and the question can't be answered for fear they'll interpret it incorrectly. The main reason a libertarian would not support "social justice" is for fear the questioner means "mandated by government force."

[@justintempler]

"We all care about the underprivileged" No we don't. Examine the word privilege. Something received that is unearned.

[@brucehitchcock3869]

So saying that a slave is underprivileged because they don't have freedom is not correct ? Are N Koreans free ? It's interesting that so called libertarians fought to end slavery are now against BLM . Why?

[@varghejo]

The Rand Corporation has conducted studies on minimum wage laws and universal health care. The market, in theory, can lead to good outcomes with respect to healthcare, yet in reality this is not shown to be true in the u.s or in any other country that was studied. Minimum wage laws have raised the standard of living in the working poor, and despite its detractor's claims, serves to shift money from corporate profit to real wages for low-level workers, rather than cause employers to stop hiring.

[@EndTheFedRes]

My problem with the government/economy is that they don't keep a level playing field. Take a close look at the rampant Crony Capitalism and Corporatism we have. GE, Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater....no bid government contracts, million dollar emblems to start a taxi service, etc. The US is anything but a free market.

[@rorywest]

Higher minimum wages tend to cause more unemployment. If even a single worker loses his or her job because of a law meant to help the poorest workers, then that is a horrible thing.

[@shamgar001]

Naturally, I can maximize my wealth through mutually beneficial trade. But once I trade my corn for your bread (or whatever), and claim I have to that corn is nil, and the same for your bread. You may have made the bread, but when I gave you the corn for you, you were credited in full, so that bread is now fully mine for all intents and purposes. And if I use my justly acquired wealth to buy tools for production, those are just as much mine by the same principle.

[@Anonymous247n]

Well good morning, people can agree. Thank you!

[@teru797]

Is this supposed to be a libertarian or liberal channel?

[@stevedapirate5]

***** Ooh did he fail your libertarian litmus test?

[@teru797]

Brooks Gorden Uh... idk? I have no idea.

[@SirPage13]

it's supposed to be a channel for economic liberty, which is very closely related to libertarianism

[@teru797]

Levi Page Okay. Soo... I guess... liberal libertarianism??? What political party are they spupporting atm?

[@SirPage13]

***** Well, they are indepentent so LearnLiberty doesn't officially support any party. although... I think most of the people behind the channel supports the libertarian party. Btw death note is awesome

[@j.renold7327]

Unbelievable. In what way are laws stipulating that workers not be forced, often out of desperation, to accept despicably low wages, that are set at exploitative levels to maximise the profit of others, bad for them?! This claim is incredible.

[@vn88ttt]

I like social justice as an end. I just don't like the means being used by big governments to achieve it, even though those means can be extremely inefficient or even denying social justice.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

(cont) Third,developing countries are advancing very quickly,which has caused global deflationary trends in wages & prices of goods in developed countries. I understand demand-side arguments for growth. I have a MA in history & economics. However,there is FAR more to it than corporate greed. Corps are extremely important to prosperity. Even the most corrupt company can be voted out of existence, simply by not buying their products. Are you typing on a product made by a major corporation? =P

[@DontTreadOnMeh]

Equal opportunity =/= equal results. This is the biggest difference between SJWs and Libertarians. SJWs want to give a man a fish, because it is an instant gratification of your efforts. It puts a smile on his face and makes you feel good about yourself. Libertarians want to teach a man to fish, or at least allow him access to the fishing hole. This will take more time and require more effort on his part, but in the end he will become self sufficient and be better off.

[@057wolf]

This is what I've been trying to tell people, and an excellent rebut to the claim against libertarians that they don't care.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

Statistically,almost EVERYONE moves up and down in "classes." Almost everyone starts out in a low-paid low-skill job. I scooped ice-cream,and cleaned floors. But i didn't stay there, i improved myself. =) A common mistake made is to look at snapshots, rather than trends. It's narrow to look at where someone is today. It's better to determine how they have moved over a decade. Learn Liberty demonstrates a lot of fundamental ideas about economics, but they certainly don't cover everything. =)

[@terradraca]

It shouldn't be because I just explained in no uncertain terms why if you'd pay attention. If I lack experience, my labor is worth less because I'm not as efficient. It's like if a butcher shop was forced to charge 20$ for all steaks regardless of quality. What happens to the steaks who are worth less than 20$? Nobody ever buys them. Same thing. What's "fair" wages is between me and my employer, butt out! Without your meddling, I could work for less, get experience, then get raises later.

[@niemand262]

This is why small business owners rally at city council meetings against new Mega Stores opening in their towns, because it means the death of their small businesses. Mega Hardware can open a new store in town and run it at a loss because it is supported by their vast network of profitable stores. That new store, with low low prices, ruins the Mom and Pop hardware businesses, and once they are gone the prices rise. This stuff isn't even ECON 101, it's like middle school ECON.

[@cwtreadwell]

> You say that a private security guard is more dangerous than a state one, but this assumes that both would have equal authority, and that is inherently impossible. Private is under the law and state IS the law--thus making the "goodness" of state authority a lot more pivotal. You accuse Libertarians of confusing economic power with economic worth, but this treats symptoms as causes. Market distortions are the symptom, the cause IS the substance of the debate.

[@LucisFerre1]

Disliking government corruption has virtually nothing to do with self interest. But then again, I'm not trying to start a small business on my own, but can't due to a mountain of senseless regulations that takes a fortune to comply with, nor forced out of my neighborhood by "urban renewal", nor having my property confiscated so someone can put up a Walmart "for the greater good of the community", etc. Since when does concern for actual justice need to be myopic & self-centered?

[@niemand262]

"That doesn't happen in real markets." What world do you live in? Once you're the only widget vendor in town, the only restriction on price is the barrier for entry for new competitors. Mom and Pop locksmith was $10 per lock, Home Depot comes into town offering it for $2, when Mom and Pop shut down the price goes up to $5. It's just low enough so that a new Mom and Pop shop could only open at significant financial risk to Mom and Pop, so they don't try it.

[@nateedwards1313]

Amazing point.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

I don't disagree with your exposition, but i do question the underlining tone that leftists are entirely wrong. Certainly socialists are silly, but many of the issues that leftists focus on are legitimate. The left distrusts biz,the right distrusts gov. Both are correct,but the perfect balance between anarchy and totalitarianism isn't always clear. "If men were angels, there would be no need for government, and if men were led by angels, there would be no need for limitations on government."

[@wesjones6370]

The only problem is that modern social justice is rooted in a postmodernist view of critical theory, which rejects liberalism and reason. The end result is, therefore, only a subjective narrative and one that can be rejected, despite evidence.

[@shamgar001]

I suppose I should believe your opinion over the dozens of libertarian philosophers? Your scenario leaves out the part where the factory owner worked 14 hour days saving the money to buy that factory, or going to school for 7 years to learn how to manage people, or toiling in his garage inventing a more efficient pin-head machine.

[@finerbiner]

The most ignored issue with free market capitalism is that big is more efficient than small. Over time, big will always win. Unless we want the entire world to eventually be the property on one giant entity, pure capitalism should not be the goal.

[@ticklewit]

well at least for me liberty is the greater goal and is non negotiable. irrespective of who gets richer or poorer. liberty comes first and i dont worry about how it distributes money.

[@johndominicamabile]

While I agree with the very specific claim that a just society is one that works toward the betterment of the poor, this is never the goal of the left or pseudo-liberals. Capitalism has done far more for the poor than socialism or communism. We wouldn't have poor people sailing 90 miles across the caribean to flee Cuba if that system worked better for the poor. We wouldn't have had 100 million people sail across the Atlantic, or 10 million across the pacific for that matter. The pursuit of 'social justce' renders men equal simply by destroying everything beautiful, brilliant, complex, difficult, or honorabe. Cavemen were all socially equal. Everyone on a slave plantation had 0 money, 0 rights, and 0 privelege. Zero and Zero are equal. Only the enlightened central planner, who could use violence on anyone he wished and amass a huge fortune in order to 'take care of people' could be considered 'more equal than others.' Slavery was always morally defended by altruism: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slavery_a_Positive_Good

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

"the corporations THEMSELVES" Corruption takes at least two to tango. And corporations are far more difficult to corrupt than a gov. Corporations are bound by law,and the market. Even the most corrupt corporation must deliver high value to the market. Whereas gov writes the laws, and practices coercion,and therefore is not accountable. In history, there has never been a country that collapsed because it had too much business & commerce. However,most countries do collapse from too much gov. =/

[@RedwoodTheElf]

So we are supposed to just assume that everything that isn't true actually is?

[@gilbet]

Well, according to a certain party, if the nation's income was distributed more evenly, the minimum wage workers might be able to make enough money to support themselves. And by having more money, their demand would help to stimulate the economy. This logic makes sense, if you don't think about it. Which reminds me... Why is Keynesian economics taught in college? Is it some sort of "Intelligent Design" class for people who don' believe in the "theory" of a market economy?