Sam Seder vs Libertarian Professor Walter Block (Full Debate)

[@rickymort135]

DEBATE TALK TIME LOG: -Final talk time: 19:28(Sam) - 33:03(Walter) -Final talk time(%): 37%(Sam) - 63%(Walter) Log: Talk time: 3:00(Sam) - 6:00(walter) Walter complains of interrupting Talk time: 5:40(Sam) - 10:30(walter) Walter complains of interrupting Talk time: 6:54(Sam) - 12:32(Walter) Walter complains of interrupting Talk time: 7:04(Sam) - 13:51(Walter) Walter apologises for interrupting Talk time: 8:08(Sam) - 14:33(Walter) Walter complains of interrupting Talk time: 9:52(Sam) - 17:48(Walter) Walter complains of interrupting Talk time: 12:19(Sam) - 18:22(Walter) Walter: "you've just gone on for 5 mins" (actual time = 2:30 mins) Walter: "we're supposed to share" (walter is currently talking 50% more than sam) (Walter then talks for 4:50 mins) Talk time: 13:40(Sam) - 23:26(Walter) Walter complains of interrupting Talk time: 14:19(Sam) - 24:53(Walter) Walter: "it's really hard to get a word in edgewise with you" Talk time: 14:21(Sam) - 25:23(Walter) Walter: "if you time how much we talk for, I think you'd have more time" (walter is nearly doubling Sams talk time at this point - reality is difficult for libertarians) Final talk time: 19:28(Sam) - 33:03(Walter)

[@twoshedsjohnson8540]

Walter is the guest, right? Sam's asks questions, and Walter answers them. Unless you have nothing to say, answers usually take much longer than questions.

[@rickymort135]

It was an organised debate not an interview. Debates have roughly equal time. Walter himself stated "we're supposed to share". His specific complaint was that Sam was talking more than him. He said: "if you time how much we talk for, I think you'd have more time". The fact he was talking double the amount of Sam at this point shows how detached he is from reality.

[@orangepekoe8292]

Thank you for this! Was scrolling through looking for a comment going over the time. I was dying inside when Block told Sam he had just gone on for 5 minutes after Block himself had gone on multiple far longer monologues. Later on, I just knew there had to be a breakdown somewhere of the debate time. Geez.

[@K-State_Nate]

Ricky Mort = G.O.A.T. 👍

[@JAMES-ig2gk]

RiotKurhein : I feel bad for anyone taking a class he teaches at Loyola. He’s the type of guy who gets neurotic about the syllabus.

[@dreaminginnoother]

wow this guy with his obsession with interrupting, when he talks on and on and on repeating himself. Then sam talks for a couple minutes and he bitches he's not getting enough time. so irritating. Sam has the patience of a saint here.

[@verysurvival]

This guy is insane. He speaks for nearly all the time but thinks he is not being allowed to speak

[@elirien4264]

He's a narcissistic loon.

[@JacFash]

I know this is an incredibly old video, but I had to comment because this was the most frustrating 'debate' to listen to. As a professor this man really should have a better idea of what a legitimate debate is. His ability to have a balanced exchange of ideas appears to be as dysfunctional as his 'politics'. This guy was giving a lecture, presumably as he does in his classes, scolding Sam as if he is one of his students when he actually tried to participate in what was supposed to be a debate. Someone in the comments actually broke down talking time between the Prof. and Sam and it was far from balanced. So painful.

[@avenginglettuce]

Yeah, he came off really badly. Thin skinned and unable to answer Sam's questions without veering off into wildly different areas. Sadly the video holds little educational value, in spite of Sam's efforts.

[@r_bear]

It's the same projection you see from everybody on the right.

[@user-roninwolf1981]

Basically, debates with libertarians is basically "they're the only ones allowed to speak and you can't say a damn thing" is roughly how they go. They don't want to hear the opposing party and want to be the only ones heard.

[@oolong2]

No interrupting = "let me drone on forever about my theories so you never have a chance to respond with facts"

[@codent]

"also, let me jump all over the place careening from slavery to mandatory bisexuality."

[@StoveToTheFace]

It's very obvious he wanted that stipulation for this very reason.

[@comebackkid44723]

Sam: Well, you're not answering my question. Walter: And I'm not going to. -This Debate, A Summary.

[@BmoreIrish]

comebackkid44723 Libertarianism, a summary.

[@adfggffffffddffd]

I mean you saw what questions Walter was asking. It's not really fair that Sam answered all of his questions when Walter's questions were brain dead easy "is 6 greater than 0?" "yes". Poor Walter had hard questions to answer that actually required critical thinking skills.

[@jesspavlichenko5745]

Also HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY

[@fricasepolitico9271]

@@adfggffffffddffd For Sam, earning $ 0 was the same as earning $ 6, so ...

[@hardwork3053]

Fricasé Político still answerd

[@thesimulacra]

Is Walter Block actually a real person, or is it Michael Brooks playing a character?

[@Zucchinna]

Matt W oh man that would actually be great; he should invent a character and call into the show

[@kvseverallevels6928]

I thought THE SAME DAMN THING!!😁😁

[@GG-ph8rx]

RIP Michael Brooks 🌹💔

[@Nekulturny]

@@GG-ph8rx Peace be upon him.

[@patrickwilliams8960]

Come on guys this is wrong. He's obviously not functioning nuerotypicaly

[@MillerIndustriesInc]

This guy's debate strategy: go on and on for so long that your debate opponent forgets most of the various different points you rambled onto, then go in a fuss when he tries to point out a wrong statement you made, then interrupt him 10 seconds after you just whined about him interrupting you.

[@ivandafoe5451]

He thinks he's lecturing in a classroom where he's in control of the students and the agenda.

[@DarkseidTCG]

It's called a "Gish Gallop"

[@Halbmond]

I really thought “finally a libertarian PROFESSOR, this is gonna be more intelligent than the discussions with the other libertarians”. But ... wow

[@robertbrawley5048]

No. Or yes professors are as dumb as everybody else

[@ivandafoe5451]

Professors of garbage like libertarian "philosophy" can only function by speaking to young, naive, uncritical students who don't challenge their assertions. This puts them at a great dis-advantage because they go into debates so smugly over-confident and ill-prepared for any critical or logical examination from a worthy opponent. As soon as they are outside their controlled comfort zones and confronted with real-life consequences that come from their flimsy rationalizations, which they simply cannot adequately defend, they feel threatened, get emotional and then hostile. This pattern re-occurs time after time, debate after debate, proponent after proponent, as their house of cards collapses all over them. They are losing the fight and only want to flee from the situation...rather than change their minds, because their self-serving delusions are presently working to their personal advantage.

[@johnmickey5017]

@@ivandafoe5451 I had one of these in undergrad and it was the same experience - forceful argument from “principles” that appear totally coherent to students with no real life experience. They offer a set of cherry picked ideals that suggests a coherent political ideology, but when taken to an actual conclusion become incoherent. Every step of the way to the fantasy, the parts that are actually achieved in our political system, happens to benefit a small number of very powerful people… funny how that happens.

[@Romeo-le2ez]

@@ivandafoe5451 eh, that applies to most people regardless of their political/philosophical views

[@paullewinart]

@@ivandafoe5451 Absolutely perfect description.

[@evanb4189]

Block:"Do you agree that 2 is less than 4" Sam:"Yes" Walter: "Well, then you agree we should use child labor" *Nailed It*

[@philb4462]

😅

[@masterhodir890]

a right I forgot that Libertarians dont believe in human rights and the government protecting them. Seriously people dont know what Anarcho capitalists are

[@mopes2713]

Lol I think his analogy in theory only applied to children. Because with an independent adult his theory holds theory weight.

[@JackChessa]

I think this would be okay with the professor

[@rsr789]

I want to see just one of these libertarians put their money where their mouth is and actually force their own kids into labor. Oh, right: the rules are for thee, but not for me.

[@povelvieregg165]

My hat off to you Sam Seder for having patience with this guy. You showed amazing restraint with Professor Walter Block, who was absolutely insufferable. There was something seriously wrong with his social skills. He would totally fly off the handle for the times interruptions that were entirely sensible. The interruption itself lasted shorter time, than his complaints about the interruptions. Ironically Sam did not need to talk very much to prove that libertarians are serious weirdos. I've talked to libertarians myself on multiple occasions as well as as other people on the political fringes such as communists. But I seriously think libertarians must be the people most disconnected from reality and with the most bizarre social skills. They remind me of the difference between a lawyer and a moral philosopher. The confuse the law with morality.

[@floriandinkelaker7295]

The crucial question should be: What is the point of a job you can't live on?

[@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965]

Yeah exactly, this guy is basically advocating for wage slaver/a race to the bottom

[@floriandinkelaker7295]

***** If you want to work for less money than you can live on, you are stupid.

[@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965]

^^ congrats for such simple reasoning skills

[@pbfrank13]

Right? Highschoolers or people with no developed set of skills or work experience should be able to support themselves on their first job! Not have to get a roommate because they are entitled to their own apartment. Employers should pay high risk individuals (like highschoolers are are going to quit way more often then someone with a work ethic) and have to blow more resources hiring and retraining. Moronic logic. Do you know how many people work full time on minimum wage AND live in poverty ? Its less than 5% IIRC.

[@floriandinkelaker7295]

Frankie Tierney A minimum wage is not a first-job-highschooler wage. Workers under 25 only represent one fifth of minimum wage workers. Never-married workers are only five per cent more likely to work for minimum wage, than married people. Two per cent of full time workers make minimum wage. So it's millions of people who have full time jobs, need to feed a family and pay a rent, they just have a shitty job.

[@UncleBeerus]

This guy is a definitive example of how being a professor does not mean you’re actually intelligent

[@rsr789]

I had a business class professor in college (doctorate and all), and he argued with us that Lexus isn't part of Toyota. I mean it was founded by Eiji Toyoda and is listed on Toyota's corporate website as being manufactured by 'Toyota Motor Kyushu, Inc.'. So, I'm in total agreement, you can be a 'professor' and still be a complete fucking idiot, even in the subject you're supposed to be an expert in.

[@matthiashavrez]

It's funny it's basically what I realised listening to this. This dude is living evidence that you can be a professor, and also very childish stubborn and dishonest. I think he views 99% of his conversations with people as lesser beings being granted the miracle of his enormous intellect, and it shows also in the 1 remaining % of his human interactions.

[@rsr789]

@@matthiashavrez But he doesn't have an enormous intellect, he's a fucking idiot.

[@mike196212]

100 percent correct.

[@fromeveryting29]

He’s probably good at math…. And that’s it.

[@JohnLemieux]

"The market doesn't give you wages, what gives you wages is productivity!" That's complete non-sense. If the MW had kept up with productivity over the past 40 years it would be about $21/hour now. The reason it isn't is that the extra value of that productivity has gone to the most wealthy sectors of society because of changes in "the market" granted by changes in policy.

[@diarturkmani]

You're an absolute fucking idiot. Wow.

[@ivandafoe5451]

@@diarturkmani Really? Give us your explanation justifying your insult here. Since you are completely wrong...this should be amusing.

[@XXCoeusXX]

@@diarturkmani The Irony of your statement is priceless.

[@LenaLangton]

@@diarturkmani found the guy who doesn’t know real economics.

[@JohnLemieux]

"You've gone on for about 5 minutes" "Well it's my show" "But we're supposed to share!" Is this guy supposed to be a Libertarian? Since when do Libertarians want people to share things that belong to them?

[@Zucchinna]

John Lemieux that was my exact thought. I didn’t think libertarians would cry about such a thing

[@matthewtrevino525]

How is this guy a professor. I have a business degree and we don't talk about wages and productivity like that. That frame of increasing it from 9 to 10.10 would only be reasonable under few circumstances. One being if the business at the end of the year was in the black and if the wage increase effectively put it in the red and the owner saw no reason to continue the venture because he couldn't cover his fixed cost even with an adjustment of prices.

[@SL2797]

Being libertarian doesn't mean that you necessarily never share what you have earned. That's asinine. All it means is being against using COERCION - violence or the threat thereof - to force people to share the fruits of their labor and their property.

[@joeydrummer7929]

S. L. Cool. It’s a COMPLETELY non functional system . No country has ever implemented a libertarian society ever . The closest country currently too a libertarian country is Somalia and have you seen how Somalia’s doing?? Attempting to do so sends societies rapidly into feudalism. The right of our government to tax us is in our constitution . It’s an agreement between us as citizens to pool our money and use it for things that serve ALL OF US. Things that are necessary to EVERYONE and don’t function well or at all when left too the market . You people live in a constant philosophy and never ever think about actual implementation of these ideas . In reality libertarian economic theory and position on government is completely non functional in reality . No society has ever existed under that exact ideology . Ones that have attempted too rapidly digress into feudalism

[@Lucy-vk1el]

@@joeydrummer7929 Chile did in the 70s but it crashed and burned until Pinochet fired the Chicago Boys, stopped most of the free-market reforms, and nationalized many companies.

[@strongbad635]

"Sam, what's a bigger number, 1 or 0?" "1, obviously." "Sam, i it better to have shelter or not to have shelter?" "To have shelter, of course." "Sam, is it better to have food or to starve?" "To have food!" "So a slave who has shelter that he isn't paying for our of pocket and who is fed is in a better situation than a free black who has none of those things, even if his wage is $0.00 per hour." Libertarianism, folks.

[@truthseekingtroll3575]

Matt Swann dumbass keep drinking the statism Kool aid.

[@styxhisdicksahammerdyxdyxd8467]

No that's where you're mistaken. We don't HAVE to support social programs. You just think we should.

[@LeolaGlamour]

J P I’d rather be starved with no shelter than be a slave.

[@teraxiel]

If you have a time index for where in the video that was I'd like to see it to get the full context. Regardless, that argument is logically unsound. Its form is essentially: A > B C > D Ergo X + A + C > Y + B + D It's not quite false equivalency, not quite false analogy, but definitely logically unsound and definitely a non sequitur.

[@smaakjeks]

@@teraxiel False syllogism.

[@nehemiahprince4644]

This professor has alleviated me from all guilt at not having attained a degree from an institution of supposed higher learning.

[@poltronafrau]

Bruh same

[@Willowdog08]

Don’t use him as example. Lots of us learn real things in college.

[@joeborunda]

@@Willowdog08 I totally agree...but I do like the comment.

[@Jesse_The_Lazy]

​@Jose Borunda, that is a fair and nuanced take. I agree with you

[@Burnzy494959]

😂 they're not all worthless, but certainly, not everyone who has attained such credentials is wise because of it.

[@kielwinch77]

Rewatching this gem. “The real-world data is highly problematic for the theory” 😐 So...maybe you have a bad theory?

[@NickElliottOutdoors]

Well no... what he said was is that the data is usually measured close to the implementation of minimum wage increases and this makes it appear that there have been no job losses.

[@benjaminpark5460]

The Bearded Axe Guy and he shouldn’t have said that because that isn’t how data collection works. No one went out the next day to see who got fired after the raise. Data was collected for years afterwards which disproves the professors take. I.e. what Sam was talking about.

[@NickElliottOutdoors]

@@benjaminpark5460 and that may be the case. However, the op is misrepresenting what he said. The data does vary though. Some studies show no impact where as some little to significant impacts on employment.

[@benjaminpark5460]

The Baker yeah that would have happened whether the minimum wage was $5 or $5,000. Turns out when you can pay children pennies to assemble shit corporations will choose the pennies every time. That has no effect on the professors argument that paying someone $3 is better then $0. There will always be cheaper labor somewhere else and capitalism guarantees corporations will follow that. It also has no effect on the cost of living in the United States which the professor completely ignored. A zero minimum wage won’t change cost of living. It will only create homeless people.

[@tianamaycry]

@@thebaker3240 And here we have the rub. Libertarians are for Americans being exploited. My argument for years.

[@fiziksisfun5317]

"The number 6 is greater than the number 0." -Walter Block

[@ModernPlumbingFan]

hahahahahha classic.

[@henricusrex8183]

Prof. Walter Block. I mean it's showing right with this sentence, doesn't it?

[@harmanbeing]

Then after Sam agrees, Walter says, "You agreed that $6 is better than $0". Such a manipulative tactic, adding the "dollar" and the "better" connotations.

[@badmuddafadda]

“I rest my case!” Block proclaimed, a self-satisfied smile on his stupid, stupid visage.

[@inhumanhyena]

​​@@harmanbeing essentially he just makes an irrelevant point. There are bigger numbers than 6 and if he's talking wages, I like 100, "is it bigger than 6?" A bad wage is a bad wage. If it isn't enough to live on, without working the majority of your waking life, it's unreasonable and completely devoid of basic ethical concern other humans. He's making an argument for exploitation, I mean it doesn't get much worse. He seems a little delusional (as in disconnected from a cohesive understanding of reality), so it's not surprising he's so unethical.

[@WXVA9]

The simple answer to Walter Scott's first 20 minutes of rambling is that workers are, in aggregate, not paid their marginal productivity anymore. So if you raise the minimum wage, it would not result in layoffs because those workers would still be profitable to employ.

[@SomeOne1121]

Well said, very true. Productivity has increased several times over since the 70s and 80s, yet real wages for most workers have been stagnant. A fact that seems hard to deal with for libertarians and conservatives for some reason.

[@SomeOne1121]

odblog If 5 employees could do all the work, why ever hire more

[@SomeOne1121]

odblog If the customers became so unhappy that you would lose them, you'd have to hire as long as it's profitable. If it's no longer profitable, you should pack up your uncompetitive business. Simple. Besides, if you pay your workers more, studies show that they become more productive and you can attract better workers. Besides, if more people can afford to watch movies every now and then, maybe you'd get more customers :) Or, maybe that automated ticket machine finally becomes profitable enough compared to hiring workers that you actually invest. The point is, a low wage economy is not good for anyone long term. It promotes poor productivity.

[@SomeOne1121]

odblog If your margins are that thin, you should go out of business. Capitalism.

[@WXVA9]

Norway has a huge welfare state.

[@prodesu8607]

This shows once and for all that one can be a professor and still be a big time derphead.

[@radioactivetrees9626]

This has always been the case.

[@LenaLangton]

It’s just sad that he’s a professor who cannot read or do math.

[@pyroisshy6617]

if you play chess and your opponent makes an illegal move, you are in fact allowed to interrupt

[@shengloongtan229]

No in competition he loses the match instantly

[@jesspavlichenko5745]

@@shengloongtan229 So you can enter a chess competition, play a completely different game than chess, and no one can say anything because the rules of chess say that you can't point out the other person isn't playing chess? That makes no sense

[@shengloongtan229]

@@jesspavlichenko5745 That's not my point, you got me wrong. In most competitive chess, the rules are, you play illegal move, you lose on the spot. Oh maybe I should say *your opponent loses instantly

[@tweekyseagull]

Professor Block is so adept at the Gish Gallop that he won't let Sam speak even when he was being directly queried. In one of Block's ramblings, he asked 5 questions in a row, and when Sam tried to answer a question to make sure Block's tirade wasn't getting ahead of itself, Block says Sam is interrupting. Intellectual dishonesty by overwhelming the opposing views with unanswered, presupposed argumentations.

[@blader45bc]

Precisely wrong. You weren't listening to Dr. Block so you call it 'rambling'. Block was wonderfully insistent on resolving points before moving on. Seder was the rambler more often than not.

[@alaroche]

you can't be serious. block is a blockhead. all he did was ramble incoherently for an hour.

[@kevindonahue2251]

Martin, even if we concede that it wasn't rambling. There is still something intellectually dishonest about asking questions and then getting upset when someone answers one.

[@legendkilla3rd]

I can't imagine if we lived in a libertarian world!!!!

[@theflyingdutchman2542]

Sam's got a piece of paper, he can write the answers down. Block is an academic and in academic debates one speaks for a certain amount of time and then the other responds by answering questions and raising further question. The method Block is using is fair, the method Sam is using is not, because he can simply move to another issue which in the case of Block's method means you have conceded the point. But I understand this kind of argumentation (i.e. where multiple questions are asked and answered) can be a bit tough of the weak minded.

[@JohnnyAmerique]

Good lord, this guy Block is absolutely insufferable, in addition to being a complete lunatic.

[@wadesharp3204]

+Tyler Brown Typical socialist attacking others with emotion rather than logic.

[@JohnnyAmerique]

Wade Sharp It wasn't a formal argument, dipshit - merely a statement of my opinion. Also, I love the irony here: You accuse me of "attacking others with emotion rather than logic" while, in the very same sentence, using the term "socialist" as both an epithet and counterargument. Now then, as to matters of substance, if you would like me to deconstruct any of specific aspects of Block's fantastical utopian bullshit, I would be happy to do so. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through an hour-long debate, picking apart each individual point in the comments section, especially considering that Block's entire thesis here is delusional from the outset: Just get rid of the state, and private companies will magically behave in exactly the way I predict the will behave, somehow never conspiring to restrain trade, establish a _de facto_ state, or anything of the sort. That is, quite simply, nothing more than a fantasy - it is a claim deduced purely from cherry-picked axioms, and offered without any substantiating empirical evidence whatsoever. As you should know, that claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[@wadesharp3204]

there is no way I'm reading all that. Agree to disagree

[@JohnnyAmerique]

Wade Sharp You can't or won't even read three short paragraphs, while accusing me of being irrational. Sounds about right.

[@ManlyOBeeferton]

"there is no way I'm reading all that. Agree to disagree " XD.

[@fredriksk21]

Walter always assumes that the employer always pays what the employee is worth. No, employers want to pay as little as possible. The thing is that Block is from the Austrian school of economics which doesn't care about empirical evidence. It's based on logical syllogistic thinking. The problem with that is that something which sounds true in theory doesn't necessarily have to match with empirical reality.

[@DoctorMurky]

No one is talking about the EMPLOYEE 'S worth. Straw Man! Marginal product says zilch about someONE's worth. We are just talking about the value of one' s LABOR. Marginal product is contingent. It can be increased if staff is reduced, tools are provided, etc.

[@abouttimeforarevolution241]

DoctorMurky The value of ones labor is the profit in which they provide for the business/employer. The fact is, productivity (how much money we in the working class produce and the profits from that) are not increasing our wages. Wages have been stagnant for decades and productivity has only gone up. The truth is most of the owners are exploiting you and need to be regulated to pay you a minimum wage that allows you to survive without needing government help. The companies like Amazon who pay their workers so little that many of them need food stamps or other welfare programs which is literally refusing to pay their workers a livable wage, despite billions in profits, and forcing the government to subsidize the greed of CEOs.

[@DoctorMurky]

In a competitive market, profit doesn't come from exploitation of labor. If one's marginal product is x, and an employer is making a profit simply from hiring the worker, another employer can offer the employee a lit more and still make a profit. Eventually wages/compensation get bid up to marginal product, and the employer makes no profit from so-called "exploitation".

[@ivandafoe5451]

@@DoctorMurky You are being ridiculous "employee is worth (to the employer)" was clearly implied. Clearly our indoctrination is being triggered here. Your comments show that you have no grasp of the reality of employer/employee relationships.

[@DoctorMurky]

@@ivandafoe5451 Your comment shows that you can't actually respond to any of the points I made; so you just post of word salad that communicates nothing more than "I don't like what this guy said."

[@seanoconnor2225]

Why do libertarians always look like they just walked out of a multi-decade Dungeons and Dragons campaign?

[@MrAnibl]

Because they were!! ..part of a government experiment secluded for years and recently were let go and are roaming like brain dead zombies loose now. LOL..

[@jameswatts104]

Hey, stop discriminating against D&D players! LOL.

[@matthew-dq8vk]

razerfish I find the people that use the term 'beta male', are often autistic shut-ins projecting their social and sexual irrelevance onto others.

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

Because we're smarter than you. That is true of literally anyone being tarred as a nerd when no counterarguments are forthcoming.

[@kezkezooie8595]

Don't dis D&D players over 13 or so! Kids who play D&D do tend to have that blurring of the lines of what is game and what is real life. Once you've hit about 14, you know there's no aspect of it that's real. You suspend your disbelief while playing as you do watching a movie or reading a book but you know it's fantasy and as much as you may like the idea of how it would be good if something from the game was in the real world, you know it isn't and never will be. Libertarians seem to have never reached that stage in their development where they can distinguish fantasy from what is possible in reality. It's sad, really. Incredibly annoying at times but sad. PS Even if there are D&D players that are like this, I think I'd still prefer that. It would be much more entertaining.

[@shagginsoflannigan1111]

The fact that he keeps bringing up how Sam is "interrupting" him is a sign of weakness. He knows his points are being shattered and he just panics. Classic pathetic libertarians. They want to believe in their fantasy land and freak out when people start pointing out how flawed it is.

[@JacaboBlanco]

yeah because the keynesian economic philosophy is so successful and realistic. yeup. don't mind the 20 trillion dollar debt and the 180 trillion in unfunded liabilities. that doesn't matter. lol.

[@rtfm4r129]

@@JacaboBlanco If you think the only economics is Keynesian or Austrian; you might be a libertarian.

[@mynameisliberty1]

rtfm 4r there’s monetarism as well. But most schools of thought aren’t really different most are derivatives of Keynesianism as its defined neoclassical economics

[@gregkahuna1]

@thesparitan The Keynesian model also dominated prior and during the Great Depression, a period of economic failure.

[@gregkahuna1]

@thesparitan What references? Keynesian policies such as credit expansion and deficit spending were implementing in the 20's and 30's.

[@space.youtube]

"compulsory bisexuality" oh my goodness.

[@TheEvolver311]

Don't you see his perfectly applied logic jajaja

[@dmur612]

His analogy, albeit an EXTREMELY shitty one, is that discrimination invariably occurs in EVERY choice we make on a daily basis. Understanding that General Motors produces more than just Chevy Trucks, purchasing that Chevy truck loaded with comfort, stereo and high horsepower features resulted in a choice NOT to purchase the thousands of other vehicles available on the market. No doubt this truck was more expensive than MOST others on the market. There is also no doubt that NOT everyone is willing to, or will have a need to purchase the same truck, at the SAME price point. The fact that SO MANY other truck manufacturers can and do successfully sell smaller, lesser optioned lower horsepower trucks is because they are CHEAPER. Now imagine how many of those lower priced trucks would be sold if there were a “minimum price” (or wage) enforced on the sale of ALL trucks??? There would most likely be little or NO MORE of those trucks sold and the remaining inventory of trucks cannot legally be of use to anyone, in the same way lower skilled workers and employers cannot be economically benefitted if they’re both being forced to accept/pay a $15/hour minimum wage.

[@tj12711]

@@dmur612 If I *need* a car and can't afford a nice one, I'm going to buy the cheapest one available even if a minimum price has been mandated. This should be an obvious phenomenon, as it's the reason we're supposed to prevent private monopolies. Once you control an entire industry, you can hold hostage the things that people need, and they must find a way to make that price work for them In this supremely shitty analogy, a minimum wage is us just doing that to benefit poor people. Utilize the government's monopoly on labor regulations to hold hostage the labor that employers need, and they must find a way to make that wage work.

[@SocialAnarchism]

@@dmur612 I disagree, an analogy by definition is analogously relevant. An extremely shitty analogy would have the most minimal of relevance but his analogy was wholly without relevance and thus, by definition, neither an analogy and irrelevant. If I made the comparison of discrimination in the work place with deciding at the shop between purchasing Pepsi or Coke my comparison would be equally relevant or equally irrelevant or um yeah those are the same in this instance

[@SocialAnarchism]

Can someone say yum!

[@Jstoney127]

$6 > $0, but what's the difference? Those are both starvation wages, the only difference being with $6 dollars an hour you might only starve to death in several months as opposed to several weeks with $0 wage.

[@rossshand4385]

+Jstoney127 First of all, that's not true; second of all, who does that

[@punkisinthedetails1470]

What is the Prof obsession with referring to not just a teenager or young adult but black kid blah blah .

[@robm2681]

You can't feed yourself with $240 per week? Lol. Where do you buy food?

[@Jellygamer0]

@@robm2681 What about rent? bills? taxes? emergencies?

[@hermeskun3274]

@@robm2681 I know that your comment is almost a year old, but it's really important to me that I point out how dumb and/or sheltered you are. First of all, let's add up what $240 a week equals too. That is $960 a month. Now, to begin with, I would like to point out that it is quite the assumption that everyone making $6 an hour would be working a full 40-hours a week. But let's go ahead and continue with that bold assumption. Said person would have to feed themselves, pay for rent, potentially make car payments and insurance. Now, I don't know about the average car payment, or about any student loans or anything, so let's just stick with playing with the bare minimum of bills. Keep in mind, that I will be lowballing all of this. Food: $50/week Rent: $750/month.... And holy shit, that's already $850 a month. But anyway, let's now assume that that person has a vehicle, one that somehow is fully paid off. That still adds: Gas: $20/week Insurance: $65/month That brings us to a total of $995 a month. So, if you live in a shitty apartment, practically starve yourself,somehow find a fully paid off vehicle, never have any medical emergencies whatsoever, and are completely debt free... A full-time, $6 per hour employee would end each month at a cool -$35 each month.

[@neanderslob]

Poor Sam. This is going like most discussions I've had with a libertarian: they give a long rambling description that amounts to "Supply and demand" Then you say, "right, I got it but there seem to be more market forces at work here because if you look at the data..." Then they cut you off to say: "No I don't think you understand what I'm saying" and then repeat their supply & demand example in more torturous detail. "See it costs more to pay someone $10/hour than $7/hour because 10 is greater than 7 so Joe the shop keeper is going to try to cut his staff if he has to pay them more because it's more expensive (remember 10 is greater than 7)... so that means fewer people will be employed which is..." Libertarian must be Latin for overly impressed with trivial concepts.

[@natethegreat2364]

Except Block's argument was specifically pertaining to someone whose productivity was higher than the old minimum wage but lower than the new one, not just a case of someone wanting to spend less on their workers. Block's analysis was actually a neoclassical economic analysis of *all* price controls-- namely, prices set above market clearing prices produces a surplus of that good (unemployment) and prices set below the the market clearing price produces a shortage (rent control). Liberal economists essentially concede this point, but try to explain why, if it isn't raised too much, the unemployment effects are minimal and that other benefits outweigh these. To Block and other economists, there's no reason to suppose the labor market is any different than any other market and price controls will have the same effects there as elsewhere.

[@neanderslob]

Yep, that's what he was saying alright. But every time that Sam made a point that argued against that premise, Block seemed to simply repeat the premise itself.

[@novic63]

You deny the existance of what they call "productivity"? If not it't logical that payment is connected with how much work is worth, not how much cost living.

[@neanderslob]

novic63 I'm not denying anything's existence. I just think that, historically speaking, societies divide up their resources according to many more factors than Block is claiming. He seems to believe that internally consistent is the same thing as empirically true.

[@MrAnibl]

Omg so true...You soooooooooooooooo Right! This really means they don't know shit an are out to control the other person. Sam is too nice! I would have slam down that jerk/control freak a long time ago.

[@chessplayer8798]

Professor somehow presuposes that workers productivity is how much his employer is willing to pay him.I believe this is a very big mistake. There is no such thing as "his productivity is 6,7,that is his salary,therefore if you raise it to 8 he will be fired". If a worker is payed 10 dollars an hour,chances are he earns at least 20 dolars for his employer.Workers productivity should be measured in profits,not how much an employeer is willing to pay,as every employeer is going to offer lowest possible salaries,in order to achieve greatest profits. Yes minimum wage thing is going to cut huge profits,but are we supposed to have economy for the people or for the 1 percent?

[@FC-88]

Instead of looking at labor productivity you are looking at employers profits, which is just begging to be bankrupt.

[@chessplayer8798]

FrecklyCash5959 How? Labor productivity is never as much you are being paid,it has to be less,otherwiese no profits,no company.

[@FC-88]

chessplayer The company isn't going to make profits if you are being paid the same of productivity, you are just going to go bankrupt from better competition.

[@chessplayer8798]

FrecklyCash5959 I grasp that,however there is a line(or there should be)between making profit and exploitation.Walmart makes around 4,5, 5 bilion dollars annually.If they raised wages of their employees by 10 percent,they would still make bilions.I believe we should control,as a state,the greed of the individuals controling the company.

[@FC-88]

chessplayer Explain to me how voluntary relations is exploitation? So you would use coercion to force businesses to pay their employees more which is exploitation. The idea that following your self interest is somehow greed, is absurd, because in order to fulfill that self interest in profit you must make others better off through the form of products and services or wages.

[@doubleirishdutchsandwich4740]

"You have to be careful with that empirical stuff" -Libertarian

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Because Libertarianism is falsified by empirical results.

[@BakinKoljac]

but around 2:00 walter uses "empirical evidence"

[@Tilinfinity42]

Yeah, empirically there is a gender wage gap too. When you look into the numbers, you find out that there is no gender gap, it’s based on lifestyle choices. For you not to understand that is disingenuous at best. Correlation is not causation ✊🏻

[@ivanremington967]

The Baker Interesting. By what mechanism has minimum wage affected this ‘decline’ of ‘industry’? That seems kind of broad, yeah?

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

@Jacke DenFria if the data doesn't support your 'logical principles ' then your logic is wrong.

[@chapter_black3234]

(Walter denies emperical data) "Okay, fine. What is the value of a market in which people cannot live?"-Sam "I'm not going to answer that, but which number is higher, 2 or 4?"-Walter I think even when I was a Libertarian, I would have had the integrity to acknowledge Walter as a condescending and obnoxious piece of shit

[@thegoldenarm6422]

"Emprical data" That's the problem with Keynesian economics. They reject rationalism and only go by experience. Block is correct to use a priori knowledge as a source of knowledge for economics.

[@bourne2crimson397]

@@thegoldenarm6422 Block himself uses the term, "empirical research." … You idiot.

[@thegoldenarm6422]

@@bourne2crimson397 So what? It doesn't change what I said. Want to try again? Or "nah", cuz triggered moron?

[@fulcrumthebrave5715]

@@thegoldenarm6422 economics is not rational. It's not a science. The market is not a force of nature, it is a human invention that is governed by emotions, mainly greed and fear. No employer is counting the pennies that their workers make to justify their wage. Most pay the least amount possible because it's better for their bottom line, this is the greed aspect. The worker must take whatever wages are offered to them otherwise they will be homeless and starving, this is the fear aspect. The professor knew he had no good answer to Sam's question and so he chose to engage in semantics and pedantry. If you think that just because $4 is larger than $2 then it is an acceptable wage then go get a job for $4/hour and be a good lil indentured servant.

[@thegoldenarm6422]

@@fulcrumthebrave5715 "Economics is not rational." A private sector business has to create a net benefit for society or they go out of business. Market prices are not arbitrary. Market prices help coordinate economic activity. It is only through market prices that people can makes reasonable economic decisions and that is dependent on those prices being free from coercion. Profit is measured on the basis of market prices and if market prices are free from coercion and are influenced by market competition, then profit represent an economic benefit to society. If you understand that, then you know that a coercive monopoly exists to the detriment of society. The state is a coercive monopoly. The more the state effects society, the worse-off society is. The government doesn't depend on profit because the government exist to the detriment of society. That means the state is a coercive monopoly that can exist without creating a net benefit for society. Since economic calculation isn't possible for a coercive monopoly, the state can only measure performance on internal conditions and not external conditions. The state depends on fund accounting to determine its internal efficiency. Financial accounting is used to determine external efficiency which isn't applicable to a coercive monopoly. It is foolish to assume state actions are better than private sector business actions because of that. Whenever somebody advocates for taxes and government spending, they are assuming the opposite of an economic reality in which external economic conditions are relevant. In other words, they are contradicting an economic reality. That is why the more government effects society, the worse society is.

[@beytahvhs4817]

I’m pretty sure this guy talked twice as much as Sam.

[@codent]

one of the commenters above measured each speaker and in fact that's true

[@ArchlordZer0]

Every time I watch a new video with Sam debating a Libertarian, I keep thinking I'm no longer going to be shocked by the irrational logic, but man every time I am wrong......so so wrong. I did not think there was a party that existed that is even crazier than the hard-right GOP.

[@justatiger6268]

"Which number is higher: 4 or 2" This guy is a tenured professor -_-

[@RetiredInThailand]

Productivity, productivity, productivity .... if I am "$6.50 productive" they will fire me if I cost $6.75 ...but if my productivity goes up several times over in the last 30 years (like it actually has) and the corporations just keep all the extra 'productivity profits' and continues to pay me at the wages they paid me 30 years ago (like they do all workers today in real terms) then it's time to level the playing field, because your stupid 'Laissez-faire market place' is broken as hell.

[@smaakjeks]

Great point.

[@tjti2631]

David Landry please David shut the fuck up if you’re stupid .workers productivity has gone up as a result of machines not just workers skills set increase so of course there would be a disproportionate stagnation in payment . Workers suffering has also gone down so the cost on the side of the worker has gone down . Workers have also received payment in other areas such as paid time off , health insurance, and also REAL WEALTH. How is it possible that workers wages are stagnating but their real wealth is increasing along with the wealth of corporations ? Guess what ? It’s called trickle down economics .

[@BryanFarmLife]

Great comment

[@smaakjeks]

@@tjti2631 Strange then that CEO pay has not stagnated along with the workers'. It's almost like the increased profit is going into their pockets or something. It sure is a trickle when you look at financial security and the need for federal programs like SNAP. Or one can check out the concentration of wealth. The richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the USA; more than the bottom 90%.

[@tjti2631]

Smaakjeks K lol I guess your problem comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.workers pay hasn’t stagnated in the way you think. Real incomes have increased . Workers have a better deal than they’ve had before overall. It’s certainly better for you to be a worker in 2018 than in 1897. Your argument makes no sense . Just because someone has more wealth than you doesn’t mean your life hasn’t improved . In fact I can argue that your life has improved specifically because they have more wealth than you as a result of creating and maintaining a product that makes your life better . Your argument seems to come from a place of envy and angst rather than any sort of logical reasoning. What’s wrong with these people being rewarded for providing a service if the lives of individuals are categorically made better by these services ?

[@STylerStafford]

This guy is making this assumption that everyone is paid according to their productivity. Isn’t paying people less than they produce what makes capitalism capitalism?

[@souljahsquad4447]

That idiot is assuming everyone’s productivity is less than 7 dollars now….. if that were true how would companies like McDonald’s come to be? .. they weren’t always a multi billion dollar chain n they made it he’s a moron most companies get a 5 to 1 or more a dollar return meaning for ever dollar they pay they make at least 5 so he is a moron

[@juanpablosandoval2329]

Assume that everyone is paid the marginal amount they contributed for what they produced. It's called marginalism

[@crenfick7750]

Imagine how cathartic a moderator would be. "Professor, your time is up..."

[@williamjameslehy1341]

This guy is allegedly a professor of economics and yet he uses the same laughable arguments as a 13 year old neckbeard.

[@williamjameslehy1341]

I did. I first sprouted facial hair at 11 and could grow a chin shrub and moustache by 13, full beard by 17.

[@erikgilson1687]

They don't have better arguments. This is as good as they get

[@contekozlovski]

Many professors of economics are against minimum wage laws.

[@erikgilson1687]

@@contekozlovski If "many professors of economics" are like this guy I'm not sure that's saying much

[@alexiskalomoiris547]

@@contekozlovski I want to see their paycheck falling apart...then you will see giving up their stupid ideology!!

[@AggresivelyBenign]

This guy has a completely unrealistic view of the world. When poor people are working 50-60 hours a week, how on earth do they get the opportunity to meet a different employer who might pay them more? How does he think this works? Employers just go to other businesses to fish for employees? No. what happens is employers (usually) figure out that their employee is stuck and needs the job to eat/survive/pay bills, and not only is the employee unable to find time to schedule an interview for a different job, but even if he/she did, they would have no reference from their current employer. What these people don't get is that ANY time you make a person choose between their own profit and treating someone beneath themselves decently, personal profit will ALWAYS WIN. Also, if an employee is not working well enough to make at least minimum wage, get a new employee instead of paying them less than need to survive. "Better than $0" is a crap argument when it prevents a person from getting a better job or help otherwise.

[@AggresivelyBenign]

Until I heard this guy's argument, I didn't understand the idea that Libertarianism is like Communism. It's great in theory, but the only people who believe in it haven't lived through real life.

[@thedebatedomain8444]

J P You calling someone who gets exploited by their employer “a fucking moron” is not a counter-argument. You just reveal yourself to lack empathy (as well as intelligence, because someone with intelligence would understand that this does not refute her point) Go home.

[@tjti2631]

The Debate Domain imagine thinking a person going work everyday is exploited 🤦‍♂️. Yes oh great brain I’m sure you know how to detect exploitation more than those being exploited. Smh 🤦‍♂️

[@thedebatedomain8444]

tj ti if you wish to argue that going to work equates to the impossibility for exploitation, you will lose.

[@tjti2631]

The Debate Domain yes I am arguing it . I assert empathetically that When you perform an exchange voluntarily it becomes a mutual agreement thus it cannot be exploitative . When the dynamic becomes exploitative people stop engaging in that task . Stop saying bullshit .

[@ExploreGamesAndMore]

SHUT UP - I'M MAKING A STRAWMAN HERE!

[@spoton3278]

Explore Games hahaha!

[@bd9267]

that's sam for you

[@komlat253]

Sam destroyed this spoiled guy lol

[@tinamoul]

@@bd9267I'm guessing you're a libertarian. Let's say your beliefs are right, could you honestly say this guy has actually presented a fair and solid argument for your ideology?

[@jlastre]

More like “Shut up. I’m not going to answer your question.” And not from Sam.

[@jordo2323]

Don't major in Economics at Loyola University.

[@jlastre]

Jordan Mendelblatt There are lots of Loyola Universities. I went to one in Chicago. My Econ prof was pretty good. I would suggest not taking this guy’s classes.

[@alexj7440]

To be fair, if you’ve got two brain cells, this guy is probably the best argument against libertarianism.

[@TravisJ10]

😂😂😂 ahhhh this is where the "HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY" soundbite comes from in the DJ Danarchy break song! 😂😂😂

[@Onus6688]

OMG I just realized that too thank you hahahaha

[@StacksOfLitty]

Travis Jones there’s a few references to Sam’s libertarian debates in the DJ Danarchy song. His debate with the libertarian presidential candidate is also classic and has a sound bite in the song.

[@ngusumakofu1]

The only reason why I listened to the entire dumb debate(I mean Sam tried his best to keep the discussion sane).

[@PandovStrochnis]

@@ngusumakofu1 Now I feel less lonely.

[@ngusumakofu1]

@@PandovStrochnis lol. It was painful. “Hey hey hey hey shut up” was worth it though 🤣🤣

[@WAAAAAAAAAAAY]

"$6 dollars an hour is better than nothing" - Walter Block: A Professor

[@maxtp948]

Pete W and he’s right of course. As Milton friedman once said: is it nessecary for a doctor to treat my cancer unless he’s had cancer himself? No.

[@ivandafoe5451]

This is the libertarians' idea of a fair deal...rationalize taking advantage of the other person's disadvantage.

[@rsr789]

@@pinkkfloydd Oh, yes it is, you just don't want to admit it... either your a liar or unable to face reality, or both.

[@goldentaurusfinance9840]

It's not even that. If your paying your worker 9 bucks an hour and you make 9 out of him, you are not even making money. Only limited instances would that ever work if you want to be successful in business. Now limiting the exploitation gap would have been a better discussion in my opinion.

[@michaelk.jensen1611]

@@goldentaurusfinance9840 Well why are you putting it on your employer to run a functional business, should other people work for and subsidize your bad business practices. No ofcourse not. The way i solved it in my business was i waited and worked until i could afford hiring people to a salary that didnt mean they had to sleep in a cardboard box while working to drive my company up. Its my business and my responsibility, i cannot let other people take that burden and pay them so little that they have to not be able to afford to life probably, buy food probably and get health as they need, that would be a price they pay on the behalf of me and my company. Im literally charging them a cost to work for me, because im so bad at running a business. Finally its further absurd, because that discussion should only be had if we where working in some dystopian or emerging nation, where people fights for their life, the discussion should be completely irrelevant in a 1. or 2. world nation for that matter. Finally if it worked as well as these people say and how good it is, the discussion should be 100 % academic as thought experiment, but since it doesnt work like that, and that it puts more and more people nearer poverty its clear that this ideology has Major major flaws and doesnt work very well, in fact it works very bad.

[@kerrycalvert2808]

It seems to be a consistent defect in the intelligence of libertarians that they cannot see two feet in front of them when the solution requires being able to see what is just beyond the horizon. This "professor" is a classic example. (I hope the board of trustees at Loyola realize they could outsource his position to Mumbai for 10 cents on the dollar and get much better productivity and intellectual content). I am surprised Sam did not point out the obvious flaw in the professor's grand theory that 6 is better than nothing. Sam talked all around the point but never got to it. Walmart is the empirical evidence of what happens when you suppress wages and take advantage of people trapped such that this is their best option. That is real world and quantifiable. The point is there is COST TRANSFERENCE. So, as an underprivileged person who can only wash the professor's car at 6 bucks an hour, when it cost $20 an hour to live, I turn to welfare or crime to make up the difference. So in order for the professor to profit from his enterprise, everyone has to pay taxes to fund welfare, build prisons, pay for an ever growing police state, and pay for public defenders to ward protect the professor's assets from the serfs. Then there is the emotional cost of dealing with the victims of the crime which is directly attributable to the crime wave. The flaw in this ignoramus professor's and all libertarians of his ilk is they think they arel not affected by this cost transference, and they live in the illusion that the cost of the police state is other peoples problems. Meanwhile the Waltons are feudal kings over 2 continents and their business model that crushes competition and lowers wages so there is ever shrinking economic activity as they suck up huge portions of the world's capital and labor resources into their libertarian tax free offshore banks. They pass on the costs of keeping the roads paved, ports dredged and operational, security forces to protect their inventory as it travels from third world countries to Bubba Oklahoma, and their work force marginally fed enough to ring up the cash registers and stock shelves to everyone else. Welcome to Libertania America.,

[@stormwilliams3347]

I made minimum wage when I was 16. I got skills and my earnings improved. If you have a family making minimum wage you are a dope.

[@sabin97]

@@stormwilliams3347 "If you have a family making minimum wage you are a dope." so what do you do if you currently have a family to provide for and the only job you could find is minimum wage? sure, you're a dope and all that....but what do you do? what should happen? should your kids be forcibly taken for you? should they be allowed to starve to death? or to go without proper clothing? without an education?

[@stormwilliams3347]

sabin97 this is why the welfare state is a problem. If I decide to fuck off and stop working I can rely on the government to save me. Welfare is needed to an extent, but it’s abused. Our culture is devolving and isn’t pushing the narrative that strong families make strong children. Organizations like BLM want to dissolve all of that.

[@CorndogMaker]

Throw away all the extra food from grocery stores when people are hungry and leave all the extra clothing sitting on racks, leave the empty homes, 6 for every homeless person, deserted. Imagine being in that society and thinking it's working

[@sabin97]

@@stormwilliams3347 that's cute but you didnt actually reply to anything. so i will ask again. and please dont throw red herrgins, and give me a real response: "If you have a family making minimum wage you are a dope." so what do you do if you currently have a family to provide for and the only job you could find is minimum wage? sure, you're a dope and all that....but what do you do? what should happen? should your kids be forcibly taken for you? should they be allowed to starve to death? or to go without proper clothing? without an education?

[@williamjameslehy1341]

Such a tragedy that we no longer have elevator operators being paid $0.40 an hour.

[@badmuddafadda]

My uncle retired as an elevator operator in 1980. I believe he got a pension. For some reason only half of the professor’s name was being read aloud. Isn’t it Professor Walter Block-Head?

[@values15]

.40 IS MORE THAN 0

[@Seattle-2017]

Yes. Walter Block has a great sense of denial of both technological progress, and economic reality.

[@Seattle-2017]

@@values15 Yeah! That elevator operator would be elated to bank that $16 per week. Maybe even get some on-the-job-training.

[@values15]

@@Seattle-2017 .40 iS mOrE tHAn 0 IM A PROFESSOR WITH DEEP THOUGHTS

[@DustySticks]

Listening to this professor is a real test of patience. If you can make it the whole "debate" you are pretty good

[@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025]

I'm sorry, can you stop cutting off the other commenters? They were promised equal time and you keep butting in. You're butting in again, did we all not agree to equal time here in the comment section? You've written SO much more than all of the other commenters combined.

[@DinoDr3w]

Wait until you see that there is a SECOND conversation with this incoherent 'professor'

[@Muzikman127]

That person isn't me, I'm out lol

[@thehypoxic.450]

The part near the end where Sam points out that Corporations can't go to jail. Absolutely unravels the heart of the myth of the concept behind free association

[@seanh7585]

Made it to 34:00 Sam Seder has the patience and willpower of a god

[@spoton3278]

Thomas Buchovecky when debating an idiot and a baby, who cries about being interrupted white displaying terrible ideas, yeah Sam is in his right to "condescend" or giggle.

[@blader45bc]

Dr. Block always stayed on topic. It was Seder who strayed.

[@spoton3278]

Martin Macdonald who was it who freaked out when he was interrupted during long tangents and cried like a baby? Who was it who freaked out and yelled at the other person to shut up?

[@solomon8833]

Sam Seder is the liberals from South Park that smell their own farts.

[@RubenEsq]

Certainly more virtue than the filibuster-er he was dealing with deserved.

[@AZRogue]

I stopped writing "my productivity is $10 an hour" years ago. It let me sneak into a $20 an hour job. plus I learned that if I do a task worth $50 an hour my productivity magically goes up! Amazing! The professor is whack; real people don't work the way his theory assumes.

[@robmckennie4203]

sam: "living wage" economics professor: "what did you call it? living wage?"

[@fricasepolitico9271]

I think it is a good question, it is something highly subjective and it will also depend on each individual. But of course the socialists are going to want to impose what they consider "living wage" according to their arbitrary criteria.

[@williamjameslehy1341]

@@fricasepolitico9271 I don't think you know what socialism is.

[@fricasepolitico9271]

@@williamjameslehy1341 I live in Bolivia, where we have suffered socialism for the last 70 years and I know exactly what it is. And if you have a different definition than mine that's fine, but I think what I said applies to all definitions of socialism.

[@NN-sp9tu]

Fricasé Político Define socialism please

[@fricasepolitico9271]

@@NN-sp9tu On the top of my mind: Government intervention in the economy with the purpose (or excuse) of achieving redistribution of resources in favor of the disadvantaged.

[@charlesronk2989]

At 8:07 his argument falls apart when he mistakenly suggests that wages are connected to productivity. This is where classic economic theory has fell apart since 1980. Yet these economists want to keep regurgitating this out like it is a fact.

[@Fragenzeichenplatte]

Yeah, productivity has increased a lot while wages kept stagnant. Those are the facts.

[@alexj7440]

Fragenzeichenplatte yup, wages haven’t changed in 40 years.

[@moribundmurdoch]

I thought he was implying the marginal value thingo of such labor though. P.S. I'm not a Libertarian.

[@Samgurney88]

*marginal* productivity, not output/hr.

[@alecjordan6100]

No offense, but this Dr. Block is insane. How do you conflate sexual orientation and legal commerce? How do you say "your living conditions are shit but hey at least you have $6 and not 0"?... (How do you mess up subject verb agreement and treat minimum wage a plural noun?) forgetting about that last point it just goes to show you can be really privileged and intelligent and have a high IQ and still be completely misguided, out of touch and even dangerous.

[@alecjordan6100]

Yes, I agree. It's sort of like "over-intellectualizing" an issue to the point where you're completely breaking away from reality.

[@liil4993]

If you're pro minimum wage, you're failing to grasp a very simple point: you and the rest of society have no right to tell me I'm not allowed to work for less than a certain amount of money. The only person who has the right to decide the amount of pay that is too low for me to accept, is me!

[@danielj6824]

read some libertarian literature before you criticize it. you can't understand these ideas in soundbites and 2-5 debate responses. That's like watching a tradesman do skill you've never seen for 15 minutes, then calling him crazy for doing it wrong

[@alecjordan6100]

lI Il I'm pro-minimum wage and I'm perfectly fine with you working for as little as you want. The rest of us will just go ahead and take a reasonable living wage though.

[@alecjordan6100]

Daniel Johnson This isn't the only thing I've ever seen or read on libertarianism. Also it's more than a soundbite, right? This is like a 40 minute discussion, in which some of the lines of debate went to their logical conclusions. Seems like your main argument is "You don't understand libertarianism well enough" So what am I not understanding? Is Dr. Block representing it badly or am I just not getting what he's arguing?

[@Mortiis558]

This guy is a professor?? At a University?? "HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY.....SHUT UP" With all this talk about minimum wage....they need to talk about the intellectual standards of certain universities....

[@Gigika313]

I feel for his students

[@Realtonyshalhoub]

I was one of them. His class was wild as fuck bc Loyola New Orleans is filled with hippies and he would openly say shit like “blacks and women are less productive than white men and that’s why they’re not paid as much as white men”. He also made us read Atlas Shrugged. That being said he is also a surprisingly kind guy. I know it doesn’t sound that way bc of how nuts his beliefs are but it’s true. Im not sure his end goal is to try to get a rise out of people. He’s literally just way too lost in the sauce of libertarianism, to the point of self-parody. I credit him with starting me on my journey towards becoming a leftist.

[@treeztop]

@@Realtonyshalhoub another Loyola student ! Yes block pushed me far away from the right.

[@zach-rac]

Ngl..... If I was in his class I'd make sure to interrupt him _constantly_ the moment I found out it was, apparently, such a pet-peeve of his. I cannot STAND people who talk like him - that need to spew bullshit uninterrupted. It feels like a demand for respect when it hasn't been earned. Not only that, but like no dude, when you say something stupid I'm not gonna let you keep going - that serves neither of us. I'mma call it out, your 'train of thought' be damned. (Also, just talking and talking like that is a) not a real dialogue, and b) sometimes is what we call a 'Gish Gallop' (an attempt to pile on so much bullshit that it's overwhelming and impossible to refute in such a huge load) and I don't put up with those.)

[@thesprawl2361]

@@zach-rac You think this narcissist would've let you interrupt him? He'd have kicked you out of his class in a heartbeat. And you'd have, rightly, said 'how is this the free and open exchange of ideas that you as a libertarian must advocate? My expulsion from this class is completely opposed to every principle you have claimed to hold'. And in response to _that_ he'd have got you blacklisted from the university altogether. As a kid I had the typical child's belief that adults are rational and fair. When they say they have a set of rules, you can expect them to follow those rules. And I we all grow out of that belief. But as adults we do often have a similarly childlike belief: the belief that professors and academics, intellectuals in general, can be held to their principles, and that when you point out a fallacy in their reasoning they will admit it and take a step back. I think a lot of people believe that, especially when they hear someone like this talking in such axiomatic, apparently logical ways about his beliefs. And then it turns out they're just as hypocritical and full of shit as everyone else, more so in fact because it's all intensified by arrogance and narcissism.

[@setshow9135]

I swear

[@alaroche]

Fine...3 cents is better than 0. Does that seem like a good wage? This dude walter block is grasping.

[@reinoehlz]

+Alain Laroche I know of no one alive who would accept such a rate.

[@ShadeCanopy]

"..the real world empirical data is highly problematic..." Gee I'm increasingly convinced that the Libertarian mindset is equivalent to that of the second grader.

[@Medhead101]

I don't think he was dismissing empirical data, he said 95% of empirical data supports his view. He meant be skeptical with interpretations of data as it can be misleading in certain circumstances

[@lynnmccabe2449]

Just listened to this debate. This guy actually is given the responsibility to teach our youth?? I wish I had the talent you have to respond so quickly with the correct information to allow every to see how ridiculous his ideas & flawed theory is. I know immediately. Thanks Sam. I wouldn't pay this guy to clean out my garage.

[@mandatorial]

Which is why it's good to have a libertarian society where you can choose not to spend your money on him, instead of being state forced to support him.

[@ivandafoe5451]

@@mandatorial Wow...have you got that ass-backwards.

[@MyChannelOnThisSite]

@@pinkkfloydd Except Walter Block is a complete idiot for a libertarian, which says a lot.

[@PowerfulWarrior69]

This is a masterclass in discipline from Sam

[@rsr789]

Discipline? Sam makes a Tibetan buddhist monk look like a spastic over-sugared 7 year old with ADHD!

[@DenianArcoleo]

Is it me or does Mr Block appear to be a five year old with an adults voice?

[@patienceking]

Denian Arcoleo even the voice went kinda five year old during the whining moments.

[@Tehownilator]

+Denian Arcoleo Not at all.. What does that even mean? Block is clearly an old Jewish granny.

[@2cleverbyhalf]

He spent more time complaining about not being able to talk than he spent defending his lame assed theories. He is so tedious I have tried several times to listen to this debate and given up because he makes me wanna claw my ears out with his filibustering bullshit and not saying anything new over and over and over again

[@craigjohnston5781]

The one substantive value this Professor did bring to the table was to show how silly it is to hyper focus on "interruptions" in a debate setting. For that, I truly thank you.

[@tomseppe6406]

it felt like that episode in the office where Dwight waits in lije for an hour to make a comment at a convention only for him to waste his moment for comment to just shout about how the line should be made more efficient

[@evanb4189]

"Well, the emperical data is problematic. Just focus on the logic of it." - Libertarianism in sum

[@shihsntz5301]

Specifically this form of Libertarianism. Block is a member of the Von Mises institute, which specifically endorses the psuedo science of Praxology. That means if reality contradicts his stance reality is wrong to him.

[@Cenyon]

«Don’t forget you must accept all the ridiculous premises and factually incorrect assumptions neccessary for my logic to hold up.»

[@thesprawl2361]

Yes, that's the basic outline of every single libertarian argument I've ever heard. Similar to hardcore Marxists...except that libertarianism isn't just unworkable, it's ethically nauseating. At least Marx's ideas came from a place of concern for his fellow man. Libertarian arguments seem to come from the direct opposite place.

[@FreekinEkin2]

Imagine being a professor and training in ideas so divorced from reality. Don't get me wrong, when I did my degrees I flirted with immature theories, but over time I learned to reign them in. Moreover, Sam talks for 10 seconds, the guy interjects for 4 minutes of abstract nonsense, Sam tries to get a word in and gets told he's interrupting. If you're going to request no interruptions, don't speak for such protracted periods of time. Then the guy complains when Sam has a short monologue outlining Block's position, with which he doesn't even disagree. If the guy is in total agreement with everything you've said, he's not entitled to start a rebuttal. Block's behaviour indicates that he's not looking for a dialogue, but for a pacified host that will give a platform to his theories. I try to be respectful of people who think differently, but this guy is simply not an honest actor. He is a charlatan churning out ideological justifications for horrific inequality.

[@ivandafoe5451]

Block is delusional...he somehow thinks he's here to lecture in a classroom where he's in control...so...student, don't interrupt me when I talking!

[@DavidColvin1920]

I have absolutely no idea how Sam is this patient.

[@robertstan298]

Me neither. Sam has some god-tier patience.

[@0cypher0]

@@robertstan298 well that's definitely not old testament god patience, that god would have smote Walter after the second complaint about interrupting...

[@SeanLaMontagne]

He knew early on that he was stuck in this purgatory hell for an hour in. And I'm gonna be honest, this guy is so boring to listen to, I'd probably zone out for 20 minutes until he *finally* stops talking.

[@DonAntle]

Instructive that Libertarians and NeoCons alike are desperately interested in fixing all of the issues and problems at the very bottom of the economic system but everything at the top is working just fine apparently. Who knew?

[@adamhbrennan]

“We assume as an axiom that wages equal productivity” So you’re both empirically wrong and begging the question, professor...

[@maxtp948]

Block says wages tend to go in the direction of ones productivity. It will never equal. Only in equilibrium, which we never reach but always tending that way

[@NN-sp9tu]

Max Tp But it doesn’t. Historically wages have only tended toward productivity when the government stepped in and updated the minimum wage regularly. That hasn’t been the case in decades

[@ruppelspoopels]

@@NN-sp9tu well...at that point we had socialist terrorists literally bombing the government so....ya know.

[@NN-sp9tu]

@@ruppelspoopels ?

[@condaquan9459]

@@NN-sp9tu how does the government figure out what the productivity level is in order to set the wage? I’d also like some proof on your claim that it only happened through government setting the minimum wage. The first minimum wage law was set in the us in 1938, yet for the better part of a century earlier the aggregate wage was trending with the aggregate productivity level as a measure of GDP, even then aggregates are a terrible way to measure the trends of an economy as they fail to take notice of the differences between each individual sector along with the heterogeneous forms of capital.

[@tianamaycry]

"it's really hard to get a word in edgewise with you" Says the man who got the most speaking time.

[@d3l3tes00n]

He's comparing orientation, which isn't a choice, to discrimination? I would've hung up.

[@galdamez3]

Walter Block’s arguments regarding minimum wage have several gaping plot holes. First, he gets hung up on the notion of a $6/hour versus $0/hour wage yet fails to mention that fixed price contracts exist. In 2017, anyone can get on Craigslist and offer $6 total to a worker willing to do some housecleaning. That person may not get any bids, but it’s totally allowed. There’s always someone willing to pay for work at super low fixed prices. The notion of $6/hour versus $0/hour doesn’t mesh with reality. Furthermore, we currently have wages well below the minimum wage when it comes to waiters (under $3/hour) and interns ($0). Despite inflation and an improved economy, these low paying jobs still exist. Last thing I’ll add is that automation will arrive regardless of any minimum wage laws. To somehow dump the blame on regulation is disingenuous at best. Sam, Mad props to you for having the patience to sit through an hour with this guy.

[@ssuuppeerrbbooyy]

"Being shot in the head twice is better than 6 times! I win!"

[@Onus6688]

"well it IS my show" "Sam.. we're suppose to share" ... Not very Libertarian of him :P

[@lemartin93]

Atley Meow HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY SHUT UP!!

[@YashArya01]

How is it very socialist of Sam to presume private property and ownership rights? Prof. Block and Sam Seder probably both agreed beforehand to not interrupt each other as one of the terms for the discussion. :) Libertarians have nothing against voluntary sharing. We just believe that helping someone with your money is good. Taking forcibly from A and giving to B is immoral and also bad economics.

[@shanehart7391]

@@YashArya01 he had almost dbl talk as Sam

[@YashArya01]

@@shanehart7391 sure, but that has nothing to do with my reply to the OP who is suggesting that sharing is somehow unlibertarian. Also, for the most part, Sam is asking questions, and Block has the task of providing justifications in his answers. As such the latter usually does require significantly more time. (Neither of this is to deny that Block was factually incorrect about how long he got to speak for.)

[@playapapapa23]

Now I’m convinced this guy has the maturity and intellect of a child. He gives me hope that I too can become a professor some day with a bar that low.

[@Shigawire]

This "professor" Block is using the kind of argumentation tactics that I see from creationists and other simpletons. It's a common tactic, using a leading question to "entrap": Ask a childishily simple question which only has one answer. Then use that to entrap in another comparison which doesn't even logically follow. "again WHAT number is greater, Six or Zero?" "Six" "Oh, so NOW you say Six is better than Zero!" ("I WIN") Note the intellectual dishonesty which "professor" Block is displaying here. First the childish question uses the comparative adverb "greater", while the entrapment clincher uses the comparative adverb "better" "Greater" is not necessarily the same as "Better." "Greater" is a mathematical comparative adverb, while "better" is a contextual comparative adverb. BETTER AT WHAT? There is a reason Mr. Block required no interruptions. Interruption means his bullshit can be corrected. He rarely adresses any of the points Sam make. Is it impossible to find an intellectually honest libertarian?

[@smocloud]

Shigawire until we do I guess we can vindicate ourselves in saying all libertarians are fucking stupid.

[@gregkahuna1]

Better as in more preferable to earn $6 (which is better and greater) than earning $0. This is not intellectually dishonest. It is common sense.

[@SplotPublishing]

Both the elevator operator and the full service gas station attendant are incorrectly cited as examples of lost jobs due to their employers not wanting to pay a higher wage. Neither were necessary employees to start with. They had no necessity in the first place. They were both employed as status symbols. They lost their jobs due to changing mores, not changing salaries. Building operators wanted to make their guests feel rich, so they hired elevator operators to do a function that was built into the elevator. No operator was ever needed. Not when they were operated by lever, and not when operated by button. You'll note extremely luxurious building (Trump Tower, anyone?) still use them. It isn't because Donald Trump can't figure out how to jab a finger onto a button. Elevator operators went away in most buildings because people became less comfortable with them, and didn't demand them. So yes, cost benefit came into play, but it would have been too high a cost at .25 an hour. Nobody wanted elevator operators anymore. In the case of the gas station attendant, we had this thing called the gas shortage in the 70s. And that's what caused the decline in attended stations v self-service. Once people got used to self-service, they didn't want them back. And frankly, who misses them? Gas companies encouraged drivers to feel pampered. But the big gas companies don't own many gas stations anymore, they're owned by independent operators or chain stores. Most money is made in the convenience stores attached. So why would Town and Country or 7-11 hire attendants? They wouldn't hire them at minimum wage, they wouldn't hire them for a dime. They don't need or want them. And people mostly don't miss them. On the other hand, you can get a job working the counter of the 7-11 overnight, when gas stations used to be closed. So there's that. We had a full service station in Augusta for a while. They didn't get enough business and closed. Not enough people wanted, or were comfortable with, full service gas stations. It's faster to swipe my card, fill up, and drive away. Done and done. And I don't have to tip the electronic pump.

[@ivandafoe5451]

The gas station attendants were not eliminated because they weren't useful, they were eliminated because of corporate monopolization in the gas and auto repair sectors. The attendants were usually young apprentice auto mechanics in small gas/service stations...who misses them?...everybody...whether you realize it or not. They pumped the gas, washed your windows, checked your oil and tire pressure...anything you asked. This was good for the economy, customers and the garages alike...cars were better maintained and garages made more money while establishing a personal relationship with car-owners. The issue of later hours and an added handy store could have been addressed with this same model, so that's not a factor. Self-serve stations didn't come about for the customers' benefit...they were done to save money for big oil corporations that put most of these smaller stations out of business or bought them out. Now we have to drive for miles to find one. Your personal view is based solely on what you think works for you, nothing more. Your one example speaks more about established customer norms than furthering you point. For those of us who were around to see all of these changes happening, we see the negative affects, the transfer of all of the things attendants used to do put onto us, with NO cost saving for our extra time and effort. All for the dubious pleasures of dealing with bad weather, gas and oil on our hands and clothes, washing our windows with dirty water, paying a buck for a few blasts of air in our tires...these are mere additions to life's many annoyances. None of my points are from a desire for a return to the good old days of buying gasoline or a defense of the oil industry...the sooner the fossil fuel industry is gone, the better. I was responding to your example in order to illustrate the consequences of corporate domination of our economic lives, the job losses the poor wages, etc.etc. My real concern is the constant time-consuming downloading of personal services from the corporate sector to ourselves, their customers, for their profit and our loss.

[@danthefatman009]

Amazing that Block argues that the wage someone gets is in accordance to their productivity.

[@oscarg8449]

What is it in accordance to?

[@robertronngren]

@@oscarg8449 Your wage is the lowest possible your employer can get away with paying you and also had tons to do with culture as well.

[@oscarg8449]

@@robertronngren So it will be smart to offer someone $5 an hour if their productivity is $40 an hour?

[@robertronngren]

Wages are determined by lots of factors and lolbertarians disregard most of them. The whole ideology is based on absurd ideas, which is why it is the laughing stock of the rest of the world. If you're trying to use a theoretical example like that you are just demonstrating your ignorance. You have to realize how stupid austrian economics is.

[@oscarg8449]

@@robertronngren Tell me what sort of economics should we follow? What is your assessment of the US economy right now? Labor is a cost btw. Costs are determined by the buyer, so the right price is up to the buyer. It would however be very stupid to offer someone much lower than what they are producing, considering that other companies might potentially offer higher wages.

[@mri912]

- "Do you agree that 6 > 0?" - "Yes" - "Then I won the debate."

[@AstonWave007]

And this man is an actual college professor?

[@canteluna]

The libertarian personality is one that, I'd argue, is more attracted to principles and axioms than most people. Why? I think the personality is basically insecure and so is attracted to the certainty that principles and axioms can provide. The general distrust of institutions -- except for the market (but they don't really see the market as an institution but as individuals pursuing self interest) -- I'd interpret as a distrust of authority and where does that distrust come from? Experience. What experience? What experience with authority do young people have? Parents, teachers, even the de facto "authority" of social groups at school. So, it is no coincidence that the focus of the libertarian mentality is "no one can tell me what to do." In my own arguments with two different libertarians, each insisted (one to the point of using all caps and probably screaming at his computer as he wrote to me) that their economic arguments regarding the minimum wage issue were not controversial among economists but were "established science". See the irony here? The profound distrust and fear of authority of institutions -- which are a social phenomenon and something they have no control over -- versus the authority of "science" or a priori facts, Randian objectivism (which has long been debunked by science). Notice how frequently Block refers to axioms. Axioms are fine if they really are not controversial and established science, but this is where things get murky and where ironically, belief takes over fact. Ultimately, at the core here is a belief system -- that the axioms are not to be questioned or nuanced or contextualized, that they are dogmatic, truth -- and so, like any fundamentalist interpretation of facts or phenomena, the emphasis is not on evidence or even a recognition that the facts or phenomena can be understood in more than one way, but on the fundamental dogma. It's the dogma that matters, the righteous belief that there is only interpretation of facts -- theirs -- and everyone else is an infidel. And this is why critics of libertarianism sometimes compare it with religion.

[@endabcs]

canteluna It's easy to fall in love with the principle of objective hedonism when you can afford it or in other words are among the minority ruling the majority, but what libertarians, objectivists, anarchists, and hedonists fail to recognize is that the concept of natural rights is a concept that only applies as is recognized by the social contract. Without it, we have no rights, and natural law is observable in not just nature, but human nature throughout history.

[@canteluna]

endabcs "natural rights is a concept that only applies as is recognized by the social contract. Without it, we have no rights" Yes! I have been trying to make this point to libertarians for years. It's lost on them. "when you... are among the minority ruling the majority" Yes! They have wet dreams fantasizing about Randian sociopaths taking their rightful place as the ubermensch of society.

[@endabcs]

canteluna "Yes! I have been trying to make this point to libertarians for years. It's lost on them." This is why there are very few libertarian war veterans. They have seen the horrors of human nature and they have seen the best of human nature. _At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst._ _~ Aristotle_

[@endabcs]

***** "Third, I don't believe in the innate goodness of all people - which leads me to distrust the people in government, and not to want to entrust them with much power." This is exactly why I'll don't understand libertarians. When I used to state that I identified as one, I was misguided, because I was naive enough to believe that men were inherently good. You don't even believe in the innate goodness of people and yet you still seem to think that people left to their own devices won't exploit each other. They believe that the same free market that allows for debt bondage, child sex slavery, slave labor, wage exploitation, organ theft, the destruction of natural resources, and environmental damages that render entire swaths of property unfit for habitation is an ethical place, while the government that is or is supposed to be ruled by the consented to protect what has been declared as inalienable rights by the social construct or in liberal terms, contract; is worse, and oppressive for not allowing such things.

[@endabcs]

***** "Many of those examples are, properly construed, crimes." They are properly construed crimes because they are construed and enforced by who? " Child molestation is a crime. Organ theft is a particularly vicious form of assault, etc." That doesn't prevent people from doing it. "What I mean is that the same rules ought to be applied to everyone, whether in the government or not." Yes, and food that tastes good shouldn't be bad for you, sugar shouldn't cause tooth decay, farts should smell like freshly baked bread, alcohol shouldn't turn people into asshats, and yes, everyone should play nice on the playground without teacher supervision. Now that we got some things that should be out of the way, lets discuss reality. "For example, police officers should have no special powers as compared to ordinary citizens - only special training and special duties, given their training and pay." In theory, they don't, and yes the truth is a far cry from what the theory is, but your police example is a double edged sword and how they should be and the development of how they are is a long and complicated process. I am no police sympathizer, but I do understand how they've come to be and I am not willing to throw all the police under the " they're a state monopoly thugs racket" theory. The reality is, in a competitive world where civil defense is privatized, you would have bigger extortion schemes and you would have gang wars, making your immediate world a far worse place than the place where the police have protection, albeit a more limited protection thanks to phone cameras and the supreme court ruling protecting those who film the police in public. I'm sure you've heard of the protection racket. I get it, there are bad cops, and I get it, that no good cop keeps silent of bad cop's behavior, but that does not mean that there aren't police officers that aren't in it for the right reasons. I would consider their pay one of the reasons that there are so many bad cops, and I would consider the fraternal attitude they have, another. The fact that the public clamors for public services but deny taxes is another reason that police are directed to issue tickets to people in an effort to generate revenue. These are just a few reasons why they've become the way they are.

[@charlesronk2989]

The fact that this guy is an educator is astounding. I would recommend anyone attending the University he is teaching at find somewhere you can get an actual education.

[@stick6969]

taking an entire semester of gish gallop and leaving with a bald head and a beard

[@LexiKaeru]

Looking back at this I can see how Sam has become far more adept at arguing against positions like Professor Block's. Block assumes a strict connection between what he calls 'productivity level' and wages, a connection which exists in theory, but not in the real-world.

[@jellosapiens7261]

The idea that anyone's "productivity" can be objectively measured as a dollar amount is fucking ludicrous. How can a man who thinks people with low "productivity" should starve and die on the street claim that his ideology is more ethical?

[@vinnyholiday9739]

EXACTLY, and to boot he was making this absurd distinction between 6 dollars and 6.50, such a narrow range.

[@vincesmith2499]

Because your ideology involves THEFT. Forced altruism = theft = unethical.

[@vincesmith2499]

I think the professor knows more than you.

[@vinnyholiday9739]

@@vincesmith2499 its not unethical to tax when you live in a society where you need government to maintain the order between millions of individuals. You live in a fantasy

[@MrCal2648]

Block: "Sam, you keep interrupting me telling me to answer the question. Let me waste time and spend the next two minutes minutes to complain about you interrupting me rather than answering the question."

[@rebellsprout5754]

I was laughing so hard I fart when he started talking about bisexuals not discriminating.

[@ajmeyers5661]

I love the way Sam tries to keep him actually on topic.

[@blader45bc]

Actually, the reverse is true.

[@jackstratif9988]

Especially around 38:00 when this doofus professor was being such a baby.

[@williamjameslehy1341]

Progressives hone their debate skills by brushing up on their knowledge of the relevant subject(s). With reactionaries it's more a matter of being good at lowbrow tactics and tricks like Gish galloping, emotional goading, and dodging questions/changing the subject.

[@Seattle-2017]

@@blader45bc Yes - we have a libertarian fantasy-lander in the comments section.

[@AnotherChampagneSocialist]

I love how he just rambles incoherently from assertion to assertion and gets mad that Sam's "interrupting" him every time Sam tries to interject a point or ask a question, then this "economics professor" goes "THE NUMBER SIX IS GREATER THAN THE NUMBER ZERO, SIX IS GREATER THAN ZERO, HURRRP A DURRP A DUUUUUURRRRRR"

[@gilmarianimer4926]

In our country, the minimum wage is raising every year. I worked in factories, in construction, customer assistance, and now I work in a High tech company, yet I never heard of a case where people were fired because of the increase in wages, never... Not only that but by raising my wage, I was also able to focus less on real-life issues and focus more on learning Web Development which helped me reach a much better living wage and work in a High-Tech company.

[@TheDarkSatirist]

me before: it's professor, so this one might actually be able to address sam's criticism and have a mature discussion the video: HEY HEY

[@ericmacrae6871]

I had the same reaction. What i have come to learn about libertarian is let me discriminate who I want and let me exploit people how much i want. Then call this voluntary transactions

[@zach-rac]

😆😆 Ho boy, those "hey-hey-hey-hey"s when Sam occasionally interrupted him made me want to actually punch the guy _every time_ ... I can hear the rage in his voice when he says it too, and it triggers my fight response instantly. He is NOT used to being interrupted, and boy does he not like it. Well, sucks for him because he's not on Sam's show to give a goddam lecture.. jfc. (If I ever had a class with him and he was this insufferable, I'd make sure to interrupt EVERY lecture... 🤣) Mad props to Sam because I absolutely would not have made it through 10 mins with the guy, let alone almost an hour here (and another debate later!)

[@terriej123]

Supply-side economics is just a way for employers to have the power vs the workers. When workers get more money, they by more things & thus the companies have to produce more of those things & hire more people to make those more things!

[@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965]

Yes, you nailed it. You can throw most econ out the window once you realize that supply-side economics is real. If you own and control the supply, you can 'create' the demand. Oh now, we have a nice little pretzel logic of circular reasoning.

[@davincicod1]

Power through...?

[@drakekoefoed1642]

@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 creating demand requires more than having the supply. You have your empty milk jugs but nobody wants them. Manufacturing needs is possible, but not everyone can do it.

[@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965]

@@drakekoefoed1642 Sure, so take Phillip Defranco, a popular youtuber turned huckster. Now he is shilling beard oil. Did know they needed to use beard oil or they weren't cool before 2019 ? F**k Phillip Defranco

[@rsspartanz]

@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 dude the entirety of economics and mathematics is circular logic.

[@ddddddddddakahsg]

Who is this guy? "Please don't interrupt me"

[@cmore138]

This guy has a real job at a real university. wtf

[@whealler100]

Has anyone else noticed that libertariens all throughout the years whenever Sam makes a really rational point they all pretend they cant hear him for like 10 seconds and then say phones gone out or theres dead air, or they just go flat silent ? lmao

[@ShummaAwilum]

Agreed, though in this case the connection was noticably bad for a bit after he brought it up.

[@hyperbolicchamber661]

How else are they supposed to Bing their response?

[@swaimspanacea6529]

Poverty is violence and coercion, Block is silly

[@rossshand4385]

No, you're silly

[@xavierlogan432]

+Swaims Panacea Poverty is the natural state of all living beings.

[@NicholasWongCQ]

+Swaims Panacea lol keep repeating that claptrap you might even convince yourself.

[@arturorobles8652]

Awww...Shut the fuck up!!!

[@kennedycrouch5171]

Xavier Logan hey can you explain what the fuck this means in the context of politics? because it kinda sounds like you're advocating for non advocacy which is stupid

[@subfreak1996]

"Hey hey hey hey hey hey!"

[@MBarberfan4life]

Bitconnnneeeeeeeeect!

[@ritwingr]

I very much like Walter Block. I very much agree with Walter Block. I don't agree with Mr. Seder on much. I say that to say this. Mr. Seder was extraordinarily gracious in the face of Block's obnoxiousness. Maybe Block was having a bad day. But kudos to Sam for his manners and dignity.

[@waterkingdavid]

ritwingr I switched off when Block said the employers pays $9 an hour "cause that's what he sees the employer as worth." Ladies and gentleman it is this kind of thinking and talk which reduces human beings to economic machines when in truth they are spiritual beings in a divine universe. No-one is "worth' $9 an hour. This reduces not only the one who is paid, but the one paying to the value of a calculating machine. Lets wake up to who we truly are - however long it takes.

[@ritwingr]

Good grief. A person has a job he needs done. The person has a value in his mind as to what that job is worth. If someone is wiling to do the job for that amount or less an exchange takes place. If not, an exchange does not take place. Is that really a difficult concept? Do you really think Block was talking about some metaphysical assessment of the worth of a person? He's an economist and he's talking about the value of the service provided, which should be obvious to any sentient being. A man may be a great violinist, a philanthropist...very nice to his mother-in-law. That has no bearing on how much someone might wish to pay him to repair a fence. Is it not obvious that this is what Block was talking about? Are you really that dense?

[@ritwingr]

But Marxism ISN'T an ideology....riiiight.

[@ritwingr]

So by your own reasoning your fellow leftists are also unthinking shitheads. So what is the point?

[@Tesla_Death_Ray]

ritwingr "If someone is wiling to do the job for that amount or less an exchange takes place." Yes people are willing to work for whatever pittance allows them to survive. This is almost exactly why a minimum wage is necessary. An employer would be able to fire employees and hire new ones who are willing to be paid less.

[@thejicaman5329]

This guy acts like such a baby. Did he actually almost start crying at around 40:00??

[@lemartin93]

oh shit you're right hahaha

[@illpro1879]

What is this guy talking about? Companies do not hire based on a person's productivity. Companies hire with the intention to maximize their profit.

[@ivandafoe5451]

@@illpro1879 They do both (they do make more with self-motivated productive workers)...but they mainly only pay wages based on maximizing their profit.

[@vladislav8989]

in the beginning, I think, he buried the lead. The libertarian posited that it was unethical to expect an employer to pay 7.25 for someone whose productivity was only 6. Which sounds good however, without government workers whose productivity is greater than 6 might never see an increase. The employees are the only ones expected to be ethical! Employers are going to do whatever the can to keep costs down, including underpaying labor. which is evidenced by stagnant wages even as productivity and corporate profits skyrocket.

[@vladislav8989]

Yeah, yeah. The problem of applying a supply curve to workers is that you end up reducing people to commodities, instead of treating them like people.

[@douglaswinters9695]

His argument for removing the minimum wage: companies can pay less than the current minimum wage so other companies can come in and still pay you less than the current minimum wage, while making it seem like they’ve done you a favor.

[@Catrambi]

Just listened to this again. This moron is hilarious. - Answer my question please? - No, let me ask YOU a question. Which.. - Hold on. I want you to answer my question first. - HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY SHUT UP! I HAVE SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO SAY!!! - *sigh* OK, go on.. - Now.. which number is higher, six or zero? - *sigh*

[@sajfen]

Yet you clearly have a problem with understanding that 6 is larger than zero.

[@Seattle-2017]

Walter Block: "A) A guy who dates only women that he finds attractive, and B) a business that allows only white people in as customers: they're the same thing, A is just as descriminatory as B." Sam: "But professor, dating preferences and the ability to go into a business and buy things are two VERY different things." Walter Block: "Hey hey hey!!! Stop interrupting me!"

[@PrometheusFireNZ]

Professor Walter Block got consistently crazier as the show went on. Also I think he spoke longer than Sam but kept bitching about it.