The System of Freedom: Socialism or Capitalism? DEBATE

--A debate between Yaron Brook and Rob Larson
Support The David Pakman Show:
-Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
-Become a Patron: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
Engage with us on social media:
-Join on KZbin: / @thedavidpakmanshow
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-TDPS on Instagram: / davidpakmanshow
-Discuss on TDPS subreddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day! Make sure to subscribe!

[@justinmalinowski]

DP takes a surprisingly neutral position in his moderator role. Kudos!

[@acester86]

There was a couple times he I injected his ideals into the debate. But yeah he mostly let the 2 debaters to speak about their theories

[@sybo59]

KLJF What!?

[@AliBooondok]

@@acester86 Huh? He can't express his thoughts in a debate he is moderating? I don't think people have a clue what a proper debate functions like anymore.

[@jaymesdevine7737]

A mutually respectful debate... how strange.

[@sybo59]

Jaymes Devine A rare pleasure indeed.

[@GHOSTPLANEtable]

yeah the guy simping for billionaire war criminals was so civil, calling for more of the same- the status quo thats killed millions. Wasn't very civil from where im sitting.

[@urrgent1]

When a corporation contaminates the drinking water of certain poorer communities, I think that is a violent act for sure.

[@sybo59]

Urrgent1 No one in this debate disagrees with that. Parkman is usually careful not to strawman - it’s important that we do the same.

[@greensquare6235]

NO, they're just providing you with options and the fReEdOm to choose. Cake or death.

[@greensquare6235]

@Time Warp It's not illegal if a government relaxes environmental regulations, which happens all the time. Trump did some of it just recently. What fucking planet do you live on?

[@badday4885]

50:00 “Everyone in Israel is better off today” ...unless you’re a Palestinian...

[@sybo59]

No, Palestinians are also better off, by far.

[@TePiCkLeOfDoOm]

@Andrew Sokolowski What do you mean? Do you mean Israel is the only place that they are not in Power.

[@TePiCkLeOfDoOm]

@Andrew Sokolowski I edited my initial reply and can you respond to that i mixed up the sentence lol then ill respond.

[@TePiCkLeOfDoOm]

@Andrew Sokolowski Oh i see, although the oppression is by other Muslims thus having a secular state gives more freedoms i see. Your initial comment was very vague.

[@KevinUchihaOG]

50:14 Sweden was never socialist. Since 1920 we've been social democratic pretty much.

[@maxminkin6227]

And social democracy is a strand of what we call "revisionist socialism".

[@malachi8151]

How is a free market combined with a welfare state 'revisionist socialism'?

[@bobbydylanio]

@@malachi8151 Because it is socialism revised to include free market elements..? It's a blend of socialism and free market capitalism. It is a revision. I don't understand this obsession with "Democratic Socialists" and "Social Democrats", there is quite a lot of cross over and a large grey area between those two, i'm sure since 1920 Sweden has done some things that could legitimately be described as 'democratic socialist'.

[@malachi8151]

@@bobbydylanio I think you got it the wrong way around, it's free markets with socialist elements for the vast majority of the European countries, e.g. Germany with its social market economy/Rhine capitalism.

[@maxminkin6227]

Malachi 81 Thats just what it's called - which you would find out if you studied political philosophy and thinkers like Anthony Crossland. Revisionist socialism says that the goal of socialism is to create a more equal and fraternal society and that we don't necessarily need to abolish private property to do that.

[@benjaminmolina3456]

Its kinda clear the generational divide between these two. One seems to carry the red scare into his old age, the other seems to hit some specific problems of the current times.

[@sybo59]

Benjamin Molina I disagree. The older guy is making a principled argument and backing the abstract parts with concrete historical examples. The other seems to fall prey to special pleading with a deliberately narrow scope and no guiding principles.

[@greensquare6235]

@@sybo59 The older guy is making rambling generalisations. You call it principled.

[@sybo59]

Green Square Thanks for responding. Can you give an example?

[@greensquare6235]

@@sybo59 Can you?

[@Kloutkulture]

sybo59 Can you give some examples?

[@cammcintyre9061]

Anyone that suggests that the working poor have any freedom is simply out of touch or a propagandist.

[@Kloutkulture]

Exactly. Arguments like that which have no merits should not even be acknowledged.

[@tijuanaforeplay8232]

You mean having two hours on Saturday and six hours on Sunday to pursue your life's passion is not enough? Just kidding, I agree Yaron lives on planet Rand.

[@Joannapomeroy]

Many people seem to advocate for the idea of capitalism while simultaneously insist on being willfully ignorant to the fact that capitalism as a manifested reality is vastly different than their idea of capitalism.

[@karl_m3013]

A very poignant remark.

[@Fabric_Hater]

Imagine calling yourself an economist then not even understanding that the US isn't a capitalist system

[@MCWaffles2003-1]

This was an amazingly cordial debate. I'm surprised no one debating against "pure capitalism" ever brings up the banana republics and the fruit companies though. You have an example of a capitalist society where all the infrastructure was privately owned and there was a large lack of antitrust type regulation

[@tijuanaforeplay8232]

Yes! It drives me up a wall. Look at latin america, that big mass of land, rich in minerals and produce, full of exploitable people to where American plantations now outsource. It's funny how as soon as a latin american country sees a leftist leader rise to power and become president, a US-backed coup shortly follows at the behest of capitalist corporations. That country then becomes ultra capitalist and ultra fascist, almost instantly they see their civil liberties decline, their human rights vanish, and their overall quality of life plummet. The more capitalist their economy becomes, the more oppressive their government gets because they need to suppress labor rights activism, environmental activism, civil rights activism, etc etc. Yaron and his peers are just wrong about capitalism.

[@MCWaffles2003-1]

And people pretend no capialist system has ever failed and turned into a complete shit hole but the ussr, venezuela, and china are the only examples of anything socialistic

[@s1nks]

Banana republics are by definition not "pure capitalism" "In economics, a banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, whereby the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. **Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies**, in which the profit, derived from the private exploitation of public lands, is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

[@MCWaffles2003-1]

I never stated banana republics are "pure capitalism" but was instead referring to debates over the subject. Surely though they are more in line with capitalist doctrine presented by those arguing for capitalism in debates against socialism. When others bring up venezuela, china and the ussr I feel an opportunity is being missed in accurately presenting the failings of capitalism in countries like banana republics so the capitalist argument doesn't go off with a notion of "I've presented the actual failings of socialist countries now where are the failed capitalist societies?" as if there are no examples of capitalism self imploding as well.

[@teddibiase5984]

Banana republic's are not capitalist societies. To have a free economy you must have the rule of law

[@Joannapomeroy]

Yaron trades government coercion for exploitation of labor. Sounds pretty coercive to me.

[@edman79]

Even if that was true I'd prefer the coercion of a corporation than the government that has the legal monopoly of violence.

[@JonathanLevinTKY]

Whats the comparison here? Getting sent to jail for speaking badly against the government on social media vs. getting told by your boss that you need to work 1 hour overtime?

[@KirkWilcox]

Trade is not coercive

[@nicolasm400]

@@edman79 Corporations have the legal monopoly to exploit those who work. I'd prefer the boot of a government rather than the boot of a corporation. At least the government is somewhat accountable to citizen through representative democracy, and at lest the state is supposed to uphold common good, while the only goal corporations has is maximization of profits.

[@bradm6287]

Libertarians only care that the rich are free. The simple fact that the capitalist system inherently benefits the wealthy is instantly a coercive practice against the poor. End of debate.

[@acester86]

He obviously has not read about the coal monopolies in the late 19th century if he thinks firing is not violent. Under unrestrained Capitalism like the coal monopolies existed, violence was a part of everyday life.

[@sybo59]

acester86 There are no monopolies without government intervention. “Unrestrained” capitalism produces neither all-powerful monopolies nor violence. It is ONLY capitalism that bans the initiation of physical force.

[@williammkennedyjr]

Very good and very good eye opener

[@AtomicDoorknob]

love debates always down for more david!

[@hauskalainen]

This discussion about freedom and socialism is SO American (i.e. not normative when it comes to a global perspective). A good example is American attitudes to the British National Health Service. It is pure socialism. Paid for by everybody but the rich pay more than the poor and it benefits everyone equally where need is determined by your health status not the depth of your pocket. Americans call this either coersion (because of the tax structure) or lack of freedom (because in the NHS your treatment options are only those on offer from the doctor who is the gatekeeper to NHS resources). You will get oxygen if you have Covid19 and not bleach or hydroxy chloroquine because the first one works and the other two do not. What Americans miss completely is that the NHS has overwhelming public support and exists alongside private hospitals and quack medicine if you want to line the pockets of capitalists and fraudsters. Nearly everyone chooses the system run by doctors not motivated by private or personal profit on the basis of science. The government does not run the NHS.... it just finances it. Badly if the politicians are Conservatives.

[@fionafiona1146]

There is an argument for herd immunity /economic health being of more value to the wealth whose stability is entangled with more than their own health.

[@greensquare6235]

Government programs aren't socialism.

[@hauskalainen]

@@greensquare6235 Not in the Marxist Leninist sense but the NHS is socialism in a real sense. Set up by a post war government with a real intent to socialize the economy... bringing electricity, railways, the coal industry and the vast majority of health services under democratic control. I've been to America and the things there under government control are deliberately run down... roads, bridges, and even essential infrastructure like pipelines, drains, and levees are in a terrible state. Katrina would not have been so bad had the levees done their job. It's not as thought the problems were not known about. The Dutch taxpayer invests heavily in water defenses. The French in High Speed Rail. Most countries in their public health infrastructure and public education.

[@greensquare6235]

@@hauskalainen The Marxist sense is the real sense. He developed the idea. Right wingers love conflating socialism with government.

[@hauskalainen]

@@greensquare6235 They also conflate it with the Soviet Union and Venezuela but tend not to do so with China. China had a bad start under Mao but is finally delivering for its people. And it is a communist state with the party in control in most enterprises. Even foreign ones operating in China.

[@cowboyx1970]

Yaron argues that nothing was ever invented before capitalism. Epic Fail.

[@cowboyx1970]

@Time Warp He said the epi pen would not have been invented without capitalism. The conclusion logically follows.

[@cowboyx1970]

@Time Warp No he didn't. What does that even mean? He said the pen WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVENTED WITHOUT CAPITALISM. That is ridiculous as I've pointed out.

[@cowboyx1970]

@Time Warp Nah, he threw up a straw man and I punched it in the face. Are you saying he meant it figuratively? Not. He said the pen wouldn't be invented without capitalism. That's a straight declaration that capitalism causes invention and other systems do not. A false statement.

[@cowboyx1970]

@Time Warp That's called moving the goal posts. Now your claiming that it has to be something "complex" - that you for conceding the rest of the argument. So now your claim is that nothing "complex" has ever been invented in anything but a "free market" which, of course, doesn't and has never existed.

[@cowboyx1970]

@Time Warp I'll take that as an ad homimen, another fallacy, as even if I did what does that have to do with Yaron's argument?

[@Micro-bit]

GREAT DISCUSISON!!! THANKS!

[@chuckasualty]

I wonder how Yaron Brook feels about tax dollars going to bailing out private corporations...that is a form of socialism...odd that no one brought that up

[@KirkWilcox]

Chuck Kasualty Yaron constantly condemns corporate welfare

[@IanGilmore]

He's opposed to the bailouts.

[@sybo59]

No need to wonder: He is on record as being consistently against them. Consistency is a rare thing, which might explain you assuming the worst about him here. Read Ayn Rand. Trust.

[@Kloutkulture]

sybo59 Even though I diametrically oppose the vast majority of his viewpoints. I consistently applaud him for being principled, and truly adhering to his policy positions regardless of whom the subject is. Also, he was very friendly and honest to David in the first debate. Can’t help but respect it.

[@sybo59]

KloutKulture That’s a reasonable and gracious comment. I can’t help but respect it. But while we’re here, could you briefly explain why you think Objectivism is wrong, and what your alternative is? For ease of reference, here’s how Rand put it when pressed to condense her philosophy to absolute essentials: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” It goes without saying that this is a simplification, and doesn’t include her vital arguments - but as a starting point, where does the above go wrong, and how do you know it? Interested to hear from you.

[@mlight6845]

Excellent dialog. 1. Violence to be avoided is physical; however, it starts verbally. Therefore this is not a good measure as manipulative behavior (think of a hacker who freezes a business's on-line activity and asks for money in exchange for the freedom to do their business) 2. When the big companies decide to take excessive risk, like hedge fund managers did pre-2008 recession, the damage was not intentional and the risk-takers felt minimal consequence of the damage while everyone else is still paying for it. When a system has decoupled risk-reward, the system is too big... and there is likely something else wrong in there.

[@kristoferbitney6268]

Yaron would agree that hacking, fraud, etcetera are violations of rights and should be illegal. Also, Yaron would oppose the bail outs given to banks and hedge funds in the 2008 crisis. He believes in a separation of economy and state, much like the separation of church and state.

[@carrieraupp757]

This guy on the left is assuming that we have options due to capitalism?

[@hunternolasco2544]

I think he is most worried about government limiting freedom other than corporations limiting freedom. Seems like walking that fine line is the best way forward

[@craigdougan8484]

The guy on the left is really on the right

[@sybo59]

Do you disagree? The rise of capitalism brought a completely unprecedented abundance of goods and services. It’s not an assumption. It’s a rather obvious point of fact.

[@carrieraupp757]

Craig Dougan wasn’t sure. As he faced me he was on my left. So I just went with that. Or are you talking ideology?

[@craigdougan8484]

@@carrieraupp757 Both. He's on the right ideologically and in "real" life. Was a weak comment and i probably shouldn't post every random thought that occurs to me.

[@onebuc5874]

Wait what? Israel was never a socialist country

[@acester86]

The first computer was built with military dollars during WW2

[@fionafiona1146]

Ada (Lady Loverlays) treaties on programming (punch card automatons, then used in textile manufacturing) and the etymology imply that much else should be included in "computers", since basic mathematic engines are necessary predecessors to the Turing Maschine we colloquially limit the term to.

[@adrien5834]

What are military dollars?

[@kekberus1]

Tax dollars

[@acester86]

@@adrien5834 military funding

[@adrien5834]

@@acester86 Yes, but I don't understand your initial post. How is it significant that some of this funding was allocated to building a computer?

[@itsamemomio8309]

(Sounds like capitalism wants to be told, "It's ok, you can be selfish.")

[@ajykumar2]

The paradox of selflessness.

[@sybo59]

No, he doesn’t want to merely be told that selfishness is OK - he unabashedly advocates selfishness as the highest moral virtue. Sounds crazy - or it did to me when I first heard it - but you might want to read up on what he means by it and how it is validated. That journey changed my life for the better. See Rand’s collection of essays, “The Virtue of Selfishness.” Better yet, read her novel, The Fountainhead. Spiritual rocket fuel.

[@fionafiona1146]

It's OK to fail to understand, the most selfish thing to do is lifting up others...a very protestant sentiment I understand less than most religion.

[@samuelespinosa4255]

"we need science fiction to get capitalism" Says the man who follows the philosophy of someone who needs adamntium eternal motion machines and a self sustaining virgin land to be able to create her capitalist world.... (Atlas shrugged

[@brrradley1]

Yaron guy crushed it.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Yaron's thoughts are gold.

[@petermitchelldayton]

Guess who I think should call Sam Seder? Who wants a jet pack?

[@tijuanaforeplay8232]

I'm almost embarrassed to say that I thought Yaron Brook was a smart dude, until I came across Sam Seder and watched all his debates with libertarians. Lol. Good thing the former was a phase that didn't last long.

[@jacobm7026]

@@tijuanaforeplay8232 what did he say that made you discount his intelligence?

[@hauskalainen]

Because the NHS determines medicine pricing based on negotiation with drug companies the price paid for drugs is the least that suppliers find acceptable. Collective wisdom in action.

[@fionafiona1146]

Germany& Singapore have plenty of competition/insurance providers with similar success, requiring less trust from people subject to the system... many roads lead to Rome, the US are walking the wrong way.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

The NHS has the worst healthcare outcomes of any developed nations. It is a disaster.

[@hauskalainen]

@@micchaelsanders6286 Not true. End of.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

@@hauskalainen Absolutely true. Look at the numbers yourself!

[@maxminkin6227]

To all the capitalists in this comment section: 1) If something has not worked so far, it does not mean that it will never work/can't work - claiming that would be a logical fallacy; for example, if you tried learning Spanish but didn't succeed, that does not mean you can't learn Spanish - perhaps you used faulty methods, didn't try hard enough or were never really committed to learning Spanish in the first place. 2) Has capitalism ever worked? Has it managed to eliminate homelessness, hunger and exploitation? Has it not been the cause of numerous wars (including WWI and WWII) and colonial atrocities? The fact that capitalism works for you does not mean that it works for everybody.

[@sybo59]

I’m your Huckleberry... 1) No one disagrees with this. Objectivists and socialists both can honestly say that their ideal system has never been consistently tried. The important distinction is that the closer you get to pure capitalism, the better things are, and vice versa for socialism. And while it would indeed be fallacious to reject socialism merely on the grounds that it hasn’t worked yet (ironically, you’re straw-manning in your very logic lesson here, as no Objectivist has evert taken this line of attack), there are other very good reasons we can know it won’t be good if enacted consistently. Philosophy, economics, and the historical examples we have all point in that direction. 2) See above. The closer we’ve come to pure capitalism the better things have been. And I reject out of hand any allusions to slavery or brutal colonization. These are totally inconsistent with laissez-faire capitalism, as you know. So yes, it has worked. It’s worked beautifully, when and where and to the extent it’s been allowed. You’d be hard pressed to find a single person in any capitalistic nation who would have been better off without it. Many of the poor in the US have smart phones and internet access. It’s incredible, and nothing comes close. In closing, it’s always worth considering that you are free to start a socialist-minded commune and grow it as large as your able within a capitalist system. The terrible catch is that we rather insist that it’s done on a voluntary basis. For some reason that’s not enough. Socialists DEMAND the ability to force others against their will. You, or the majority, or the state know best, and must be allowed to physically compel others to do what’s deemed proper. And it’s interesting how no such capitalist enclave could ever be allowed to exist within a socialist system. Thanks for hearing me out.

[@maxminkin6227]

sybo59 “The important distinction is that the closer you get to pure capitalism, the better things are”. Oh dear... I don’t even need to read the rest of your comment (though I did). If you actually believe that things are better for ordinary people in the United States than they are in Denmark - or even the United Kingdom, for that matter - then you are living in some sort of a parallel universe from the one I am living in. As regards your accusations of straw-manning on my part, “it has never worked” is literally the single most used sentence in this comment section, which is why I felt compelled to make that point. The only person guilty of straw-manning here is yourself, since I do not support forcing people to turn their businesses into worker co-ops - I support a gradual, organic transition to a co-op economy via the means of encouraging - not enforcing - the creation of such co-ops. P.S. brutal colonisation is perfectly in line with the principle of maximising profit and acting in your own self-interest, as you know.

[@sybo59]

Max Minkin Denmark and the UK are also better off with capitalism than without it. Do you dispute this? And Denmark is a market economy that has more more freedom in some sectors than the US. You fucking played yourself.

[@maxminkin6227]

sybo59 I don’t quite know how I “f**king played” myself because I have nothing against market economies. Denmark has a strong welfare state and high levels of taxation, which is obviously further away from laissez-faire capitalism than the system that exists in the US; yet, “things” are better in Denmark for the vast majority of the population, which creates a challenge for your argument. I’m not sure why you thought you’d owned me - you seem kind of lost.

[@sybo59]

Max Minkin U You’re advocating for socialism and against capitalism. You f**cking cited Denmark, a non-socialist nation with a more free banking system than even the US. And now you’re saying you support markets? Am I wrong about you defending socialism? Do you know what socialism is? There are some obscure market variants of socialism, but even most socialists mock their contradictions.

[@Joannapomeroy]

So I'm 28 min in and this just gets funnier. There would be no EpiPen if not for capitalism?? LOL! Rob literally just spelled it out for you that capitalism inhibits innovation via predatory dominant companies. Yavon: "well.. I mean... What even is freedom anyway..." There is price disclosure precisely because of regulations; capitalism would not regulate itself otherwise.

[@bobbydylanio]

I completely disagree. Capitalism enhances innovation because innovation sells. They need to innovate to sell products. This is the problem with capitalism; endless economic growth is driven by the need to sell products, innovative products sell, that is why phones and TV's and video games etc are improving. This is endless economic growth, capitalism is inherently amoral, it is driven by profit, so the earth is being plundered, people are being exploited, in order to supply us wealthy countries with an endless stream of new electronic crap to fiddle about with. And its all because of endless economic growth.

[@sybo59]

An amazing chunk of the major innovations in the entire history of humanity have come about since (and because of) the creative explosion brought on by capitalism. I’m sorry, but your comment is embarrassingly ignorant.

[@Geevs80]

Yes it would, regulations frequently come from lobbyists

[@stellai06]

Hahaha the guy with the grey hair is living in his fantasy....

[@greensquare6235]

I never can tell if libertarians are delusional or bullshitting. I barely started watching and already there's a noticeable difference in substance vs rhetoric.

[@tijuanaforeplay8232]

He and Peter Schiff both live in Puerto Rico and expose the capitalistic freedom of operating out of there. Meanwhile natives see little class mobility, vast income inequality, and a sunken economy thanks to the capitalist freedoms the USA takes with them.

[@teddibiase5984]

@@tijuanaforeplay8232 natives in puerto rico don't live under capitalism

[@bruno.6610]

@@greensquare6235 He isn't a libertarian.

[@greensquare6235]

@@bruno.6610 What is he?

[@Joannapomeroy]

Sure, capitalism gives you the freedom to pursue your values.... As long as your values are working long hours for low wages or exploiting your workers and keeping the profits they produced for you.

[@Nutrollio]

You big government progressives were rejected.

[@Joannapomeroy]

@@Nutrollio I'm not taking about big government

[@Trucidare]

100 years ago, the average work week was 60 hours. Today, it's 33.

[@Joannapomeroy]

@@Trucidare that's greatly because of the labor movement and the New Deal, in spite of capitalism not because of it.

[@Trucidare]

@@Joannapomeroy idk, thought it was also because innovation and ingenuity allowed us to become much more productive, thus requiring less hours of work to put food on the table. Even most jobs nowadays are immensely better as opposed to any time in the past.

[@fionafiona1146]

Thanks for the Format, good choice in moderation 😉

[@stevenpepperell6425]

Are there only 2 options

[@fionafiona1146]

These people had time on their hands

[@greensquare6235]

Given that there are only two classes (worker and owner) I'd say there are only two options, worker ownership or private ownership. Self employment is in the tiny overlap between the two. Government ownership is just capitalism with extra steps.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Yep. Freedom or controls.

[@MeeReePan]

Maybe what we seek out of socialism is good will? The problem is that there seems to always be people who want to exploit. I think the movement of socialism is because we are tired of feeling exploited. We want things to be more fair. Capitalism was more fair, but companies stopped profit sharing with their employees in the 60's. Started paying their employees a wage instead. Profit sharing only goes to share holders. Which I suppose people can buy their company stock, unless they are too broke to do that. I'm really starting to believe that it doesn't really matter what kind of system of government we have. Every type of government type was originally elected with best of intentions. Some just seem to make it easier to be corrupted than others by exploitation vs maintaining "good will". If most have "good will" and one decides to exploit, then it's going to be hard to catch the exploiter and they win. Over time this idea is seen as profitable and becomes the new normal. This is our reality now, exploitation is profitable. I feel we have forgotten how to empathize, be human. Seems people only care about $#s profit. Nice to see people debating respectfully, but what happened at the end there? The question of water goes to tech. WTF? Clean water, clean air it's a thing. Take a look at Flint, Michigan water crisis. Unfortunately some people have thought about capitalizing on this. LOL though now I see nestle says they are helping Flint MI, but IDK if I believe them www.snopes.com/fact-check/nestle-ceo-water-not-human-right/

[@itsamemomio8309]

..."Breaking up a company is violence," but "firing someone is not violence?" Again, come on! You just contradicted yourself! How is that different?...Because you built the business yourself (and you're the boss so you can control their livelihood) vs your employees didn't build it so you can go fire them?

[@twilightcrush]

He’s an asshole, fuck ‘em

[@jeremyhansen9197]

One man appeals to reason, the other one uses it.

[@bernardosax]

Who is who?

[@RUSE321]

@@bernardosax The guy I agree with

[@SpencerG82]

Separate economic power from political power? That's how you start your rebuttal to an argument that cites a billionaire that ran for office as evidence?

[@rasengan37]

Two words: Flint Michigan

[@sybo59]

Louis F. What’s your point? The dude on the left doesn’t support lead poisoning. Are you accusing him of something here?

[@rasengan37]

@@sybo59 what I meant by this was the comment he made on water system example being from a sci fi movie.

[@sybo59]

Louis F. Sorry if I misread you.

[@twilightcrush]

Yup

[@dominickjasso5500]

i dont understand this premise when we already live in a mixed economy, its not all one or nothing and as we say with the cruise line bail outs we live in a corporate socialist government and thats bad but a social Healthcare is a good thing.

[@fionafiona1146]

For those in power... Have you looked into updating your democracy?

[@dr.christopherdiaz4473]

I thought that was the Ayn Rand guy in the thumbnail.

[@dinodelage9088]

it is lol

[@wombatv]

These guys should have a podcast ☺

[@MyplayLists4Y2Y]

Yaron finishes with an Appeal to Faith Logical Fallacy, wherein he dismisses the very real power/essential resource inequalities that his completely free market capitalism philosophy can indeed incur, but instead tries to wave it off (literally waived his hand) with "faith" that such a thing is "never going to happen". But given the philosophy as he laid it out such a scenario as a monopoly on water or land CAN happen, therefore the philosophy of free market capitalism as a philosophy is flawed. Btw, his argument that people can drill their wells or catch rain water negates the fact that most of the world's population lives in cities, and also negates the fact that it would require ownership of the land or rain collection surface area which would not be possible for every person on the planet to do unless there were REGULATIONS that fostered all people possessing non-arid land -- if not, most or all land can be owned by a relative few.

[@Are1i]

Yes with the water example, if you imagine our current society transforming to complete private land and infrastructure ownership overnight, then I think some kind of problems would be probable. I think that's why Yaron referred to it as "sci-fi", not that a world of laissez-faire system is fairy-tale abstract, but certain specifics of a far different system could be tough to imagine in the context of our current system, although not irrelevant (as Yaron did entertain that point). Water being so plentiful in most areas (except some desert countries) I couldn't imagine that as problem in any system. Some other "limited" natural resources might pose a more realistic problem in this sense for a laissez-faire system. If by some miracle you could capture all the supply of a given natural resource, and wanted to exploit that "power", by charging much more for it than what it is worth. You would be putting enormous economic pressure on yourself, people would ship it from other places and find ways to get around this annoying situation. Competitors would look to enter your field as the profitability rises to qualm this mismatch of market that you would have arbitrarily created.

[@grandgibbon2071]

I like how nestle is litterally buying up all the water rights they can. Also I like how is water desalination plan would require him to hire countless people who may have not now rely on him for their water ration. But its simple to him its fine if hes a king. All he wants is to go back to the age of monarchs.

[@hunternolasco2544]

Most socialist thinkers I’ve spoken to just have negative things to say about capitalism, other than saying positive things about socialism. To me it all comes down to which system limits government overreach best. Since government has the best tools to limit an individuals freedom.

[@bobbydylanio]

It strange with some Americans that you hold your founding fathers in an almost saintly reverence but at the same time have a deeply ingrained distrust of government. The idea that a government that invests heavily in public services and welfare and taxes more proportionally somehow has greater scope to overreach is simply a nonsense position. Especially as it is usually conservatives that invest heavily in the army and police forces which are obviously potential tools of oppression - oh as well as increased surveillance, longer and more draconian criminal punishments (like execution). If you think conservatives are less likely to 'overreach' then think again.

[@ACSansone55]

bobbydylanio well said. Not to add too fine a point, but I think it is reasonable to suggest that bigger government, whether or not they invest mostly in socially beneficial services, is more likely to overreach than small (all else being equal).

[@sybo59]

bobbydylanio The founding fathers, imperfect though they were, denied themselves the coercive power they could have easily taken for themselves. Washington is an especially important example. The FFs themselves were skeptical of government overreach. Why do you see a conflict in being skeptical of government and revering the FFs who built deliberate limitations into their government?

[@greensquare6235]

Google worker-owned co-ops. This is common knowledge. You're choosing your conversationalists badly. Do better.

[@maartenh7692]

How does Yaron think climate change should be adressed? Is the 'market' going to solve it? There are limits to growth in the REAL world.

[@henryriehl2058]

Government intervention is part of capitalism. If you actually study economics, you would come by a term called externalities.

[@bradm6287]

Probably the same way the "market" addressed Covid 19. Not at all.

[@bradm6287]

@@henryriehl2058 No, that is what we call "muddying the water". Capitalist copout for "government can step in to address catastrophic failures" that affect everyone (war, pandemics, depressions) but we can shrug off minor cumulative failures that only affect the poor (nepotism/cronyism/luck/headstarts).

[@sybo59]

He has actually put out many videos on this topic, easily found on KZbin. It’s not an ignored issue.

[@sybo59]

Brad M The market was tragically hampered, but still is producing all of the life-saving gear we have today. What a bizarre, unfair statement.

[@mavizlaviz]

I would love to see another Pakman and Yaron debate!

[@incognito6033]

I like to see Yaron Brook debate an Anarcho-Capitalist because he's as much of a statist as anyone else. The lines he draws between freedom and security is just as arbitrary..

[@schpyy]

He has a debate with an ancap out there somewhere, Yaron crushes him though.

[@sybo59]

Incognito No, he’s not as much of a statist as anyone else, obviously. What a dishonest thing to say. The line is not arbitrary, but objective. Do you have any idea why?

[@incognito6033]

+sybo59 Go ahead and humor me. For example, where would Yaron stand on child labor in the context of freedom vs security? Should the child be allowed to work, should it be up to the parents, does the state have any say, do they 'mediate' if there is disagreement between the child and the parents, can the child be independent, if so then at what age, etc? Make an 'objective' case.

[@sybo59]

Yaron killed it. If only people would actually read Rand.

[@KirkWilcox]

I conkirk

[@greensquare6235]

Capitalist healthcare kills 35'000 people in the US every year.

[@sybo59]

Green Square The US doesn’t have capitalist healthcare.

[@greensquare6235]

@@sybo59 The US has private insurance companies and private hospitals. The US has capitalist healthcare. Capitalism kills.

[@KirkWilcox]

@@greensquare6235 Healthcare, insurance, and medicine are heavily regulated and subsidized in the United States

[@brownjenkin2267]

"Thanks David. It's good to be talking about freedom here today." ~ off to a great start 🦖

[@QunitsClips]

Just in regards to the claims made around the 19:10 mark... Facebook is most definitely not free to the user. "Privacy settings" is just "window dressing" much like "democracy"

[@QunitsClips]

@Time Warp Indeed... and as far as I'm concerned I did a few years back... That however was not my point nor was it particularly critical, just a reality, which people should be aware

[@QunitsClips]

@Time Warp How so? You seem to be confusing the context of the term "free" with "choice"

[@QunitsClips]

I would simply invite you to listen to the passage in question, it appears that you are still contextually confused : In this case the speaker appears to suggest that "Facebook" costs nothing to the user. I therefore suggest that, "Facebook" does indeed have a cost to the user and that cost is "time" : Ones time has a financial value, the time one spends using Facebook generates income in a multitude of ways for the company and not the user.

[@teddibiase5984]

You are not forced to use facebook just like you aren't forced to eat at pizza hut

[@teddibiase5984]

@@QunitsClips that's an absurd standard. You are spending time with any activity you engage in, facebook is free to use and as they are a private company they are free to set the rules for their users. Why is this hard to understand?

[@notafantbh]

They didn't even touch on climate change where I think unhinged capitalism has a lot to answer for

[@misterdemocracy3335]

C MG Yeah it’s like one of the best checkmate arguments against capitalism. Doesn’t really touch on its efficacy, but on its ability to rectify problems that are not responsive to market incentives. Climate change is the best example of that problem and there doesn’t seem to be a solution that I’m aware of and it’s compounded by the reality that there really is no political will to deal with it at least in terms of the market.

[@sybo59]

Mister Democracy Capitalist countries have the cleanest environments. More efficient = cleaner. Any other system is less efficient, which means they use more energy to produce the same amount.

[@misterdemocracy3335]

sybo59 That’s just straight up not true and you liked your own comment.

[@sybo59]

Mister Democracy It’s absolutely true. For instance, the Soviet Union used WAY more resources than the US to produce the same amount of goods. That means more waste and more pollution. Primitive societies do things like burn wood for heat. To the extent that they produce anything, they produce it in a much environmentally dirtier way than ANY capitalistic nation.

[@twilightcrush]

4 sure

[@hoodee1334]

Yaron lost me at flying cars, this guy is living in a different reality.

[@tijuanaforeplay8232]

Yaron worships at the altar of Ayn Rand, nuff said.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

@@tijuanaforeplay8232 Ayn Rand was right. We would have flying cars and 10 hour work weeks by now if we didn't have all these taxes and regulations crippling the productive mind.

[@programking655]

@@micchaelsanders6286 That’s just a stupid ass opinion

[@MPR2]

Thank you for this debate, I now see how dangerous unfettered Capitalism can be!

[@emin1105]

Was looking forward to a real debate and found only steven crowder level talking points by Yaron..

[@Frank22164]

Market power? That is so B.S. Your market power is your customers if they use you as a business. Market power is derived from providing a superior product everyone wants. This guy has it backward.

[@brownjenkin2267]

44:25 ~ Maybe he's born poor . . . maybe he's poor because daddy's poor . . . or maybe he's born ADDICTED TO METH lmao that escalated quickly ~ I mean it's tragic but damn, that was funny.

[@brownjenkin2267]

45:05 ~ Yaron: Well if I can. . . can I get some of that meth, from that mother? (jk he didn't say that)

[@sovcast8760]

Wow, I never realized that all socialist countries are Israel. A minority group can still have power. Henry the 8th and his family were in the minority in their country, yet they still wielded ultimate power. When there's enough altruism to go around to everybody and I mean everybody in the world, then the government's can close down and we can all live together in utopic peace and prosperity. Until then, we'll need taxes and social programs to compensate for all the misanthropy and selfishness let the poor minority of the rich used to dominate this world.

[@fionafiona1146]

Even Israel looks more Faschist than communist to me

[@ajykumar2]

In socialist country superman is supervillain (because he have too much power) and lex is hero.

[@brownjenkin2267]

I was hoping they'd talk about Sweden more . . .

[@johnny_eth]

Yaron speaks like Barry Kripke

[@Booer]

Coercion.

[@michaelnmyers]

Thank you for bringing on Rob Larson! Please bring him on more often because he is very articulate.

[@sovcast8760]

A lot of people don't have land to build anything on. This guy is so far beyond understanding the average person:s situation, it would be like me giving a dissertation on the history of ballet. FYI, this is the extent of my knowledge on ballet, they're athletic skinny little people who wear funny shoes and sometimes do something called a plie. I now declare myself an expert in ballet history.

[@tijuanaforeplay8232]

Yaron is a guy that lives part time in Puerto Rico because he moved there to escape taxes and regulations, exclaims that their capitalist friendly economy makes PR a paradise, ignores the steep income inequality and economic immobility the Puerto Rican people suffer under.

[@katnickles9943]

We need both but corporatist have replaced capitalism

[@caseypdx503]

Exactly... This desire to scrap capitalism is throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo...

[@sybo59]

Mixing capitalism with socialism is like mixing bread with poison. And in such a compromise, only the poison can win. Read Ayn Rand.

[@greensquare6235]

No newbie, corporatism didn't replace anything. Corporatism is what happens when capitalists become politicians. It's not a replacement. Those things go together like peas in a pod.

[@katnickles9943]

@@greensquare6235 i believe we r saying the same thing, i think we need both capitalism and socialism, but corporatism for now is what's more important to the politicians, and y did u start off calling me names? IMO, it is not a way to start a Convo, njoy your Sunday

[@greensquare6235]

@@katnickles9943 Be honest, where do you get your information about capitalism and socialism?

[@storytimewithmegan3617]

Let entrepreneurs do their thing. Innovation, invention, prosperity. Excited to hear the healthcare part, because dear god ours is not good.

[@greensquare6235]

Stop saying "innovation". You're not clever. Ironically YOU being a capitalist supporter aren't innovating in this debate.

[@storytimewithmegan3617]

Green Square what in the saying random words to sound smart did I just read?

[@greensquare6235]

@@storytimewithmegan3617 Holly shit you're insecure...

[@storytimewithmegan3617]

Green Square 😚

[@jmainesmithsr5936]

My problem is the lowest of us can't keep pace with the middle of us and that is the problem....the rich will be but for the majority..we need equally in income vs rent and utilities..no one in America should be forced to work 2 jobs..it should be a choice.

[@gordongordonlife]

More of these please!

[@thisaccountisdead9060]

Well, was the Miami Freestyle classic 'Fascinated' by Company B - with lyrics such as 'I'm fascinated by your love toy' - explicitly expressing the rights and freedoms that Yaron was conveying, or by highlighting such fascinations in such a blatant way were they infact being ironic and instead conveying Rob Larson's ideals of responsibility and collective action by their absence? Or was it merely a song about the technical matters of the 'Transformation Problem' of how we value a 'love toy' in our world?

[@cluelessdrifter9881]

David wont stop charging me membership fees, even though I canceled my membership last year. Does anyone know what can be done about this?

[@Richard-jm3um]

This is not the support page bro... Go ask you bank or something...

[@cluelessdrifter9881]

@@Richard-jm3um Um, my bank? David runs the damn site, right? I have sent him dozens of emails since last year, attempted contacting him through his contact form, posting on his reddit, his Twitter, Instagram, I've even left voice mails. He ignores people and steals their money. Check out his reviews on the Better Businesses Bureau, tons of of people have this problem and he has an F rating from them! I wish I had known this before I signed up for this pathetic cheapskates scam of a membership. He should be sued

[@mrflapjack7941]

You could: 1) Try to Re-cancel your subscription, 2) send a direct message to david via email/ discord/reddit, 3) contact your bank/credit card provider and tell them to cancel future payments. I would recommend looking into setting up virtual credit cards so that you can cancel payments and be more safe when you carryout online purchases.

[@cluelessdrifter9881]

@@mrflapjack7941 thanks for the tips. I've tried contacting David dozens of times on every known platform including email. I may try re-canceling my membership but I'm afraid if I sign up again he'll charge me twice each month

[@Richard-jm3um]

@@cluelessdrifter9881 Really? You did all that and never thought about calling your bank to stop payments from that vendor? XD what a moron...

[@keithzelinske2253]

these are the kinds of debates we need between politicians trying to get our vote- those based in principle (even if you disagree vehemently). Where they both agree, and why we can't have those honest debates is because of cronyism and corruption.

[@diegosanchez894]

Rob Larson looks like Vinheteiro

[@ToTheNines87368]

Thanks for doing this David!

[@Frank22164]

People don't like the fact that they can lose their jobs. Well. Start your own company or become such an asset that companies will hire you at the drop of a hat. I know many people who came from nothing and made something out of their lives as entrepreneurs or as employees in a company. What distinguished these workers was sheer effort and persistence, it didn't take them long to become valuable assets. Whereas, the person who doesn't exercise self-improvement or always depends on others for work (especially in the digital economy) complains about not being wanted. That morphs into "exploitation". A fancy word for, I want to be paid no matter my level of effort.

[@davidsommen1324]

Yaron's version of capitalism is a utopian model completely ignoring human nature and reality, while he constructs a cliché strawman out of socialism.

[@firstlast9916]

Did Fidel Castro create the perfect society? Everybody is equal there. Utopia right?

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Not at all. Yaron is right. Check out "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand.

[@shanedwood]

Why is the argument about 100% capitalism vs 100% socialism. This argument makes no sense. We need capitalism for innovation and other benefits that comes from capitalism, but socialism is needed for the deficiencies brought by capitalism.

[@rage2904]

One cannot function without the other.

[@itsamemomio8309]

YES! 😄 THANK YOU!

[@bradm6287]

Naw dude, you don't need capitalism for innovation. Grifters and crony orators need it, smart people innovate for free.

[@SpencerfromEarth]

I disagree that capitalism is needed for innovation, that implies socialism doesn't promote innovation as well which it does. But overall I agree with your point. It isn't binary, we should have a mixed system.

[@rage2904]

@@SpencerfromEarth Depends on the field.

[@acester86]

He also keeps mentioning cronyism which is rampant under Capitalism, he talks about how epi pen competitors were forced out, and how he thinks the government was crooked and was paid to force them out. Who does he think paid them?

[@Are1i]

Yaron is not a proponent of the current economic state of affairs, that of a mixed economy. He is for complete laissez-faire capitalism, the separation of state from economics. Cronyism in this view is a feature of government involvement in the economy. You can't use government as a weapon against your competitors in a truly free economy, because the government does not temper with the economy in any way. In a laissez-faire capitalist system, the role of the government is only to extract the use of force out from human interaction: assault, stealing, fraud, breach of contract etc. You have no regulatory laws to pay politicians for, in the system that Yaron is advocating for.

[@stellai06]

@@Are1i such thing cannot exist in the real world. Money=access to power.

[@acester86]

@@Are1i corporations without regulation has been tried before it was described to Congress by ex-slaves as "just like slavery" cause surprise surprise all corporations care about is profit. We have an example of un restrained capitalism in modern times in the US. Flint, MI is what happens when regulations are set aside for profits.

[@nannyofmany8315]

Freedom is measured between want, need, conscience, morality and ethics. It's maintaining a happy middle ground between them all. Once at peace with all the above. You have freedom!

[@KootFloris]

That debate is soo 20th century. Leave it. It's time to move on to the next thing! We need to investigate doughnut economy, regenerative design, participative sociocratic models and deep democracy and such.

[@PW060284]

David, what about the political power that firms gain from leveraging their monopolistic power? Can't we argue that they have both economic and political power and thus are the greater of two evils?

[@fionafiona1146]

David might agree but be less entertaining than the debating.

[@hauskalainen]

Google does not determine search outcomes. Those outcomes are determined by the users. Google knows what you are looking for, and it knows where you end up. All it does is prioritise our preferences. It is the collective preference of its users.

[@fionafiona1146]

Unless people outside the user base are impacting Google (🇫🇷 suing over misinformation being highlighted).

[@johnny_eth]

Yaron uses a lot of slogans and cares not about drilling down about the consequences of what he is actually saying. For instance, government is the one that spends the most on healthcare, a talking point that Milton Friedman also uses. Well, in the USA there are some ways government intervenes in the healthcare sector: 1. as regulator through the FDA and other agencies, that ensures that free market entrepreneurs that want to make a quick buck are not shipping and selling drugs and medical devices that either harm people or don't produce a positive effect (therefore denying other effect therapy). The consequence is that Yaron might think that market freedom is more important that preventing people from dying. We could make a parallel with the aviation industry and the FAA, that after the 2012 tax cuts for the rich is stopped having engineers on its pay roll and let Boeing self regulate their 737 MAX program, and see how well that turned out. 2. as provider of services, though Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare and so on. These are some of the best uses of tax money that tax payers could get. There is barely anyone beneficiary of these programs that would prefer a private insurance schema. And these programs are much cost effective than private insurance. 3. as a corrupt entity that protects monopolies and oligopolies plus implements protectionism. Congress is pretty much in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. The fast that healthcare is a convoluted mess of insurance billing, bureocracy and price gouging from pharmaceutical companies happens because governt is being paid either not to ask or to act to stifle innovation in the market. In essence these companies are using their market dominance to then dominate policy and government. This is not socialism, this is corrupt crony capitalism and it is a direct structural consequence of government being weak to break up too big actors in the market. So, none of these examples actually support Yaron's POV that we need less government. What we need is corporations without too much market power and political power, and for government to actually do its job, which is to protect its citizens.

[@Krakdawg]

I know it's a gotcha and isn't really a point, but at one point he's taking about phones and saying you can survive without them, but turns around and says how can we survive without tech that Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos etc create.

[@firstlast9916]

It’s ironic but we should be thankful to be able to communicate through these devices. Thanks mr jobs. You changed the world. RIP

[@thestriker269]

Rob though from this debate came out to be a good critique but not the adequate one of capitalism but Yaron really nailed it with precise explanations and examples as why free market capitalism is blooming and giving many the opportunity to create and prosper the way they want. Yaron from my analysis fall short as though he defined capitalism and it's pros really well but he seemed slithering away Hideously while talking about its cons eg..the example about EpiPen as it is true that it is the product of capitalism but what if the company wants to sell it at a price much Higher than can be afforded and also bribes the FDA officials (which big pharma companies does on a regular basis called bribing and lobbying) not to give easy pass to any other company that can provide the same at a lower cost...so it always isn't about the revelatory product itself but also about when the companies grows so bigger that it can't be aptly regulated and can do whatever it wants however immoral it may seem. Yaron is smart but don't seem to fully consider the cons of capitalism and seemed to waive it away lightly as it is not that of a big deal. I think prof. Wolff and someone like him can effectively contradict him more rationaly than rob as rob didn't posed enough questions how capitalism is getting affected by the bug and how distribution of wealth between the govt and private sector is effecting the masses. Yaron really gave good counter points to critiques of rob in a conscise ,easy to understand manner... although I personally think that the criticism wasn't strong enough here giving Yaron thus, the upper hand(that's my opinion)...at last both from my pov had done fairly well but Yaron with his precision and effectively counteracting Rob's criticism took the cake...

[@jasonwintermyer8566]

We as a species need to artificially accelerate the evolution of our species. Homo sapiens are not going to out live our finite existence on this planet.

[@fionafiona1146]

Or we simply stop braking the planet and keep modern medicines (that broke natural selection to begin with).

[@Holiday25832]

Right on!

[@luszczi]

I just did a brief google search on the guests before watching and this doesn't seem like a fair fight.

[@nwgverified]

You know what they say, All is fair in debate and war

[@sybo59]

Yep, Yaron actually has a coherent philosophy. Almost no one in a political debate ever does.

[@brownjenkin2267]

Bear with me folks I'm going to write down some notes and leave them in the comments for y'all with time stamps ~ now lemme sit down and bust out this picnic basket 🦖 6:11 ~ Yaron mentions immigrants coming over to enjoy the 'freedoms' that America offers them. Yes. But he doesn't specify which immigrants. I would imagine that many of them are coming from countries that have fewer freedoms than America. Some countries enjoy more freedoms than America. But then we must ask, freedoms for whom and what type of freedom? Freedom to grow a business with few constraints or freedom as an individual to enjoy leisure time and pursue the loftier pleasures life has to offer? Music, comedy, philosophy, painting, whatever. Is Yaron going to make this distinction? I guess we'll see! 7:05 ~ Yaron, Jesus bro, bro . . . brother. "Government should only be allowed to catch the thieves and the crooks and the robbers and put them away" ~The law is a bit more complex than that, Mr. Brooks ~ I think what you mean to say is that the government shouldn't dictate economic policy, but you don't mind if they define what acts are considered criminal, like insider trading or the ability to maintain a monopoly or practice predatory lending ~ How would Yaron write the laws under his version of capitalism? How free would the markets be? If big banks are free to manipulate and screw over the little guy just to turn a profit, should government step in and say "No no, that won't do" or are we gonna be like "Well there's a sucker born every minute" ~ I mean that's a pretty goddamn American way of looking at things, right?

[@thedexterbros]

1:04:30 what a hilarious indication of Brook's ignorance that he thinks that's a science fiction example

[@MyplayLists4Y2Y]

Yaron Brook destroys his own argument again! He would pay to be verbally abused by his boss?! Wha?!

[@taylorchristoffers9861]

Took it about as far out of context as you possibly could, I see. He would pay to work with the brilliance of Steve Jobs, even if it means getting verbally abused.

[@MyplayLists4Y2Y]

@@taylorchristoffers9861 SAID: "He would pay to work with the brilliance of Steve Jobs, even if it means getting verbally abused." REPLY: You simply repeated Yaron thus validated my point : /

[@greensquare6235]

@@taylorchristoffers9861 Marketing is a useful skill in moderation. Doing it to excess is not genius, it's sociopathy. Right wingers always manage to sound stupid.

[@taylorchristoffers9861]

@@MyplayLists4Y2Y Dude, your point didn't include the pros of working with Steve Jobs' brilliance. This is what Yaron said he would pay for, DESPITE being yelled at. Here's an extension of your logic: Sailor offers man to sail around the world for price of $1,000. Man accepts the offer to view the world at sea, despite the risk of getting seasick. Wenit Bewood: "How could a man pay $1,000 for seasickness??" You are either too stupid to realize the logical fallacy you are implementing, or you are doing it intentionally :/

[@scrotiemcboogerballs6400]

@@MyplayLists4Y2Y LOL He/She did not validate your point. Your point made it seem like the only thing you get working with Steve Jobs is getting yelled at, which any rational person would agree is untrue.

[@henryjonesjr.3245]

😂 Ayn Rand! 🤣

[@sybo59]

Can you name one part of her philosophy that is incorrect? Just curious...

[@twilightcrush]

@@sybo59 Fuck you

[@sayebkhan8098]

What a great way to dismiss someone when you can't dismiss their points through reason

[@sybo59]

TWILIGHT CRUSH Aw come on honey, we’re all friends here.

[@Objectivityiskey]

Wow, the sophistry is thick with Rob Larson, just wow! Congratulation Rob your mind must be painful to live inside.

[@aeonian4560]

Yaron Brook seems like an either/or type of guy

[@Toxodos]

well he's conservative, so yeah, naturally

[@sybo59]

Toxodos He’s not a conservative, nor a libertarian. He’s an Objectivist.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Reality is absolute. Read Ayn Rand.

[@Storabrost]

Yaron crushed this dude. P.S- Shutout for David for being such a pro interviewer.

[@greensquare6235]

There's a dozen boot licking comments like this and hardly any pointing out specifics. Sounds very genuine to me.

[@Storabrost]

@@greensquare6235 What specifics do you need? just scroll to any part of the conversation ;)

[@greensquare6235]

@@Storabrost Libertarians find it hard to say anything of substance because they have none. Saying "I agree with my team" is about as shallow and egotistical as you can get.

[@Storabrost]

Play any part of the conversation and notice - Rob Larson never even argues for socialism. All he does is critiquing Capitalism without positively offering an alternative. Yaron Brook did lay out a positive ideal. PS, I'm not a libertarian.

[@greensquare6235]

@@Storabrost So, he criticises capitalism.. Therfore he got crushed. That's not even a sentence that makes logical sense never mind being hypothetically true.

[@SirSeabass]

This yuron guy is a little behind the times.

[@JonathanLevinTKY]

Yeah, freedom has had its day.

[@sybo59]

How so?

[@storybookvillain1985]

"So we need a science fiction example" "No capitalist society has ever produced that" Yaron has apparently never heard of Nestlé or Flint

[@carrieraupp757]

Socialism considers more than the profit bottom-line.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Not at all. Socialists are complete materialists.

[@berese5826]

Capitalism should be fairness of chances: It is based on the idea that "you can make it if you work hard for it".... so that includes the idea of social permeability through merit! So, to reach this merit based society, the government needs to ensure equal starting conditions for everyone (equal and accessible education & health care) anything else produces nepotism and social feudalism... Many European States have political systems where these issues are not conflicting. (Denmark, Germany, Austria)... It's called social democracy or social capitalism (Soziale Marktwirtschaft) and is far from communism.

[@misterdemocracy3335]

B. R-S Imagine how fucking hard people would work if it was an actual meritocracy. People would be all over that. Sadly these days people work hard but the incentive for ambition and initiative is destroyed by years without incremental achievement. You get his far and no farther, which is terrible for society in general.

[@bradm6287]

Exactly, which is impossible. You could never make things equal enough and have capitalism at the same time. The problem with "social democracy" is it is designed just to toss just enough scraps at the poor to keep them happy. Inequity still exists, billionaires still exist. Social requirements in social democracies are too subjective and the capitalist system is still in full swing and business people/politicians still manipulate it for their own advantage. You need hard laws that cap income/profit, massive oversight over cronyism and nepotism and a social tax on "luck" and hereditary advantage.

[@Nutrollio]

@@bradm6287 It's time you grow up like the rest of us and start paying for your own shit. You are entitled to nothing of mine or others. Leech.

[@bradm6287]

@@Nutrollio I am assuming you didn't read anything that was written because if you did, you wouldn't be responding.

[@sybo59]

B. R-S No, it’s not based on that assumption at all. You might try reading your critics before attempting to explain them to others. I’m happy to offer some easy reading recs.

[@fab006]

Wasn’t there a discussion on whether taxes are compulsory last time Yaron was on?

[@sybo59]

fab006 Taxes are compulsory by definition. Money given for a cause voluntarily is called a donation.

[@fab006]

Right. Except Pakman made a long and convoluted argument for why taxes aren't coercion a few months ago. So I find it a bit jarring to see this point so readily agreed upon now. Doesn't that mean the last debate is conceded? See here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i16coWNnhdWZpac

[@ts3798]

To all the socialists commenting here: Show me one example of a well functioning, purely socialist country.

[@Panos__P]

Please define first what you think is a socialist country... Adding also what is for you a socialist...? If you understand that (and having listened the discussion above) then you can find your socialistic countries. But this is too much of a black/white talk. In life everything is a mixture of things. Nothing is only liberal, only socialistic or only capitalistic. Even China isnt only "communistic"... So your request isn't really a request just your way to place your opinion. You can phrase it better.

[@ts3798]

@@Panos__P The definition of socialism is clear. What I think is irrelevant. Why don't you look it up then give me an answer.

[@jeannette6606]

Are you saying that there are no socialist countries? Or that one cannot implement socialism on different levels?

[@ts3798]

@@jeannette6606 No, there absolutely are/has been socialist countries, I'm asking for an example of a well functioning one.

[@Panos__P]

@@ts3798 As I stayed before I gave you the best way(questions) to find your conclusion on your own, if you truly want to do that. If you have also listened to this podcast you can take some ideas, as well. And, as I responded, your "request" is just an argument and explained why. A comment in KZbin isn't the way if you want to truly understand something. Is just an instance to argue. Ps. What you think is clearly very relevant...

[@KirkWilcox]

Yaron Brook kicks ass

[@JeffreyBoser]

It is clear that one of them come from a world shaped by statist powers, and the other shaped by Corporate powers. In both, they have come to the conclusion that freedom is freedom from that shaping power, and is willing to use the tools of the other.

[@sybo59]

Jeffrey Boser But Yaron actually has an integrated set of principles for his side. Your implication that their positions are merely emotional reactions to their personal experiences is lazy and patronizing.

[@JeffreyBoser]

@@sybo59 I guess you can see it that way, I don't mind your characterization. After all I am doing it to them. But my point was not that they are emotional reactions, but that they are cultural. I find those aforementioned principles mostly just a rationalization, myself.

[@sybo59]

Jeffrey Boser That’s very Marxist of you. I think that concept is easily exploded by looking at history. There are SO many examples of people acting contrary to what their class/materialistic/cultural interests would call for, leaving only their IDEAS as the explanatory factor. Since you seem like the intellectually curious type, I highly recommend you check out Leonard Peikoff’s Ominous Parallels. It makes a compelling case in explaining the rise of Nazism through tracing its philosophical roots. Have a good evening.

[@JeffreyBoser]

@@sybo59 I don't identify as a marxist, if anything I am a post-modernist. I am highly suspicious of narratives and 'philosophical' rationalizations for power shifts. Anyway, good eve to you as well.

[@sybo59]

Jeffrey Boser I partly sympathize with you. Some people clearly decide what to believe based on whim or emotion, and then construct post hoc rationalizations to give their arbitrary beliefs an air of intellectualism. But I vehemently reject the idea that all ideology is arbitrary. I think postmodernism is a rather useless trap, if you don’t mind me saying so. Seriously, look into Objectivist stuff if you’re up for a challenge. A lot of lectures that used to cost a lot of money are now free on Ayn Rand Campus. Happy hunting.

[@Panos__P]

Yaron seems a bit biased and Larson just trying to point out how to make the system better and minize the inefficiencies... Either way interesting talk! Truly 1 hour seemed so little time...

[@sybo59]

Panos P. He was advocating for what he thinks is objectively best. Hopefully Larson was doing the same. “Biased” just seems like a slur here.

[@Panos__P]

@@sybo59 Biased is not a slur come on; everyone is a bit biased you just need to understand in what aspects you are yourself. If you advocating something you believe then you are bit biased. The thing is to be open to change your mind. If you only advocate and then never stop a moment to reconsider then you just not promoting your position well. You aret trying to change someone minds without thinking why you do that. Then it becomes a belief. Whatever are your worldview if you want to make a constructive debate you should be prepared to take a step back or to add something new to your argument. Otherwise, it is a stalemate and nothing would be gained.