Sam Seder again destroys the premis of Libertarianism

[RGacky3]

ji4wkemwL3c

Sam Seder is great at tearing down Libertarianism at its base.

[Yuppie Grinder]

He needs a chill pill.

[RGacky3]

He's a radio guy ... chill pills don't do well on the radio. I appreciate btw, that he understands anarchism somewhat.

[Iron Felix]

He's yelling about American Libertarianism, which isn't libertarianism at all. Authentic Libertarians were people like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Proudhon...libertarianism only became associated with capitalism relatively recently outside of the US, due to huge efforts by US propoganda machines.

[the Left™]

He still doesnt cover the idea that private ownership and private property cannot exist without a state apparatus

[Judicator]

He misunderstands the libertarian claim w/r/t "free markets"...having heavily regulations in one industry doesn't prevent you from having free markets in another industry. Abolishing rent control, for example, is hardly a utopian fantasy. Legalizing pot, again, not a utopian fantasy (just hasn't happened in the US).

I find it so amusing that he says "if you can't afford college, don't go" as if it's something shocking. If you cant afford a Ferrari, don't buy one...nothing shocking there.

It's also kind of naive that he expects Libertarian politicians to list all of the implications of what they believe any more than other politicians (although they probably do more often than the mainstream politicians).


He still doesnt cover the idea that private ownership and private property cannot exist without a state apparatus

This isn't a criticism of libertarianism....

[RGacky3]

Abolishing rent control, for example, is hardly a utopian fantasy. Legalizing pot, again, not a utopian fantasy (just hasn't happened in the US).


Those are not the basis of libertarianism,

Its like me saying socialism is'nt utopian because free health care is possible.


I find it so amusing that he says "if you can't afford college, don't go" as if it's something shocking. If you cant afford a Ferrari, don't buy one...nothing shocking there.


Exactly, well in a "free Market" opportunity is only for those who can afford it :).


It's also kind of naive that he expects Libertarian politicians to list all of the implications of what they believe any more than other politicians (although they probably do more often than the mainstream politicians).


They absolutely should know the implications, as everyone should, and the implicaations of libertarianism is basically oligarchy.

[Judicator]

Those are not the basis of libertarianism,

Its like me saying socialism is'nt utopian because free health care is possible.


Taken individually these pro-freedom policies are all quite feasible...so you just add them up and that's pretty much libertarianism.



Exactly, well in a "free Market" opportunity is only for those who can afford it


All of the knowledge you can get from college is on the internet.

Opportunity to do what? If you want to learn something...just go learn it.



They absolutely should know the implications, as everyone should, and the implicaations of libertarianism is basically oligarchy.


They might know them, but why should they be required to make speeches about them?

Basically oligarchy? :laugh:

[RGacky3]

Taken individually these pro-freedom policies are all quite feasible...so you just add them up and that's pretty much libertarianism.


Capitalist policies, i.e. propetarian policis are feasable but lead to oligarchy and collapse.


All of the knowledge you can get from college is on the internet.


Tell that at your next job interview.


Opportunity to do what? If you want to learn something...just go learn it.


Its that easy is it?


They might know them, but why should they be required to make speeches about them?


Your asking why libertarians should be required to defend their ideology, thats an idiotic question.


Basically oligarchy? :laugh:

Yes, unfettered Capitalism leads to oligarchy and eventual collapse.

[Skooma Addict]

He still doesnt cover the idea that private ownership and private property cannot exist without a state apparatus

Have you not heard of Somalia?

[Skooma Addict]

Also, if you can't pay for college.....yea don't go. If you can pay for it, I would still suggest not to go 90% of the time.

[NewLeft]

Have you not heard of Somalia?

Exactly, property was defended in Somalia under anarchy by gang rule.

[Judicator]

Tell that at your next job interview.


Okay.



Its that easy is it?


Yeah.



Your asking why libertarians should be required to defend their ideology, thats an idiotic question.


No. I was saying it's naive to think politicians of any kind would lay out the outcomes of their policy views in full.



Yes, unfettered Capitalism leads to oligarchy and eventual collapse.


Looking at history...unfettered Capitalism just led to fettered Capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Also, if you can't pay for college.....yea don't go. If you can pay for it, I would still suggest not to go 90% of the time.


Compare the unemployment numbers between college educated and non college educated.

But sure, lets deny educatoin for a a large swath of the society, what a great way to run an economy, personally, I'd rather live in a society where everyone has the opportunity to have an education.


Looking at history...unfettered Capitalism just led to fettered Capitalism.

Looking at history you've never had unfettered capitalism to hte point where libertarians would admit its unfettered capitalism, but everytime you move in that direction it leads to oligarchy, poverty, and eventual collapse.

[Skooma Addict]

Compare the unemployment numbers between college educated and non college educated.

But sure, lets deny educatoin for a a large swath of the society, what a great way to run an economy, personally, I'd rather live in a society where everyone has the opportunity to have an education.

The numbers are somewhat misleading. Most people who would be successful either way end up going to college due to societal pressures. Also there are still some jobs where you need a college degree. Many people also graduate from college and then get jobs which don't require a degree. Finally, there is the entire student debt crisis.

If I could do it all over again I would not go to college. There is nothing I have done here which I couldn't do myself. At most I would have just taken a few selective classes at my local community college.

[Judicator]

Compare the unemployment numbers between college educated and non college educated.

But sure, lets deny educatoin for a a large swath of the society, what a great way to run an economy, personally, I'd rather live in a society where everyone has the opportunity to have an education.


It's probably never occurred to you that much of these differences are explained by the fact that people who choose to go to college in the first place, and are capable of finishing it, are often smarter and more ambitious.

A moron with a college degree is still a moron.



Looking at history you've never had unfettered capitalism to hte point where libertarians would admit its unfettered capitalism, but everytime you move in that direction it leads to oligarchy, poverty, and eventual collapse.


The gilded age would probably be pretty close.

You're always moving towards libertarianism and then away from it and back and forth...no collapse.

[RGacky3]

It's probably never occurred to you that much of these differences are explained by the fact that people who choose to go to college in the first place, and are capable of finishing it, are often smarter and more ambitious.

A moron with a college degree is still a moron.


It did'nt occur to me because its a bunch of shit, and there is'nt evidence to back it up.


The gilded age would probably be pretty close.

You're always moving towards libertarianism and then away from it and back and forth...no collapse.

The guilded age ended in an economic collapse, also the guilded age was no roses.


ob5N_at06rE

[RGacky3]

Also the guilded age was full of state subsidies, monopolies and protectionism.

[blah]

To be fair, his first point (libertarianism is not realistic because its not working anywhere in the world now) also applies to socialism, much more to communism.

[Judicator]

It did'nt occur to me because its a bunch of shit, and there is'nt evidence to back it up.

Look at the IQs, SAT scores, etc. of the Harvard entering class vs. high school graduates not attending college. Are you really so dense as to think they're equally motivated and intelligent?


Ihe guilded age ended in an economic collapse

Prove it.

[Belleraphone]

Wow, the top comments on this video aren't both made by paultards. I'm impressed.

[RGacky3]

Look at the IQs, SAT scores, etc. of the Harvard entering class vs. high school graduates not attending college. Are you really so dense as to think they're equally motivated and intelligent?


Look also at their class makeup.


Prove it.

the 1890s depression.

[Zav]

To be fair, his first point (libertarianism is not realistic because its not working anywhere in the world now) also applies to socialism, much more to communism.
No:
GNU/Linux
Wikipedia
Open Source software
Hundreds of free communes
The many elements of Socialism won by the Labor Movement in countless countries, e.g. minimum wage, child labor laws, the five day week, the eight hour day, etc.
The IWW and any non-bureaucratic, non-corrupt unions that may remain
Then add to that all the examples that aren't around anymore due to Fascists, Statists, and Capitalists.

Meanwhile there has never been an example of full American Libertarianism, and there is disaster every time some of its elements come into play. The same criticism does not apply to Socialism and Communism.

[blah]

No:
GNU/Linux
Wikipedia
Open Source software
Hundreds of free communes
The many elements of Socialism won by the Labor Movement in countless countries, e.g. minimum wage, child labor laws, the five day week, the eight hour day, etc.
The IWW and any non-bureaucratic, non-corrupt unions that may remain
Then add to that all the examples that aren't around anymore due to Fascists, Statists, and Capitalists.

Meanwhile there has never been an example of full American Libertarianism, and there is disaster every time some of its elements come into play. The same criticism does not apply to Socialism and Communism.

Those things are NOT socialism. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. Voluntary cooperation, free software and some social regulations+welfare, can also exist in capitalism, or even fascism.

If you claim that some "elements" of socialism are working now to a degree, and deduce from it that full socialism is realistic, why is American libertarian forbidden to use the same argument - that some "elements" of libertarian capitalism (market, private companies, private charity) are working now to a degree, thus we can deduce that full libertarianism is realistic?

As I said, its a bad argument, it practically invalidates ALL nonexistent alternative societal systems except what works now (status quo - mixed economy), not just libertarianism/anarchocapitalism, but also socialism/communism. He makes better arguments later, but this one is weak, even self-defeating when he is a socialist, and I would not use it.

[RGacky3]

Those things are NOT socialism. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. Voluntary cooperation, free software and some social regulations+welfare, can also exist in capitalism, or even fascism.


Capitalism is a economic system, socialism is not a specific system its a set of principles opposed to capitalism.


If you claim that some "elements" of socialism are working now to a degree, and deduce from it that full socialism is realistic, why is American libertarian forbidden to use the same argument - that some "elements" of libertarian capitalism (market, private companies, private charity) are working now to a degree, thus we can deduce that full libertarianism is realistic?


We cannot deduct the same argument because when more and more of libertarian capitalism is put in place it does'nt turn out as libertarians say it would, it ends up a disaster, not so with socialism.

[Marcist]

Those things are NOT socialism. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. Voluntary cooperation, free software and some social regulations+welfare, can also exist in capitalism, or even fascism.

If you claim that some "elements" of socialism are working now to a degree, and deduce from it that full socialism is realistic, why is American libertarian forbidden to use the same argument - that some "elements" of libertarian capitalism (market, private companies, private charity) are working now to a degree, thus we can deduce that full libertarianism is realistic?

As I said, its a bad argument, it practically invalidates ALL nonexistent alternative societal systems except what works now (status quo - mixed economy), not just libertarianism/anarchocapitalism, but also socialism/communism. He makes better arguments later, but this one is weak, even self-defeating when he is a socialist, and I would not use it.

Socialism works. Period.

[RGacky3]

y0AjCHeoUVA