I agree, libertarianism is communism for the rich. Communism and capitalism/libertarianism do not work. I support an authoritarian (anti-communist)socialist nationalist government. This why the people will be the best off.
People should be made aware of what is good for them, but I can't see how forcing them to do those things is going to make them happy. Furthermore, the assumption that politicians might know better than people what is in their interests is crass; the politicians can be mistaken. Furthermore, the policies so enforced will inevitably become the catspaw of party politics and subject to whatever political ideology the incumbent party subscribes to. This sounds like complete nonsense to me.
This theory creates a rule (the Government Needs to Force People to do what is in Their Own Interest) but exempts some people from the rule. There's no one left to force the government to do what is in THEIR best interest (they have the monopoly on force) except the government.
Which means the government says "we do not need to be forced to do what's in our best interests but people do". That's a contradiction because the government are also people.
Screw freedom and liberty, I'm going to subscribe to this cool new contrarian thing called socialistic fascism. I want the power to control other people like puppets because obviously I know better than they do.
This video alredy started out with some bullshit, no one is saying people know what is best for them, the argument is: People have the right of acting on their best interest for short term or long term, and they accept the consequences of those actions, AND NO ONE ELSE, and they do not have the right of when they fuck up to say " well the government should foce others to help me"
Crap. The adult individual has to have the liberty to err no matter what the price they will have to pay. They cannot err at the cost of other people. And that would be subject to governamental regulation. To protect other people from harm caused by bad individual choices. But not to protect someone against her/his self.
@jrlmenezes1 "The adult individual has to have the liberty to err no matter what the price they will have to pay. " Why? This is just an assertion. Do you have an argument?
"An important fact I left out of this presentation is that this argument does not entail an Orwellian state in which the government simply forces people to do what is in their interest at gun point."
@spawk1993 Your entire argument is that the government SHOULD force people to do what they think is best. It doesn't matter if you plan on doing it through direct force or by threatening to take people's money. You're still saying that the government should use violence against people.
@Pericles461 Yes, I am. As a normal person uses the word all government action is not totalitarian. I am sorry that your contact with libertarianism has gotten you to forget what the word means.
@spawk1993 But in the description you said you were against the government forcing people to do what they think is in our interest at gunpoint. So do you support the use of force to ensure that we're acting in our self-interest, or don't you?
Even if it's indirect, it's still force. It's just that instead of saying "do what I say or I'll throw you in a cage," you're saying "do what I say, or give me money, or I'll throw in a cage." Both methods are designed to restrict freedom and force us to do what the government wants.
Speak for yourself, bub. Or to put it another way: try redoing this video, but start with the title "Why the Government Needs to Force Me to do what is in My Own Interest".
@spawk1993 I didn't say these policies should apply only to you. My argument is that, while your video seems to try to explain why the government needs to force some amorphous group called "the public" to do what is in their own interest, it neglects to explain why the government needs to force you, spawk1993, to do what is in your own interest. Consider the latter, take a stab at explaining that, and I'll be more interested in your argument.
"this argument does not entail an Orwellian state in which the government simply forces people to do what is in their interest at gun point"
What about brain-washing people to be happy without guns, like in "A Brave New World"? Would a state be justified in forcing people to be happy if they could control the public's minds? I think a more laudable goal for a society/state is to satisfy wants, and allow the public decide for themselves whether they want to be happy, and how to persue this goal.
Your video assumes the existence of objectively verifiable standards of well-being (and I agree, they do exist); your board of psychologists example demonstrates that expertise can be drawn on to make good policy. But many commentors deny the reality of externally verifiable well-being. In short, they still say, "I know what's good for me" and deny your premise that we don't always know what is good for us. I don't think these people believe in "expertise".
@LinguaNonFranca I don't care if some psychologist thinks they can measure my level of happiness by some objective standard. I have a right to do whatever I want, regardless of what someone else thinks is best for me. I'm not going to let some group of government bureaucrats claim they know better than me what's best for me. If I want someone's advice on how to make myself happier, I'll ask for it.
@Pericles461 You have made no sensical argument against the fact that psychologists know what makes people happier. Obviously, it wont be up to you personally if these policies are implemented so you claim about now allowing bureaucratic to do so seems silly. Finally, your libertarian conception of rights amounts to magical thinking. You need an argument for it.
@spawk1993 No, you need to provide an argument why it's wrong for me to do what I want. I'm not asking anyone to change their lifestyle, but you are. That means it's up to you to provide a reason for why it's the government's business whether or not I'm happy with my life.
The bill of rights says the U.S. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Positive psychology is a variety of religion, as it advocates particular life philosophies and practices for individuals. Whether one lives a healthy lifestyle or not is a matter of individual conscience, and can not constitutionally be established by law anywhere in the U.S.
@waynemv Note though that this directly address the points in the video abve, as what government needs to do, and what it may do, are separate questions. It is quite plausible that government may need to do things that it constitutionally may not do.
@cbl2988 I do nto advocate using "experts" in that way. Though, economic planning has brought about great success in some countries. (Singapore and Japan being the best examples.)
@spawk1993 Yes, I find it curious that you do not advocate a State that forces people to act a certain way. Might I ask then why the govt has to do it and why would you entitle your whole video "why the government needs to force people to do what is in their own interest?" Can you see why some people might think that is a contradiction?
@cbl2988 Indeed. Ratio of GNP USSR 1970 to 1928 second highest in the world after Japan. And Chinese growth is still one of the highest in the world (even in per capita terms).
@Scientisticsoviet "Indeed. Ratio of GNP USSR 1970 to 1928 second highest in the world after Japan. And Chinese growth is still one of the highest in the world (even in per capita terms)."
Just for clarification, do you mean GNP or GDP growth rate? In either case, it's easy to grow when you start at rock bottom (and when you start using free market reforms and central banking, both of which USSR and Japan used). If you start with one penny and you find a second penny...cont
@Scientisticsoviet cont...congratulations! You instantly doubled your money! Plus starving and murdering millions of people in the process kind of rains on the Soviet parade.
@cbl2988 I doubled my money? What... What are you talking about?
---
Aside, bit of package deal fallacy. The support of one subset of policies of a set of socio/economic/political model does not equate to the support for the entire set.
"Aside, bit of package deal fallacy. The support of one subset of policies of a set of socio/economic/political model does not equate to the support for the entire set."
You mean kind of like you trying to give central planning credit for the "growth" the USSR experienced? I am not necessarily committing the package deal fallacy, just noting some correlations.
@cbl2988 I have not idea what your example is relating to. My personal wealth has nothing to do with my previous comment.
And I didn't say anything about central planning. Nor does the package deal fallacy apply to me when I agreed that "experts" help fuel growth in China & the USSR.
On a separate note, if you want my complete opinion on the sources of growth in the USSR, they are as follows: Moving surplus labor from agri to ind. Shifting investment into producers goods. (cont.)
@cbl2988 (cont.) The building of new plants instead of requipment of old ones (up until 1975). The investment in human capital (ie. education, health). The import and use of foreign tech.
@Scientisticsoviet and all of that lead to huge misallocations of resources, hence the empty food shelves and millions of starving and dead Soviets. The same happened in China and things did not get better until they started embracing private property and market principles.
@Scientisticsoviet Put in other words, Hayek basically said that no individual or group of individuals (a government) could ever know how to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible. The only way to do that was to allow individuals to engage in economic activity, and the price system, based on subjective value, supply and demand, etc. would "spontaneously" emerge. I would recommend Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society" for a better understanding.
@cbl2988 Every individual suffers from information issues. In some cases government organizations may have more or more complete information then particular individuals. It depends on circumstance. For instance a department dedicated to economic growth may see that a few thousands farmers in a valley have enough surplus collectively to build a dam, but they do no know each other well (nor do they have cotnact with a foreign firm with the expertise thus do not build it.
@Scientisticsoviet Right, the information problem applies to all individuals. Hayek's main point is that the individual is the one best suited to decide how to use his resources because he is the one who knows what his needs and desires are. Thus, he can act for himself to achieve his own objectives. He also speaks about how knowledge is dispersed among individuals who specialize in different things. He ultimately argues that society's collective knowledge is reflected in the price system.
@Scientisticsoviet might I also ask which political or economic perspective you are speaking from? I don't want to just assume you are a Marxist or a communist based on your username.
@cbl2988 On the descriptive side, I guess I'm a logical empiricist or popperian. In normative terms, I call myself Technocratic Statist. But more concretely, I have a 4000 word document detailing my views on various different policies. I can send that via PM as well.
@cbl2988 I didn't mention what economic policies I advocate. Although I will say that Free Market vs. Central Planning is a false dichotomy that really hinders discussion.
@cbl2988 Don't think so. I mean I don't think all actions in all their details in a economy should be coordinated by a single person or group of people. But then again I assume anything more then a anarchy or a watchman state is equivalent to central planning of the Politburo kind to libertarians XD.
@Scientisticsoviet I think most people, whether libertarian or not, would take a look at your policies and think that you are very authoritarian and advocate all kinds of government intervention.
@cbl2988 Oh no doubt they are very statist/much state involvement in different economic and social matters. But they are not anti-market/pro-central planning in the sense I described earlier.
@cbl2988 Now you will have to excuse me, I have an advanced statistics class in the morning and have to prepare for it. If anything else, send it via P.M. for the sake of not crowding this video.
@cbl2988 Good luck to you too. Perhaps two nations founded upon our respective principles and ideas will go to war in some distant future, eh? XD. In any event good evening and cheers.
@Scientisticsoviet I am a laissez-faire libertarian. I basically believe you should be able to do whatever the hell you want, and live your life however the hell you want to live it as long as you do not initiate force (this includes fraud) against other people. A state has only three justifications: enforce contracts, provide defense on behalf of its citizenry, and provide domestic police. I have actually been flirting with voluntaryism (a kind of anarchy).
@cbl2988 science, by definition, is value free (when it comes to ethics), and is purely positive, not normative. That is why it is a mistake to base political philosophy off of science, because politics is normative by nature. Science does have a role to play in society (I tend to avoid equivocating government and society, they are two totally different things). It just can't be a standard for values.
@cbl2988 Science is not my standard for values. It is a tool to implement policies consistent with my base normative propositions. I don't make an is-ought fallacy.
@cbl2988 Sure. Still, I suspect the differences in our normative opinion are primarily due to differences in our respective moral first principles and thus we are irreconcilable at the outset (rather then due to some lack of knowledge of particular empirical matter).
@Scientisticsoviet A system of private property rights, and the price system (free markets) has always proven (both a priori and empirically) to be the most beneficial and efficient way to solve the scarcity problem. Most contemporary economists (at least all of the ones that I am aware of) advocate such a system. Even Keynesians advocate that in principle and in general.
@cbl2988 I didn't advocate to do away with prices (not at all). Strawman there. Nor did I advocate to do away with all private property either. Strawman.
@Scientisticsoviet I know you don't, but you advocate certain policies that interfere with the price system and property rights. It seems that you would nationalize many major industries in the market like banking, and tremendous interventions in others like housing. A price system can't work very well under those kinds of conditions.
@cbl2988 Also a price system does not entail free markets. You can put a tax on the sale of a good and you still have a price system. And a free market does not entail private property: You could have a state owned enterprise sell it's good and services in competition with other firms.
@Scientisticsoviet I mean free market in the sense that people are free to act and engage in economic activity. There is no such thing as a market in any real sense, only people. If you use force to control that activity, it is not a free market.
@Scientisticsoviet Can I ask you to tell me exactly what GDP is. I know what it is, I was just interested in hearing if you know what it is and what equation is used to calculate it.
@cbl2988 By definition, it is the sum of goods and services produced in a country's borders, within a given year, and at a given price level (or given prices for each good and service). Often it is also given as private consumption plus private investment plus public consumption plus public investment plus net exports.
C is consumption, I equals investment, G is government expenditures (spending), and X is net exports (exports-imports).
When you have a command economy like that of the Soviet Union and China, G can easily overshadow the other parts of GDP (keep in mind that GDP is very limited when it comes to measures of standard of living and other related factors and is not necessarily a measure of wealth)...cont
@Scientisticsoviet cont... thus it can be seen that looking at GDP alone is fallacious and can easily lead one to misinterpret what is really going on. A clear example of what I am talking about is how so many Russians were so dirt poor with many millions starving to do death. There were incredible shortages and the whole country was a miserable place (unless you were connected to the politically elite). There is a reason why that growth eventually stagnated and the whole union fell apart.
@cbl2988 GDP per capita as I said rose rapidly until about 1975; And was rather evenly distributed. Shortages occured due to the fact that many staple foods were kept (subsidized) at their 1950s price yet incomes kept rising). Famine occured in 1920 or so due to damage from the world war, the civil war, etc.
1930s famine occurred to to the combination of drought and collectivization (as well as haphazard alleviation efforts). There were no famines after that; Calorie intake grew.
@Scientisticsoviet You said something that leads me to my ultimate point and to what F.A. Hayek famously coined the fatal conceit. The biggest problem the USSR faced was the problem of economic calculation. For example, the Soviets tried to set prices, but because they didn't allow prices to be set according to supply and demand and didn't understand subjective value, they didn't not have a working price system in which to allocate resourced efficiently.
Ah, yes. Government can help us by holding a gun to our heads. If I want to do something that isn't in my best interest, I should be free to do it as long as I do not harm other people in the process. This video reminds me of Nozick's pleasure machine. Even if government could maximize happiness for everyone, most of us would still choose their own personal autonomy over government guaranteed happiness at the point of a gun. You can have your pleasure machine as long as you leave me alone.
LOL Your argument is as weak as the Libertarian argument. You must take studies paid for by the people trying to keep you from becoming rich with a bit of skepticism. I know from personal experience that there is a huge difference in happiness from living at the bottom and then moving up the wealth scale. When provide with ALL the information most people can decide what is good for them. The problem is that what is good for the individual is not always what is good for the group.
@mymojorisin there is no other definitions for "the good for the group" other than the sum of the wants of individuals. When conflicts arise between different and opposing interests then the involved parties can compromise according to their needs. However, there is no such a thing as a divine entity called "the group" that has its own feelings/wants/needs.
@mymojorisin " You must take studies paid for by the people trying to keep you from becoming rich with a bit of skepticism." Even if I was discarding them for that reason would be commiting a genetic fallacy.
" I know from personal experience" I'm not interested in appeals to anecdotes.
"When provide with ALL the information most people can decide what is good for them." That they can does not mean that they will. As I address in this video.
If it wasn't immoral to intervene in a persons right to choose self destruction and the government wasn't actually only interested in maintaining a population to serve its corporate masters, you would have a point.
It is immoral to force someone to do something against their will, whether it is "good for them" (in your opinion) or in their own interests (in your opinion) or not.
If you want to chase money to an irrational degree, I will disagree with you doing that, but I would not think that preventing you from doing so would be moral and good. Would you not choose to extend the same courtesy to me?
Your utilitarianism is the path to totalitarianism.
No thank you, I do not consent. Even it its better
Lol, I think the bad reactions to this video is simply people irrational fears toward ideas. You point out that someone else may be able to look after their best interest better then them and they shut down and stop listening, yet they think that is true for any adolescent, every handicapped individual, yet they are unwilling to accept that they may not be perfectly capable of being a perfect citizen.
@fringeelements They might, and to believe in your own perfect understanding of everything involved in what is best for you is quite childish. Now don't try and pretend that I am claiming a politician can make every decision better, I am saying they might be able to make some decisions better.
I don't see why there's so much aggression towards this video. To be honest I think a great deal of it can be explained by the following Adam Curtis documentary - watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA
I'm glad you are on board with sort of statist policy. It means that you will understand that it's for your own good when a bunch of experts use the state to force you cut out the spaghetti noodles and eat only the meat, preferably turkey meat balls, because turkey is converted into tryptophan in your gut, which is then made into serotonin, so then your mood will be heightened but for a longer duration than from a high carb meal, so you will be happier for longer and suffer no crashes.
seriously tho spawk i am genuinely curious as to the motivation behind these videos. are you sick and tired of many anti-statists who seem to mindlessly endorse certain arguments without really being able to make the case for them? i mean i think it makes for healthy debate, no one should be able to expect others to take them on faith. either one can prosecute their case or they cannot, and they should be fully prepared to deal with all manner of counterarguments.
Are people REALLY happier when they have to earn a better physique or are they "happier" thinking about it and when they talk about it to other people because they know they should be doing exercise?
Your title betrays bad ethos I don't think you intend. The conclusion after listening is entirely different from the message sent by the title. "The government can do things to help people pursue their own self interest" sounds markedly different from "The government needs to force people to do what's in their own interest." I think you should change your title because of this.
Unless it was your intention to incite those feelings or just attract attention/drama, in which case, disregard that.
@Dangerman5 Yep, thats very true. 99% of the population want things spoonfed to them, and it is the people that are to blame here. Politicians would fade away tomorrow if people would get a grip and stop in-fighting and backstabbing, and stop being so dependent, and start working together.
I'm just waiting for the day spawk makes a video stating that we need a government to fight racism and the minority income gap! He'll then have come full circle lol :D
Challenge: Spawk, go watch "Fat Head". It's not Netflix and Hulu. Come back and review the movie for us on your channel. I think it's completely relavent to the video that you just made and is basically the perfect counter-argument to what you are suggesting. Do that and you might keep a few subscribers, otherwise I think I'm going to bail.
@datalorez I've already seen it. I am a fan of it too. What point are you trying to make? Carbs raising insulin does make it difficult to loose weight but that does not discount the fact that will power is still a determining variable. That the government works for special interests is also not a counter argument. Infact I explicitly stated that the government does not do what I am advocating.
Just thought you mind find this interesting, but I've started to get a little pud again and decided to see if I could lose weight eating carbs. While your weight fluctuates and waggles, I seem to have gotten down from 151 to around 149 eating mainly carbs. But it's definitely harder. I'll eat a rice crispie, then an hour later get hungry, and I know I just have to gut it out till the insulin goes down. Knowing what's going on helps, since I know the hunger will pass once the insulin drops.
@fringeelements So my hypothesis was upheld, I at least can lose weight eating carbs, but now I'm going back to low-carb because it's easier and I can eat more gut-pounding foods for the same calories.
@fringeelements "I seem to have gotten down from 151 to around 149 eating mainly carbs."
Some people fatten easily. Some people don't fatten easily. Given the social stigma against fatness, it stands to reason that virtually everyone who at least has been noticeably fat has tried "willpower" (AKA semi-starvation). It doesn't work for everyone. It's possible -- as proven in laboratory experiments -- to die of starvation while maintaining a high body-fat ratio.
@hitssquad It's possible in rats who were given insulin injections. Humans don't get insulin injections when they're starving. Their insulin drops when they're starving.
@fringeelements Zucker rats don't require insulin injections to die, while obese, of starvation. See Good Calories, Bad Calories.
.
"Humans don't get insulin injections when they're starving."
Some humans are unable to access their fat stores for energy.
.
"Their insulin drops when they're starving."
Everyone's different. If muscle cells are insensitive to insulin, then the insulin will be received by fat cells. Some people's fat cells are more sensitive to insulin. The fatten easily.
@spawktalk I guess I'm unclear on what you are advocating in your video then. I'm not going to claim to have watched all or even most of your videos, but my memory tells me that at some point you were anti-state, which makes this video extremely confusing. It might be prudent to make a video explaining that.
Having you watch "Fat Head" seemed much the easier way to get the arguments against state intervention in people's diets/lives across without me having to actually do any work.
@spawktalk The counter implicit therein, is that it cannot do as you advocate. If the country is made up of all of these people who lack the will to do what is good, they will also lack the will to learn about policy issues and select good politicians. Further politicians are incapable of doing what is good because it will hinder their re-election.
@spawktalk I think the true flaw in your critique is that you assume that the gov't could do otherwise even given that it is a subset of the public and it's actions are determined by the public.
@spawktalk What it comes down to for me is, I can determine what is best for me; at least in principle, better than you can. If I fail to do that which is good for me, then it is to my detriment.
If the gov't fails to do what is good, it is to the detriment of us all regardless of whether I had the will and knowledge to do what is good for myself.
@spawktalk I want to thank you for making use of good argumentative form in this video. You presented the opposing case in a fair and generous light and presented your critique in a clear and professional manner. The video was a pleasure to watch even through I disagree with your objections.
@spawktalk Advocating a government that does something in particular does not mean advocating any government that does anything nor does it mean advocating a current government engaged in doing certain things now.
spawktalk provides refutations of some commonly used objections to intervention, but it does not necessitate or justify the title of the video and the conclusive remarks.
(cont.) This doesn't solve the externalities or market power issues in other markets, but it does mitigate against information (incomplete, imperfect, etc.) issues as well as information processing issues (ie. a course logic will improve one's ability to see fallacious reasoning).
I been having thoughts on a related point in your video:
What it is interesting is one can at least partially solve many problems in a market by providing better universal education. For instance, any person educated in logical/mathematical reasoning is in a better position to analyze what is in his own best interest in general; The same person being educated in a bit of current biology will better understand the costs of cigarette smoke. Etc, etc.
You are quite consistently utilitarian... I kind of like that, but I kind of don't. I've never met a utilitarian that was 100% consistent, maybe I have now. I'm very afraid.
I'm glad generalizations and interpersonal utility comparisons are so easy to make and apply in public policy for the good of all... Otherwise we'd actually have to try and learn something about ourselves and the implications of our actions.
@Guest655321 The generalizations are justified. There isn't a ton of variation and people are bad at picking up on it them selves. Thus, given a majority, the generalization is valid. I don't know what a utility comparison is. I am comparing happiness. There is nothing magical about me saying that X is happier then Y. We compare mental states all the time.
My question is, do politicians have the will to do what makes other people happy instead of using their position to pursue their own petty psychological problems. [i'm not sure how else to word it, petty in the same way that someone keeps doing X even though they know it's bad for them, or for others]
People dont know what makes them happy so therefor we should give the control of that over to other people, who dont even have the persons same preferences or perspective... uhm, you do realize the same people who you said dont know what makes them happy VOTE for who they want in office and hold office themselves right? Thus, you surrender to the cult of the omnipotent state and take the belief that government people are smarter than private sector people.
@MrEnrique223 No, that is absurd and totally incompatible with my stating, in the video, that the solution to this is to change the public such that they vote based on the views expressed in this video.
How people become confused on what makes them happy: Social variables like "what makes someone happy" tend to center around a mean value, normally distributed. But, in our minds we do not see the whole distribution, we see moment to moment. If I experience an instance, of extreme happiness, the next instance will probably be closer to an average experience, causing a "let down" feeling. In reality, I haven't been let down, but rather just a return to normality.
The PDF you quoted as a source for your claims is outrageously insufficient to make your case. You argue that people don't know what's good for them, yet your argument relies on studies based on SELF-REPORTED happiness. If people are so confused about what makes them happy, couldn't it be that they simply evaluated their happiness in conformity with cultural expectations, especially regarding marriage? Why did married Americans feel more sustainably happy than married Germans?
@Sphair0n Your claim that increased material well-being doesn't make people happier is misleading as well. Your study suggests that decreased or stagnating material well-being in an environment of general material growth reduces happiness. This means that people with a higher relative income will be, in fact, happier than they would be otherwise.
@Sphair0n As for your knockout argument about drug addicts, you act like the state is the only institution that could conceivably take care of such destructive habits. Heard of subsidiarity? Caring families and friends? Jumping at every chance to institute an intrusive government seems unwise given the pitfalls this tends to bring along, especially when the methodology behind it is so glaringly self-contradictory (objective prescriptions based on subjective evaluations).
@Sphair0n I don't know what the phrase objective prescription means. You are using the word objective in a way that doesn't make sense. Anyhow, our culture is such that those other institutions have failed. Look around, the peoples persist.
@Sphair0n . It does suggest that, but peoples material environment is largely determined by their income. Thus you don't see happiness rise with income. Anyhow, that claim isn't the point of the paper, or my citing it, and I think it is doubt able.
@Sphair0n I did not mention anything about marriage from that paper. Anyhow, there is some consistency in the numbers. We can tell this by the fact that we can make successful predictions with them internationally.
I guess you were serious in that last video. Strangely though you've altered your position from that of the State controlling advertising to the State taking a counter action approach through empowerment of a better informed public in the form of education, of which I can get on board with. Critical thinking and philosophy should be taught at early levels and throughout along with reading, writing and arithmetic.
Must this incentive-altering entity be a geographic monopoly of forced taxation, or can it merely be a society of people voluntarily interacting toward collective causes? Must force be used, or can we merely set up voluntary systems of reward and/or punishment?
@JacobSpinney While it would be less effective due to the people that most need it not participating, to an extent people could voluntarily set up such a system. Aside from it being less efficient at this task, as I think you know, I reject anarchism for other reasons.
@spawktalk Yes, if we assume that the government is always doing the right thing and is never corrupted by its power, then perhaps using force can be more efficient than using voluntary methods of punishing or rewarding ones reputation within a community for example. But the argument is that the very act of creating an institution of legitimized force causes that institution to take advantage of its position so as to become far less efficient than the voluntary alternatives.
@JacobSpinney I think the inefficiency of government can be minimized and that the free markets is massive in this regard. But the efficiency of government is another argument all together and would require a whole other video.
@spawktalk It's sort of like saying, "Well if we made all competition to walmart illegal, then walmart can focus much more on economies of scale and much less on advertisement." Sure . . . in theory, but in reality it will of course raise its prices far higher and lower its quality far lower than it would in an environment with competition.
@JacobSpinney That analogy breaks down because the government isn't controlled by the profit motive. They may or may not both be inefficient but certainly not for the same reasons.
I agree, libertarianism is communism for the rich. Communism and capitalism/libertarianism do not work. I support an authoritarian (anti-communist)socialist nationalist government. This why the people will be the best off.
SAEuropeanPatriot 2 days ago
People should be made aware of what is good for them, but I can't see how forcing them to do those things is going to make them happy. Furthermore, the assumption that politicians might know better than people what is in their interests is crass; the politicians can be mistaken. Furthermore, the policies so enforced will inevitably become the catspaw of party politics and subject to whatever political ideology the incumbent party subscribes to. This sounds like complete nonsense to me.
bennyboy133 1 week ago
This theory creates a rule (the Government Needs to Force People to do what is in Their Own Interest) but exempts some people from the rule. There's no one left to force the government to do what is in THEIR best interest (they have the monopoly on force) except the government.
Which means the government says "we do not need to be forced to do what's in our best interests but people do". That's a contradiction because the government are also people.
shlockofgod 3 weeks ago
Screw freedom and liberty, I'm going to subscribe to this cool new contrarian thing called socialistic fascism. I want the power to control other people like puppets because obviously I know better than they do.
SanguineBullet667 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Start your own D.R.O.
governmentdidit 1 month ago
This video alredy started out with some bullshit, no one is saying people know what is best for them, the argument is: People have the right of acting on their best interest for short term or long term, and they accept the consequences of those actions, AND NO ONE ELSE, and they do not have the right of when they fuck up to say " well the government should foce others to help me"
rodrigodet 1 month ago
Crap. The adult individual has to have the liberty to err no matter what the price they will have to pay. They cannot err at the cost of other people. And that would be subject to governamental regulation. To protect other people from harm caused by bad individual choices. But not to protect someone against her/his self.
jrlmenezes1 1 month ago
@jrlmenezes1 "The adult individual has to have the liberty to err no matter what the price they will have to pay. " Why? This is just an assertion. Do you have an argument?
spawk1993 1 month ago
@spawk1993 Fuck you, mr, Asslicker, We don't need no GOVERNMENT!
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 week ago
"An important fact I left out of this presentation is that this argument does not entail an Orwellian state in which the government simply forces people to do what is in their interest at gun point."
Uh, actually it does.
Pericles461 1 month ago
@Pericles461 No, and merely asserting such, when I left an argument in the description, makes you look like an ass.
spawk1993 1 month ago
@spawk1993 Your entire argument is that the government SHOULD force people to do what they think is best. It doesn't matter if you plan on doing it through direct force or by threatening to take people's money. You're still saying that the government should use violence against people.
Pericles461 1 month ago
@Pericles461 Yes, I am. As a normal person uses the word all government action is not totalitarian. I am sorry that your contact with libertarianism has gotten you to forget what the word means.
spawk1993 1 month ago
@spawk1993 But in the description you said you were against the government forcing people to do what they think is in our interest at gunpoint. So do you support the use of force to ensure that we're acting in our self-interest, or don't you?
Pericles461 1 month ago
@Pericles461 I support using force to enforce indirect means of incentivizing people to do what is in their best interest.
spawk1993 1 month ago
@spawk1993 Thanks for clarifying that.
Even if it's indirect, it's still force. It's just that instead of saying "do what I say or I'll throw you in a cage," you're saying "do what I say, or give me money, or I'll throw in a cage." Both methods are designed to restrict freedom and force us to do what the government wants.
Pericles461 1 month ago
Speak for yourself, bub. Or to put it another way: try redoing this video, but start with the title "Why the Government Needs to Force Me to do what is in My Own Interest".
dstrube1 1 month ago
@dstrube1 Why should these policies only apply to me? Do you have an argument?
spawk1993 1 month ago
@spawk1993 I didn't say these policies should apply only to you. My argument is that, while your video seems to try to explain why the government needs to force some amorphous group called "the public" to do what is in their own interest, it neglects to explain why the government needs to force you, spawk1993, to do what is in your own interest. Consider the latter, take a stab at explaining that, and I'll be more interested in your argument.
dstrube1 3 weeks ago
"this argument does not entail an Orwellian state in which the government simply forces people to do what is in their interest at gun point"
What about brain-washing people to be happy without guns, like in "A Brave New World"? Would a state be justified in forcing people to be happy if they could control the public's minds? I think a more laudable goal for a society/state is to satisfy wants, and allow the public decide for themselves whether they want to be happy, and how to persue this goal.
TheFirstDeity 1 month ago
Thanks for the video.
Your video assumes the existence of objectively verifiable standards of well-being (and I agree, they do exist); your board of psychologists example demonstrates that expertise can be drawn on to make good policy. But many commentors deny the reality of externally verifiable well-being. In short, they still say, "I know what's good for me" and deny your premise that we don't always know what is good for us. I don't think these people believe in "expertise".
LinguaNonFranca 1 month ago
@LinguaNonFranca I don't care if some psychologist thinks they can measure my level of happiness by some objective standard. I have a right to do whatever I want, regardless of what someone else thinks is best for me. I'm not going to let some group of government bureaucrats claim they know better than me what's best for me. If I want someone's advice on how to make myself happier, I'll ask for it.
Pericles461 1 month ago
@Pericles461 You have made no sensical argument against the fact that psychologists know what makes people happier. Obviously, it wont be up to you personally if these policies are implemented so you claim about now allowing bureaucratic to do so seems silly. Finally, your libertarian conception of rights amounts to magical thinking. You need an argument for it.
spawk1993 1 month ago
@spawk1993 No, you need to provide an argument why it's wrong for me to do what I want. I'm not asking anyone to change their lifestyle, but you are. That means it's up to you to provide a reason for why it's the government's business whether or not I'm happy with my life.
Pericles461 1 month ago
The bill of rights says the U.S. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Positive psychology is a variety of religion, as it advocates particular life philosophies and practices for individuals. Whether one lives a healthy lifestyle or not is a matter of individual conscience, and can not constitutionally be established by law anywhere in the U.S.
waynemv 1 month ago
@waynemv Note though that this directly address the points in the video abve, as what government needs to do, and what it may do, are separate questions. It is quite plausible that government may need to do things that it constitutionally may not do.
waynemv 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"...economic planning has brought about great success in some countries. (Singapore and Japan being the best examples.)"
I guess that depends on your definition of success. I wouldn't use Japan as an example, but that is just me.
cbl2988 1 month ago
Experts did a bang up job in the USSR and China.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 I do nto advocate using "experts" in that way. Though, economic planning has brought about great success in some countries. (Singapore and Japan being the best examples.)
spawk1993 1 month ago
@spawk1993 Yes, I find it curious that you do not advocate a State that forces people to act a certain way. Might I ask then why the govt has to do it and why would you entitle your whole video "why the government needs to force people to do what is in their own interest?" Can you see why some people might think that is a contradiction?
cbl2988 1 month ago
@spawk1993 You said in your video that you want the government to create a panel of psychologists to decide how to make people happy.
Pericles461 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Indeed. Ratio of GNP USSR 1970 to 1928 second highest in the world after Japan. And Chinese growth is still one of the highest in the world (even in per capita terms).
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scientisticsoviet "Indeed. Ratio of GNP USSR 1970 to 1928 second highest in the world after Japan. And Chinese growth is still one of the highest in the world (even in per capita terms)."
Just for clarification, do you mean GNP or GDP growth rate? In either case, it's easy to grow when you start at rock bottom (and when you start using free market reforms and central banking, both of which USSR and Japan used). If you start with one penny and you find a second penny...cont
cbl2988 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet cont...congratulations! You instantly doubled your money! Plus starving and murdering millions of people in the process kind of rains on the Soviet parade.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 I doubled my money? What... What are you talking about?
---
Aside, bit of package deal fallacy. The support of one subset of policies of a set of socio/economic/political model does not equate to the support for the entire set.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet I used an example to illustrate a point.
"Aside, bit of package deal fallacy. The support of one subset of policies of a set of socio/economic/political model does not equate to the support for the entire set."
You mean kind of like you trying to give central planning credit for the "growth" the USSR experienced? I am not necessarily committing the package deal fallacy, just noting some correlations.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 I have not idea what your example is relating to. My personal wealth has nothing to do with my previous comment.
And I didn't say anything about central planning. Nor does the package deal fallacy apply to me when I agreed that "experts" help fuel growth in China & the USSR.
On a separate note, if you want my complete opinion on the sources of growth in the USSR, they are as follows: Moving surplus labor from agri to ind. Shifting investment into producers goods. (cont.)
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet I was trying to say that you were taking the GDP growth out of context.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 (cont.) The building of new plants instead of requipment of old ones (up until 1975). The investment in human capital (ie. education, health). The import and use of foreign tech.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet and all of that lead to huge misallocations of resources, hence the empty food shelves and millions of starving and dead Soviets. The same happened in China and things did not get better until they started embracing private property and market principles.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Growth in China pre-1980 shifted between 6 and 15% with one large drop in 1960 due to famine. I will send all my sources via PM.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet Put in other words, Hayek basically said that no individual or group of individuals (a government) could ever know how to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible. The only way to do that was to allow individuals to engage in economic activity, and the price system, based on subjective value, supply and demand, etc. would "spontaneously" emerge. I would recommend Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society" for a better understanding.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 please pardon my typos
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 They are of no concern to me.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Every individual suffers from information issues. In some cases government organizations may have more or more complete information then particular individuals. It depends on circumstance. For instance a department dedicated to economic growth may see that a few thousands farmers in a valley have enough surplus collectively to build a dam, but they do no know each other well (nor do they have cotnact with a foreign firm with the expertise thus do not build it.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet Right, the information problem applies to all individuals. Hayek's main point is that the individual is the one best suited to decide how to use his resources because he is the one who knows what his needs and desires are. Thus, he can act for himself to achieve his own objectives. He also speaks about how knowledge is dispersed among individuals who specialize in different things. He ultimately argues that society's collective knowledge is reflected in the price system.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 And thus I would suggest Alerkof and Stiglitz for more in depth and recent examination on information issues.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet might I also ask which political or economic perspective you are speaking from? I don't want to just assume you are a Marxist or a communist based on your username.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 On the descriptive side, I guess I'm a logical empiricist or popperian. In normative terms, I call myself Technocratic Statist. But more concretely, I have a 4000 word document detailing my views on various different policies. I can send that via PM as well.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet If you were a logical empiricist, I would at most assume you were a Keynesian.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet Keynesians at least generally advocate free markets.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 I didn't mention what economic policies I advocate. Although I will say that Free Market vs. Central Planning is a false dichotomy that really hinders discussion.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet Would you care to tell me what specific policies you advocate?
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Sent them all via PM. Very simplistic document; But all the basics are there.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet Yup, I am pretty much your antithesis. And yes, you are a central planner.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Don't think so. I mean I don't think all actions in all their details in a economy should be coordinated by a single person or group of people. But then again I assume anything more then a anarchy or a watchman state is equivalent to central planning of the Politburo kind to libertarians XD.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet I think most people, whether libertarian or not, would take a look at your policies and think that you are very authoritarian and advocate all kinds of government intervention.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Oh no doubt they are very statist/much state involvement in different economic and social matters. But they are not anti-market/pro-central planning in the sense I described earlier.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet oh. sorry. I forgot. Never mind
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 In the document.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Now you will have to excuse me, I have an advanced statistics class in the morning and have to prepare for it. If anything else, send it via P.M. for the sake of not crowding this video.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet very well. Good luck. I have to study too, and I have no interest in pursuing this further anyway.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Good luck to you too. Perhaps two nations founded upon our respective principles and ideas will go to war in some distant future, eh? XD. In any event good evening and cheers.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet LOL. Thank you for your well wishes.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet
Ill read a copy of that essay if you wouldnt mind! Seems interesting.
briano8713 4 weeks ago
@Scientisticsoviet I am a laissez-faire libertarian. I basically believe you should be able to do whatever the hell you want, and live your life however the hell you want to live it as long as you do not initiate force (this includes fraud) against other people. A state has only three justifications: enforce contracts, provide defense on behalf of its citizenry, and provide domestic police. I have actually been flirting with voluntaryism (a kind of anarchy).
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 science, by definition, is value free (when it comes to ethics), and is purely positive, not normative. That is why it is a mistake to base political philosophy off of science, because politics is normative by nature. Science does have a role to play in society (I tend to avoid equivocating government and society, they are two totally different things). It just can't be a standard for values.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Science is not my standard for values. It is a tool to implement policies consistent with my base normative propositions. I don't make an is-ought fallacy.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet What are your beginning principles?
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Sure. Still, I suspect the differences in our normative opinion are primarily due to differences in our respective moral first principles and thus we are irreconcilable at the outset (rather then due to some lack of knowledge of particular empirical matter).
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet A system of private property rights, and the price system (free markets) has always proven (both a priori and empirically) to be the most beneficial and efficient way to solve the scarcity problem. Most contemporary economists (at least all of the ones that I am aware of) advocate such a system. Even Keynesians advocate that in principle and in general.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 I didn't advocate to do away with prices (not at all). Strawman there. Nor did I advocate to do away with all private property either. Strawman.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet I know you don't, but you advocate certain policies that interfere with the price system and property rights. It seems that you would nationalize many major industries in the market like banking, and tremendous interventions in others like housing. A price system can't work very well under those kinds of conditions.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Also a price system does not entail free markets. You can put a tax on the sale of a good and you still have a price system. And a free market does not entail private property: You could have a state owned enterprise sell it's good and services in competition with other firms.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet I mean free market in the sense that people are free to act and engage in economic activity. There is no such thing as a market in any real sense, only people. If you use force to control that activity, it is not a free market.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet Can I ask you to tell me exactly what GDP is. I know what it is, I was just interested in hearing if you know what it is and what equation is used to calculate it.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 By definition, it is the sum of goods and services produced in a country's borders, within a given year, and at a given price level (or given prices for each good and service). Often it is also given as private consumption plus private investment plus public consumption plus public investment plus net exports.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet So we have GDP=C+I+G+X
C is consumption, I equals investment, G is government expenditures (spending), and X is net exports (exports-imports).
When you have a command economy like that of the Soviet Union and China, G can easily overshadow the other parts of GDP (keep in mind that GDP is very limited when it comes to measures of standard of living and other related factors and is not necessarily a measure of wealth)...cont
cbl2988 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet cont... thus it can be seen that looking at GDP alone is fallacious and can easily lead one to misinterpret what is really going on. A clear example of what I am talking about is how so many Russians were so dirt poor with many millions starving to do death. There were incredible shortages and the whole country was a miserable place (unless you were connected to the politically elite). There is a reason why that growth eventually stagnated and the whole union fell apart.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 GDP per capita as I said rose rapidly until about 1975; And was rather evenly distributed. Shortages occured due to the fact that many staple foods were kept (subsidized) at their 1950s price yet incomes kept rising). Famine occured in 1920 or so due to damage from the world war, the civil war, etc.
1930s famine occurred to to the combination of drought and collectivization (as well as haphazard alleviation efforts). There were no famines after that; Calorie intake grew.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet You said something that leads me to my ultimate point and to what F.A. Hayek famously coined the fatal conceit. The biggest problem the USSR faced was the problem of economic calculation. For example, the Soviets tried to set prices, but because they didn't allow prices to be set according to supply and demand and didn't understand subjective value, they didn't not have a working price system in which to allocate resourced efficiently.
cbl2988 1 month ago
@cbl2988 Hayek very much exaggerates that issue. In particular it is not what caused a slowdown in growth.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet Might I also add that the same applies to China.
cbl2988 1 month ago
Ah, yes. Government can help us by holding a gun to our heads. If I want to do something that isn't in my best interest, I should be free to do it as long as I do not harm other people in the process. This video reminds me of Nozick's pleasure machine. Even if government could maximize happiness for everyone, most of us would still choose their own personal autonomy over government guaranteed happiness at the point of a gun. You can have your pleasure machine as long as you leave me alone.
cbl2988 1 month ago
LOL Your argument is as weak as the Libertarian argument. You must take studies paid for by the people trying to keep you from becoming rich with a bit of skepticism. I know from personal experience that there is a huge difference in happiness from living at the bottom and then moving up the wealth scale. When provide with ALL the information most people can decide what is good for them. The problem is that what is good for the individual is not always what is good for the group.
mymojorisin 1 month ago
@mymojorisin there is no other definitions for "the good for the group" other than the sum of the wants of individuals. When conflicts arise between different and opposing interests then the involved parties can compromise according to their needs. However, there is no such a thing as a divine entity called "the group" that has its own feelings/wants/needs.
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mymojorisin " You must take studies paid for by the people trying to keep you from becoming rich with a bit of skepticism." Even if I was discarding them for that reason would be commiting a genetic fallacy.
" I know from personal experience" I'm not interested in appeals to anecdotes.
"When provide with ALL the information most people can decide what is good for them." That they can does not mean that they will. As I address in this video.
spawk1993 1 month ago
P1 Citizens compete in a free market.
P2 The collective defense of those citizens is necessary.
P3 Any citizen who does not contribute to the collective defense of the country has an advantage in that competition in the free market.
C Contributions to the collective defense must be mandatory.
RakaTheTenacious 1 month ago
@RakaTheTenacious defense-due, instantiated in common law...been over a bajillion times... zzz...
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements
And yet Libertarians refuse to learn from such a simple argument.
RakaTheTenacious 1 month ago
@RakaTheTenacious What are you talking about? Your simplistic free-rider argument has already been dealt with at length.
fringeelements 1 month ago
If it wasn't immoral to intervene in a persons right to choose self destruction and the government wasn't actually only interested in maintaining a population to serve its corporate masters, you would have a point.
ginganz13 1 month ago
Living by other people's sense of morality. No thanks!
Sounds like a BIG government apologetic.
FaganRoberts 1 month ago
It is immoral to force someone to do something against their will, whether it is "good for them" (in your opinion) or in their own interests (in your opinion) or not.
If you want to chase money to an irrational degree, I will disagree with you doing that, but I would not think that preventing you from doing so would be moral and good. Would you not choose to extend the same courtesy to me?
Your utilitarianism is the path to totalitarianism.
No thank you, I do not consent. Even it its better
johnycannuk 1 month ago
Interesting video. Good job
eggnchip 1 month ago
Lol, I think the bad reactions to this video is simply people irrational fears toward ideas. You point out that someone else may be able to look after their best interest better then them and they shut down and stop listening, yet they think that is true for any adolescent, every handicapped individual, yet they are unwilling to accept that they may not be perfectly capable of being a perfect citizen.
Uhlbelk 1 month ago
@Uhlbelk Right because politicians know what's better for you in the same way a parent knows what's better for a child.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements They might, and to believe in your own perfect understanding of everything involved in what is best for you is quite childish. Now don't try and pretend that I am claiming a politician can make every decision better, I am saying they might be able to make some decisions better.
Uhlbelk 4 weeks ago
Good video, but I would re-title it "Why Political Leaders Require Prudence".
insidetrip101 1 month ago
I don't see why there's so much aggression towards this video. To be honest I think a great deal of it can be explained by the following Adam Curtis documentary - watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA
curzmg 1 month ago
*facepalm*
OneCerebralSamurai 1 month ago
I'm glad you are on board with sort of statist policy. It means that you will understand that it's for your own good when a bunch of experts use the state to force you cut out the spaghetti noodles and eat only the meat, preferably turkey meat balls, because turkey is converted into tryptophan in your gut, which is then made into serotonin, so then your mood will be heightened but for a longer duration than from a high carb meal, so you will be happier for longer and suffer no crashes.
intercourseman69 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
seriously tho spawk i am genuinely curious as to the motivation behind these videos. are you sick and tired of many anti-statists who seem to mindlessly endorse certain arguments without really being able to make the case for them? i mean i think it makes for healthy debate, no one should be able to expect others to take them on faith. either one can prosecute their case or they cannot, and they should be fully prepared to deal with all manner of counterarguments.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
newt gingirch yelling at people that they need to slim down.jgp
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
The real question here is how do you prevent abuse of power once you legitimize taxation?
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
Are people REALLY happier when they have to earn a better physique or are they "happier" thinking about it and when they talk about it to other people because they know they should be doing exercise?
UcanbeGOD 1 month ago
Your title betrays bad ethos I don't think you intend. The conclusion after listening is entirely different from the message sent by the title. "The government can do things to help people pursue their own self interest" sounds markedly different from "The government needs to force people to do what's in their own interest." I think you should change your title because of this.
Unless it was your intention to incite those feelings or just attract attention/drama, in which case, disregard that.
TheTaviTube 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Most people are stupid. The elite forms from the intelligent few people to try to help the masses look after themselves.
Dangerman5 1 month ago
@Dangerman5 Yep, thats very true. 99% of the population want things spoonfed to them, and it is the people that are to blame here. Politicians would fade away tomorrow if people would get a grip and stop in-fighting and backstabbing, and stop being so dependent, and start working together.
infinitesimotel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"That analogy breaks down because the government isn't controlled by the profit motive."
preach it, brother
- EPA, FDA, SEC
BroBroDude 1 month ago
I'm just waiting for the day spawk makes a video stating that we need a government to fight racism and the minority income gap! He'll then have come full circle lol :D
jk
TotalAnomy 1 month ago
Challenge: Spawk, go watch "Fat Head". It's not Netflix and Hulu. Come back and review the movie for us on your channel. I think it's completely relavent to the video that you just made and is basically the perfect counter-argument to what you are suggesting. Do that and you might keep a few subscribers, otherwise I think I'm going to bail.
datalorez 1 month ago
@datalorez I've already seen it. I am a fan of it too. What point are you trying to make? Carbs raising insulin does make it difficult to loose weight but that does not discount the fact that will power is still a determining variable. That the government works for special interests is also not a counter argument. Infact I explicitly stated that the government does not do what I am advocating.
spawktalk 1 month ago
Just thought you mind find this interesting, but I've started to get a little pud again and decided to see if I could lose weight eating carbs. While your weight fluctuates and waggles, I seem to have gotten down from 151 to around 149 eating mainly carbs. But it's definitely harder. I'll eat a rice crispie, then an hour later get hungry, and I know I just have to gut it out till the insulin goes down. Knowing what's going on helps, since I know the hunger will pass once the insulin drops.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements So my hypothesis was upheld, I at least can lose weight eating carbs, but now I'm going back to low-carb because it's easier and I can eat more gut-pounding foods for the same calories.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements "I seem to have gotten down from 151 to around 149 eating mainly carbs."
Some people fatten easily. Some people don't fatten easily. Given the social stigma against fatness, it stands to reason that virtually everyone who at least has been noticeably fat has tried "willpower" (AKA semi-starvation). It doesn't work for everyone. It's possible -- as proven in laboratory experiments -- to die of starvation while maintaining a high body-fat ratio.
hitssquad 1 month ago
@hitssquad It's possible in rats who were given insulin injections. Humans don't get insulin injections when they're starving. Their insulin drops when they're starving.
fringeelements 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fringeelements Zucker rats don't require insulin injections to die, while obese, of starvation. See Good Calories, Bad Calories.
.
"Humans don't get insulin injections when they're starving."
Some humans are unable to access their fat stores for energy.
.
"Their insulin drops when they're starving."
Everyone's different. If muscle cells are insensitive to insulin, then the insulin will be received by fat cells. Some people's fat cells are more sensitive to insulin. The fatten easily.
hitssquad 1 month ago
@spawktalk I guess I'm unclear on what you are advocating in your video then. I'm not going to claim to have watched all or even most of your videos, but my memory tells me that at some point you were anti-state, which makes this video extremely confusing. It might be prudent to make a video explaining that.
Having you watch "Fat Head" seemed much the easier way to get the arguments against state intervention in people's diets/lives across without me having to actually do any work.
datalorez 1 month ago 2
@spawktalk I'm still unsure about the wealth doesn't make you happy argument. There are studies that point in both directions.
curzmg 1 month ago
@spawktalk The counter implicit therein, is that it cannot do as you advocate. If the country is made up of all of these people who lack the will to do what is good, they will also lack the will to learn about policy issues and select good politicians. Further politicians are incapable of doing what is good because it will hinder their re-election.
AndreisEntaro 1 month ago
@spawktalk I think the true flaw in your critique is that you assume that the gov't could do otherwise even given that it is a subset of the public and it's actions are determined by the public.
AndreisEntaro 1 month ago
@spawktalk What it comes down to for me is, I can determine what is best for me; at least in principle, better than you can. If I fail to do that which is good for me, then it is to my detriment.
If the gov't fails to do what is good, it is to the detriment of us all regardless of whether I had the will and knowledge to do what is good for myself.
AndreisEntaro 1 month ago
@spawktalk I want to thank you for making use of good argumentative form in this video. You presented the opposing case in a fair and generous light and presented your critique in a clear and professional manner. The video was a pleasure to watch even through I disagree with your objections.
AndreisEntaro 1 month ago
@spawktalk Advocating a government that does something in particular does not mean advocating any government that does anything nor does it mean advocating a current government engaged in doing certain things now.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
Politicians are absolutely brilliant at knowing how to make people miserable!
cynthiaall 1 month ago
I for one applaud your videos on justifying state intervention.
philberto2 1 month ago
spawktalk provides refutations of some commonly used objections to intervention, but it does not necessitate or justify the title of the video and the conclusive remarks.
thisisbunk 1 month ago
is science not about trying to make propositions about the facts of what occurred? what qualifies an action in question as being "good?"
What makes me skeptical of politicians is the obvious conflict of interest and ability to abuse power.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
I love socialist, country man communist me contry did goods.
45means45 1 month ago
(cont.) This doesn't solve the externalities or market power issues in other markets, but it does mitigate against information (incomplete, imperfect, etc.) issues as well as information processing issues (ie. a course logic will improve one's ability to see fallacious reasoning).
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
I been having thoughts on a related point in your video:
What it is interesting is one can at least partially solve many problems in a market by providing better universal education. For instance, any person educated in logical/mathematical reasoning is in a better position to analyze what is in his own best interest in general; The same person being educated in a bit of current biology will better understand the costs of cigarette smoke. Etc, etc.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
You are quite consistently utilitarian... I kind of like that, but I kind of don't. I've never met a utilitarian that was 100% consistent, maybe I have now. I'm very afraid.
sticksquash 1 month ago
Jesus, at this rate I am expecting a video any day now entitled "Why an Orwellian dystopia is not such a bad idea after all."
QuantumMaths 1 month ago 16
@QuantumMaths lmao
UcanbeGOD 1 month ago
I'm glad generalizations and interpersonal utility comparisons are so easy to make and apply in public policy for the good of all... Otherwise we'd actually have to try and learn something about ourselves and the implications of our actions.
Guest655321 1 month ago
@Guest655321 The generalizations are justified. There isn't a ton of variation and people are bad at picking up on it them selves. Thus, given a majority, the generalization is valid. I don't know what a utility comparison is. I am comparing happiness. There is nothing magical about me saying that X is happier then Y. We compare mental states all the time.
spawktalk 1 month ago
It seems like you will never be able to get rid of the libertarian trolls.
TheAntiEgalitarian 1 month ago
WTF happened to you?
TigerTzu 1 month ago 8
My question is, do politicians have the will to do what makes other people happy instead of using their position to pursue their own petty psychological problems. [i'm not sure how else to word it, petty in the same way that someone keeps doing X even though they know it's bad for them, or for others]
Worldslargestipod 1 month ago
People dont know what makes them happy so therefor we should give the control of that over to other people, who dont even have the persons same preferences or perspective... uhm, you do realize the same people who you said dont know what makes them happy VOTE for who they want in office and hold office themselves right? Thus, you surrender to the cult of the omnipotent state and take the belief that government people are smarter than private sector people.
MrEnrique223 1 month ago
@MrEnrique223 No, that is absurd and totally incompatible with my stating, in the video, that the solution to this is to change the public such that they vote based on the views expressed in this video.
spawktalk 1 month ago
How people become confused on what makes them happy: Social variables like "what makes someone happy" tend to center around a mean value, normally distributed. But, in our minds we do not see the whole distribution, we see moment to moment. If I experience an instance, of extreme happiness, the next instance will probably be closer to an average experience, causing a "let down" feeling. In reality, I haven't been let down, but rather just a return to normality.
InventiveHarvest 1 month ago
What about compulsion itself as a means of removing incentive?
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist I address that in the description. Out right forcing people to do things decreases their life satisfaction.
spawktalk 1 month ago
The PDF you quoted as a source for your claims is outrageously insufficient to make your case. You argue that people don't know what's good for them, yet your argument relies on studies based on SELF-REPORTED happiness. If people are so confused about what makes them happy, couldn't it be that they simply evaluated their happiness in conformity with cultural expectations, especially regarding marriage? Why did married Americans feel more sustainably happy than married Germans?
Sphair0n 1 month ago
@Sphair0n Your claim that increased material well-being doesn't make people happier is misleading as well. Your study suggests that decreased or stagnating material well-being in an environment of general material growth reduces happiness. This means that people with a higher relative income will be, in fact, happier than they would be otherwise.
Sphair0n 1 month ago
@Sphair0n As for your knockout argument about drug addicts, you act like the state is the only institution that could conceivably take care of such destructive habits. Heard of subsidiarity? Caring families and friends? Jumping at every chance to institute an intrusive government seems unwise given the pitfalls this tends to bring along, especially when the methodology behind it is so glaringly self-contradictory (objective prescriptions based on subjective evaluations).
Sphair0n 1 month ago
@Sphair0n I don't know what the phrase objective prescription means. You are using the word objective in a way that doesn't make sense. Anyhow, our culture is such that those other institutions have failed. Look around, the peoples persist.
spawktalk 1 month ago
@spawktalk problems persist*
spawktalk 1 month ago
@Sphair0n . It does suggest that, but peoples material environment is largely determined by their income. Thus you don't see happiness rise with income. Anyhow, that claim isn't the point of the paper, or my citing it, and I think it is doubt able.
spawktalk 1 month ago
@Sphair0n I did not mention anything about marriage from that paper. Anyhow, there is some consistency in the numbers. We can tell this by the fact that we can make successful predictions with them internationally.
spawktalk 1 month ago
What worries me is not whether or not the drug addict knows what's best for him, but whether or not he knows what's best for me.
TotalAnomy 1 month ago
2:20 "Obese people keep eating"
You need to read this: garytaubes. com/works/books/why-we-get-fat
hitssquad 1 month ago
@hitssquad I am already familiar with taubes work and arguments. What is the point you are trying to make?
spawktalk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spawktalk "I am already familiar with taubes work and arguments."
That's astounding, given what you said in this video.
.
"What is the point you are trying to make?"
See Taubes. His work speaks for itself.
hitssquad 1 month ago
I guess you were serious in that last video. Strangely though you've altered your position from that of the State controlling advertising to the State taking a counter action approach through empowerment of a better informed public in the form of education, of which I can get on board with. Critical thinking and philosophy should be taught at early levels and throughout along with reading, writing and arithmetic.
DiwataMan 1 month ago
LOL, epic title
trilerkiler 1 month ago
Must this incentive-altering entity be a geographic monopoly of forced taxation, or can it merely be a society of people voluntarily interacting toward collective causes? Must force be used, or can we merely set up voluntary systems of reward and/or punishment?
JacobSpinney 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney While it would be less effective due to the people that most need it not participating, to an extent people could voluntarily set up such a system. Aside from it being less efficient at this task, as I think you know, I reject anarchism for other reasons.
spawktalk 1 month ago
@spawktalk Yes, if we assume that the government is always doing the right thing and is never corrupted by its power, then perhaps using force can be more efficient than using voluntary methods of punishing or rewarding ones reputation within a community for example. But the argument is that the very act of creating an institution of legitimized force causes that institution to take advantage of its position so as to become far less efficient than the voluntary alternatives.
JacobSpinney 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney I think the inefficiency of government can be minimized and that the free markets is massive in this regard. But the efficiency of government is another argument all together and would require a whole other video.
spawktalk 1 month ago
@spawktalk It's sort of like saying, "Well if we made all competition to walmart illegal, then walmart can focus much more on economies of scale and much less on advertisement." Sure . . . in theory, but in reality it will of course raise its prices far higher and lower its quality far lower than it would in an environment with competition.
JacobSpinney 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney That analogy breaks down because the government isn't controlled by the profit motive. They may or may not both be inefficient but certainly not for the same reasons.
spawktalk 1 month ago