"Free markets" are depicted as a panacea for all ills. "Free" is one of those "happy" words. But "free-for-all" also denotes a no rules combat which will result in a winner and many losers.
I would like to see more discussion about the nature of this so-called utopian "free market" and what rules are required to maintain it from deteriorating into a "dominated market".
@rdiamond401008 No rules are needed to stop a 'dominated market'. Monopolies never occur in a free market and as long as there is competition any company that tries to screw consumers in anyway will fail.
@rdiamond401008 A market isn't at all like fre-for-all combat. In combat an exchange has 1 person come out victorious and the other defeated. In a marketa exchange has 2 people trading a item for something that they value more than thier own item, in other words it's mutually beneficial. The only rules required to keep a free market running at full potential are anti-violence, anti-theft and anti-fraud laws.
@666or999 The rules, which you admit are necessary for a free market, would need to address companies that become monopolies through buying competitors, controlling resources, etc. so that they become the sole provider of that market and use that power to restrict viable competition. Unbridled success leads to monopolies. The worship of the utopian free market is based faith for which there is no proof.
@rdiamond401008 You want proof? Your the one assuming that a monopoly can even exist in a free market. Name 1 monopoly that formed without government help.
@666or999 Standard Oil Company and At&T - both had to broken up by the courts. Perhaps you are saying that the US is not a free market, if so please tell me where the free market you worship exists.
@666or999 On May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It ordered Standard to break up into 34 independent companies with different boards of directors, the biggest two of the companies were Exxon and Mobil.
@rdiamond401008 'In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales.', 'Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70% by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64% by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up' Yeh thats not a monopoly. In case you didn't know a monopoly is 'The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.'
@rdiamond401008 Well if your not tralking about 100% market shares the term monopoly becomes a vague concept that is only really useful to create strawman arguements.This very similar to how the term 'isolationist' is used in that it sometimes means closing all borders to interaction and at other times means zero political interaction. You can flip-flop the meaning to mean one to the other to create a strawman just as some people flip flop between 100% and most market shares.
@666or999 I learned from a wise man many years ago that one starts with a Discussion, then proceeds with a Debate and when it becomes apparent that further progress is not possible, then Depart. Bye.
@666or999 AT&T was at times the world's largest telephone company, the world's largest cable television operator, and a regulated monopoly.The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T
@rdiamond401008 'As a result of a combination of regulatory actions by government and actions by AT&T, the firm eventually gained what most regard as monopoly status.' , 'In 1918 the federal government nationalized the entire telecommunications industry'
The period of American history prior to the 1890's is the best example of how a free market system raises the living standards for the poor. During this period, wealth disparity declined precipitously. Granted, it wasn't a completely free market, unless you were a white male. But one can only imagine how much more social justice would have been provided by the market, if it were opened up to women and minorities.
To a lot of philosophers and theorists communism sounded like a a great economic system, and many reasons and much logic was provided to explain why it would be the best of all systems. But, when put into actual practice, it didn't do a very good job of helping the poor and needy, often they ended up worse off. Totally free market theories can sound great as a theory, but I've never seen any convincing evidence that the poor and need were better off under such an economic model in real life.
Would you please point out some studies, evidence, experiments that support the belief that laissez faire or some version of unregulated free markets/economies actually do benefit the poor and those in need more than markets/economies that are not as free and regulated. I'm aware there's a great deal of theory about how and why this works, but I'm not aware of anywhere it's been put fully put into practice on a country wide scale, where the result was that the poor were demonstrably better off.
@seppsters, I think you missed the point – there is no “guilt complex” here. You’re thinking of the wealthy “liberals” who want to increase government power to make everyone economically equal. As he said, there’s plenty of empirical evidence that that strategy is a miserable failure and does great damage to the poor, and everyone else (except the elite “liberals” with the political power.)
You're the one who completely missed my point: These people are libertarians in all senses, except that "they care and suffer with the masses". lol, what non-sense.
They're libertarians, that is all.
So what happens if libertarianism fails ? Will he, as he claims, adopt socialism and still call himself a Bleeding-Heart Libertarian ? Rofl that makes no sense what-so-ever.
Adam Smith was actually a pretty strong interventionist. Wealth of Nation is filled with accusations of the greed of Capitalists and cries for support for workers.
HEY DOCTOR, to say that "most people" think social justice is a good thing (4:55), and use that claim to support your agenda is commiting a AD POPULUM FALLACY!!!
I thought philosophy was supposed to teach people to think?
@Wormtail81 - Public safety net programs were created because charity wasn't good enough. Average people didn't want to see the poor starving in the streets, and the economic elite didn't to be overthrown by angry masses. Whether you like them or not, some people are dependent on them and ending them quickly would cause massive hardship and unrest. Private charity certainly couldn't make up the difference overnight, especially not in a slow economy. Long term, it's hard to say.
Well you prattled off a lot of bullet points, but it didn't seem like you really discussed policy. Granted thats hard to achieve in a 10 minute hit on your cause. Either way personally my entire job (Product Designer) is to process and clarify ideas. Im not the sharpest guy in the world, but as far as demonstrating a clear message, this fella did it poorly. Its gotta be "Call and Answer" if you make declaritves like "Its better..." "Its in the best interest of...." you have to qualify that...
This guy is another useful idiot who's ideas will be used to water down the freedom movement and the Libertarian message. Capitalism and free markets work great as long as they are operating within a strong constitutional republic which protects the liberties of EVERY individual. If I prosper more because the government takes less of my money, then I will have the ability to help those around me who can't help themselves.
Interesting thoughts. I think he makes a mistake however.
libertarians can claim that free markets are better for the poor without appealing to Social Justice which is not necessarily about just the poor.
It's kind of dishonest as a philosopher to criticize Rothbard's apriori axioms of human action without going into the problems of posteriori judgement on liberty.
minarchists... frustratingly inconsistent. Advocating social justice while supporting the state, the most unjust and destructive institution to ever exist. Also apparently Zwolinski has never actually read Rothbard... or Spencer to a lesser degree. Its not that the anti-statist is against social justice, he merely realizes that the only just society is one without the State. Thus whenever someone advocates using state violence to solve social ills, the libertarian anarchist balks (& rightly so).
What Mr. Zwolinski is saying here is very important, and the dominance of what has been called "Vulgar, pro-corporate libertarianism," as well as the confusion of the neo-objectivists (Ayn Rand made it clear that she was neither a conservative nor a libertarian, yet both groups seem to claim her ideas as their own at times) has done a lot of damage to the baseline idea of respecting the the human rights, lifestyle choices, and property rights of all persons at all levels of society.
1:55 I disagree, I don't think that analysis of circumstance would lead to a justification in Government "philanthropy". What I think might be admissible is the intervention into business when defending free-market principles... as a completely unregulated business sector would shortly provide proof that not all businesses are interested in a free market.
When it comes to the disfranchisement of personal wealth and liberty, government is often to blame, but businesses are not innocent either.
Both things are necessary. A "system" which promotes free markets and free individuals, and individuals who are spiritually aware and do care about their neighbor, and freely and voluntarily CHOOSE to help their less fortunate neighbors (sick, out of work, whatever) - as Americans do in fact DO more than any other people on earth! With a vibrant, strong, FREE economy, there will absolutely be LESS POOR and disadvantaged to help, also! This delicate balance should be there and be maintained.
I have a question. Do you think it's right for society to take my money against my will and use it to maintain a national military? I'm confident that my buddies and I can defend our own property with the guns and weapons we have. I don't want my money going to help the less fortunate who didn't bother to learn how to shoot or can't afford good weapons. Why don't we permanently disban the US military? We can still voluntarily help each other out with defense when we want. Right?
Why should a "positive social outcome" be anyone's agenda? Why are the needs of other people more important than your own? Why is altruism the "good" and rational self-interest the "evil"? You will never succeed in defending capitalism on an altruist base. It will always end in compromise and gradual disintegration. Capitalism needs to be defended on the basis of a man's RIGHT TO HIS OWN LIFE. Not because it benefits the poor or improves "social outcomes". BUT BECAUSE IT IS HIS RIGHT.
@jonathanaconway - I think that's short-sighted. Human beings are social animals. What happens to others affects us, both directly and indirectly.
I don't think that self-interest is "evil". Nor is all altruism "good". The point of this video, I think, is that without showing SOME concern for others, libertarianism appears morally bankrupt and VERY unlikely to attract support from anyone other than the most self-interested people. There's got to be some kind of balance.
Then he misses Mises as a libertarian thinker, but includes John Fucking Smith? Smith was no libertarian; not remotely. A fart at you, Matt Zwolinski. I hereby bescumber you.
If I understand correctly, this is a utilitarian libertarian who supports a "social" (read:coercive) safety net, and thinks of Murray Rothbard as a cold-hearted beast, and considers Murray more averse to charity than Any Rand.
This shit gets simplified waaay too much.. "Do free markets" is a false premise.. It depends totally on situation and distribution of resource and labor and education etc...
It is self-serving to presume B.H.s own "social justice." Actual justice is for everyone, not just the Poor or the Bleeding Hearts. There are definite moral problems on the Left with the assumption that Authorities know best. Much of the problem with this video is the belief that a big, central government is the only solution for difficult problems. Local, community, maybe state actions are closer to the people and far more likely to be responsive than a vast, centralized bureaucracy.
In economics, laissez-faire -describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.
The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone." is pronounced "less-say faire". "Laisser" (infinitive) means "to let" or "to allow". "Faire" means "to make" or "to do".
@dmhappy2777 Thats the idea.But it appears we have a little corruption problem.Still though free markets do give anyone potential regardless of their worth.
The notion that a "Free Market" is one that is completely without government intervention is simply wrong. A free market is one in which there are enough suppliers of a commodity, and enough buyers of a commodity, to ensure the free exchange of goods....without either party having enough control to coerce the other. Sometimes, markets need intervention and regulation to keep the market free.
I don't take to kindly to being described through the use of a poorly defined terms that try to classify a vast number of people with various opinions and beliefs like that. They only confuse myself and others.
I would much rather explain to you in my own words what I think about a certain issue instead of using a useless label like this.
Ok, so you're not libertarian, you're a mere opportunist. Libertarianism requires adherence to the non-agression principle. While "social justice" is an effect of the non-agression principle, and is an argument for it, if the NAP is not the priority, you're not libertarian. It's like saying "I won't hit anybody, except if it is required to reach my goal", it's meaningless.
What is an "aberration" is one of the Prof's basic ideas that institutionalized "free" markets" are the savior of the poor & the middle class & it's patently false. The incipient "Occupy" movements are totally beyond the capacity of these political idealists to realize how much their institutions have & are failing. Does the Prof endorse the reconstitution of Glass-Steagall or not? If not, his Bleeding Heart Libertarianism is a non-sequitur covering a host of bad means as justifying his ends.
Libertarians are Tea Partiers in sheep's clothing with absolutely NO agenda or defined platform(s)! Both have NO future in American politics, they will always be referred to as LOSERS! I'd like to see a multi-party system, meaning more than TWO, but NOT a group of disenfranchised idiots! Obamarama remains our only hope for getting America back in the black, no pun intended! The GOP is the party of HATE, Tea Pees should be taken out back and have their heads blown off! Abolish the electorate!
A "social safety net" is a reasonable thing only if it distinguishes between those who truly are unable to thrive in our society and those who, through a series of poor personal decisions, artificially rendered themselves disadvantaged. Those who choose a path that leads to disadvantage are merely exercising their freedom to do so. Any responsibility of the State ended with guaranteeing that freedom. All of us should be willing to accept the outcomes of our own free actions.
Social Justice isn't just, otherwise you'd just call it Justice.
But the poor are unjustly dispossessed of their natural rights by property in natural resources, property in ideas, and the regulatory state. They should be compensated for these impositions, per Thomas Paine and Henry George.
Time enough to worry about Social Justice after we have lived up to Justice.
the hardcore libertarian ideologues (LRC, Rothbardian) aren't gonna like this, lol. Then again, they don't like Reason much at all. Rothbard was such a freakin' genius though, the world needs more scholars like him.
Libertarianism and social justice shouldn't be used in the same sentence. The day it's accepted in the libertarian crowd is the day I find a new party.
It's a complete oxymoron as (social justice is) defined by the left.
Umm, I don't 'want' anything except to be left the hell alone.
In ref to the social justice definition, it has been hijacked as the word 'gay' has been. It use to mean that all person's were created equal; more or less. Now it has become the mantra of give me shit that isn't mine even though I am too fucking lazy to work for it.
Oh, what's that, you don't believe me? Great! I CHALLENGE you to go to a college campus and ask a dozen or so people what it is.
As usual, a philosopher who is flatly ignoring the underlying ethics of the so-called "safety net". How "safe" is the man who is being STOLEN FROM, in order to satisfy this pretense (and it is ONLY a pretense) to "helping the poor"?
Rand libertarians are typically atrocious at philosophy and guilty of side-stepping meta-ethics problems. They build their entire foundation on the idea that humans have inherent rights (which assumes moral realism) yet never bother to explain this is true. Once you take moral realism out of the picture, libertarians are forced to accept that their ideals are grounded in subjectivism. As a philosopher, I would've liked to hear this guy address some of this, since libertarians usually ignore it.
@dookdawg214 I am not a philosopher and I dont think that one has to be,to understand Rand ...The Individual is just that. It is absolutely Immoral for anyone to impose a morality on anyone else ..
See, you just did it again! You asserted something is inherently immoral without backing it up. I can just as easily say the opposite and neither of us can be proven right. As a naturalist, I believe the only way our species thrived was, like many organisms, through a forced social structure. We choose to share and, as for the few who don't want to, yes, we force them to. Are we 'morally wrong' for forcing you to join our practices? I say no. You say yes. Can you prove your yes?
To give you an analogy of why philosophy must be addressed to advance such a debate... Imagine if you and I want to argue about the credibility of a financial forecast, but we can't even agree on basic math. Say, I think 2+2=4 and you disagree. The conversation has to end there. We must first agree on basic logic! Likewise, you can't assert that things can be inherently immoral without demonstrating it deductively. Because I say moral realism doesn't exist and the conversation is over. Get it?
@dookdawg214 I am an Individual. I impose nothing on you friend . But when you make it your business to be in my business .then we are no longer on a friendly terms. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal . For any individual to be compelled to act against his will for the good of other is neither Moral or legal ..For anyone to take from some one who has simply because someone else has not ...That is not moral.. it's stealing ..
“make it your business to be in [mine]”: A healthy, peaceful society works best when we get in each other’s business. “We hold these truths”: Forefathers were't gods; they don’t dictate our morality. “[Forcing people to act against their] will for the good of others is neither moral or legal”: Just your opinion, which +90% of modern man doesn’t share. I say it’s very moral! Serious question: If you want total freedom, why not move to Sudan? How long do you think you’d last there?
Serious question... Would you be fine with ZERO federal government? I mean, literally disban the US military? Because I can put on my Libertarian hat and say I don't want my money going to helping other people's defense. I'm confident that my buddies and I can defend ourselves with our own guns and weapons. Why should society steal my money to pay for YOUR protection. You should fight your own battles. This is immoral, right?
@dookdawg214 You see this whole conversation started as a question on morality of the Individual VS Collectivism. You have insinuated that "90% of modern man" agree's with YOUR OPINION..Here you go ,this is not an opinion ....Whats mine is mine and when you make it your business to be in my business ..Whats yours is mine. I'm not moving any where this country is and was based on INDIVIDUAL freedom ..Sounds like you are the one who should move to the Sudan Maybe you can show them a better way...
I didn't say you have to move to Sudan. I simply wonder why you don't. There are a few places in the world without government, where people are free to build their own stuff and trade however they want. It sounds like that's exactly what you want. Why settle for America's gang-rule system where society steals from you to build infrastructure, train soldiers and maintain schools? Wouldn't you be happier in Sudan?
@dookdawg214 This is the last i will say on the subject ..However the *Subject* that was in discussion seems to have been put a side ..The Original Intent of the Constitution of the U.S, is to secure Liberty for all men.No greater Document has ever been crafted .I in no way said I would chose to live with out a government.The Gov. has a Rule of Law it must live within the confines that would be to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM...Hence the bill of Rights..Live well Live Free..Peace..!
But I'm a Libertarian. I'm for freedom but I don't think I should have to pay my hard earnings to protect YOUR freedom. Why should I? That's stealing from me. You defend your freedom and I'll defend mine. Who do you socialist vultures think you are trying to steal a portion of my earnings to fund a military? How am I FREE if YOU are forcing ME to fund your military? You are enslaving me! How do you not see how immoral that is?
@dookdawg214 I agree with this whole statement ..Until YOU placed the blame on the INDIVIDUAL...Kinda funny YOU Collectivist who want to force people to live to your standards of morality .I as an Individual have not enslaved you..Your collectivist bureaucrats who like your self believe that YOU know better what is best for the Individual and create the laws that do the enslaving ..This started as a rational conversation in hope of enlightenment on both side .alas i fear both are disappointed
I'm confused by what you mean? Are you saying you DO agree with my perspective? You believe that totally disbanding the entire US military is the right thing to do?
It's not "lay-zay faire". "Laissez-faire" is pronounced "less-say faire". "Laisser" (infinitive) means "to let" or "to allow". "Faire" means "to make" or "to do".
As a "philosopher" why make this practical argument from effect, instead of the argument from morality, which I'd consider much more powerful and philosophical?
Talking about free markets helping the poor is a Conservative line and in no way Social justice. Social Justice means using the poor to redistribute wealth and empower government to manage our lives for us. Libertarian is in no way compatible with socialism. The only difference between libertarians and Conservatives today is their view of radical Islam and marijuana legalization.
This guy sounds like a committed statist who one day realized that poverty can only be vanquished by markets, but can only apply this idea in terms of policy prescriptions.
Morality is taste, Inter-personal comparisons of value by third parties are also matters of taste. I think it's rather good taste to say that some of the poor can be recipients of wealth transfers and leave society better off in both the short and long run. Distinguishing lost causes (people whose sustenance implies increasing costs) from these cases is a considerable difficulty that would best be broached by small, decentralized, and accountable organizations.
@Guest655321 I can BS, allowing children to starve to death is not in the range of moral tastes. If you think it is moral to spend over $1 million a year, but spending/pay $1200 a year to save a child from starving to death is moral, you are a sick. There is a later question between "needs and wants" where the "moral tastes" comes into play. Is basic food/water/shelter enough, what about health care? What is "good food"? Good health care? ect..
You don't have to search for statistics on your computer you didn't build, through the Ethernet cable you didn't design, and the wifi hub you didn't develop, to a website you didn't code, all paid for by a profession that you and a handfull of others are better at than most, in order to prove that free markets work. It's like creation vs evolution: creation takes only faith in a higher power, evolution takes a bit of faith in historical analysis and theory but holds a depth of appreciation for
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision" F.A. Hayek, 1944
@Hashishin13 No, but he is the default economist that libertarians use when they want to explain the economic theories. When the best economist that seems to agree with your economic views and general rule of the government's role in the economy strongly disagrees with your ideas of safety net, you should probably take note. Basically, libertarian claim that if we follow Hayek's economic ideas, we will have no need for a safety net, but Hayek does not agree with your idea.
@Loathomar "he is the default economist that libertarians use when they want to explain the economic theories"
By default, I use Rothbard or Mises, or one of the living examples if they've written on it.
The reason you hear more about Hayek than those other two is because, being a minarchist, he made excuses for the "need" for a state, which makes him more palatable to the mainstream media. Just like Milton Friedman, the govt's pet "radical" free market sock puppet.
@CurtHowland The reason you hear about Hayek and not Mises, is that Hayek completed Mises's half done ideas work on the business cycle and got a Nobel Prize. Mises are entirely inflexible and viewed the world as black and white, which is why his ideas could not earn him a Nobel Prize. The world is not black and white and viewing it so will mean you ideas will fail to have real world app. Rothbard is mostly a political activist more then an economist.
@Loathomar Sorry world is black and white, it's only how you get from one to the other that gray. A textbook example of a gray area supposedly is the "steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving family" model. In fact this is not gray at all. This person has committed a crime and must be punished for this crime, the only question is the sentence. Without sentencing, you end up with unproductive anarchy.
The shades of gray argument is for primitive minds, devoid of understanding social compact
@bigboss686 I remember talking to you from before. Black and White. Murder is murder, it is the same it you kill someone because you fall asleep at the wheel or you kill a 12 year old girl in cold blood, it is murder and they should be punished the same. Having a tax rate that increase from 40% to 45% when you make less the $10K to where you make $10M is socialism and is as evil as communism, it is black and white. The government feeding starving kids is socialism and therefor evil, black/white
@Loathomar All you display is a warped idea of what black & white means. Black & white doesn't mean ignoring contributing factors, it's assessing the situation then responding. That's why gray proponents like you are intellectually primitive. Constantly focusing on the illusion of a gray area is akin to perpetual nonaction. You're hungry, you eat a sandwich= black & white. You're hungry, you starve to death because you can't decide what kind of sandwich to make= gray area. You're dismissed
@bigboss686 Wow you are a moron, I mean I give you 3 "gray" areas to talk about, you picked none, with some BS about starve because you have too many choices. Is the cause of someone death always murder? Is that black and white? Is any change in the income tax rate communism? Is that black and white? Two simple questions... If the world is black and white, things like manslaughter or socialism can not be, you are either all or none, black or white, so what is it?
@Loathomar Your premise is faulty so your questions are not answerable. Your argument of what black and white area is akin to saying the sky is green, then demanding that i identified to you what color of green. Which is impossible because the sky is not green, just as your premise on what the black and white is Is incorrect. As I said before, black and white is not devoid of logical analysis, it is the apex of it because Black is the problem and white is the inevitable solution. You primitive
@bigboss686 Right... you are a moron, got it. If there is a type of problem with more the one solution, it isn't black and white, it is green... that is retard. There are problems and solutions, but there are also big problems and small problems, good solution, bad solution, better solution and worse solution. Are all solution white and all problems black? Is a solution that solves a problem 10% the same that solve the problem 90%?
if u really want to help the poor, then take out YOUR OWN CHECKBOOK and start sweating it out. Don't go stealin other people's checkbooks or having govt coerce other people. that is really straightforward
There is no morality in the use of coercion. It is impossible to ever have a net positive outcome if one uses coercion in means
Moreover, the use of coercion & coercive monopolies - ie govt/mafia, efficiency tends to degrade as cost tends to skyrocket.
Case in point- only pennies on the dollar that is STOLEN for social security or medicaid is really given to any so called 'beneficiary'. Most of it- like 90+% of it is given to bureaucrats. If any market charity had that kind of track record, it would hardly even last a month let alone get established!
If u really want to help people, then go out and help them- take ur two hands and ur brain and go to work! else shut up and dont force others to do what u urself aint even willing to do
@Loathomar LOL name-calling because you got owned, pathetic. The retarded black & white theory is eradicated by simple causality. If you do A and B then C will happen. A child could understand this, but that's probably too high intellectually for you.
BTW a solution that solves a problem 10% still solves the problem, a solution that solves 90% still solves the problem. Both solutions solve the problem, which shows that once you choose one solution. The gray is eliminated. You're dismissed
@bigboss686 There is a reason a child could understand, A and B then C will happen, it is a childish idea. I am guessing you did not take calc in school, can at that point you stop can answer of "C" but a range of answer. Simply algebra does not answer much in real life, it only generally answer vastly over simplified statements which do a poor job of real world problem. Even simply physics this is true, but for any with people it is a million times more complex.
@Loathomar Like I said already, so what? He was wrong on government and right on economics. No big deal at all. He isn't the "default" at all, I've heard Murray Rothbard and Walter Block's names far more then Hayeks. Yet again, he is an economist not a political philosopher, so why should we care about his politics? Also he was born long before anarcho capitalism was formulated so his view is biased to the era of extreme socialism he grew up in. Also he is just assuming gov is the only option.
The Minarchist position states that it is possible to create a net good with "just a little bit" of the initiation of violence. Sorry, we can't think of a way it would work without someone getting violated!
A million of my ancestors died in the 19th century due to your Libertarian bullshit. Fuck you scumbags, I wish you idiots could experience the full consequences of your stupidity.
@draoi99 How the fuck did liberty kill 1 million people? Are you talking about slavery? That is not libertarianism. That is a giant government program to increase the sales of human beings. Slavery only existed because governments would round up escaped slaves for free.
Or are you talking about a million of your white redneck ancestors who marched down to rape the south?
@CurtHowland What is ambiguious is that as citizens, we can have multiple social objectives (freedom, hapiness, equality, ect.) that sometimes conflict each other, and that calls for trade-offs.
As far as uncertainty is concerned, I was referring the uncertainty that is inherent to the scientific method, which is rejected by austrian economists.
@CurtHowland I agree that banning coercion from social relations allows individuals with otherwise conflicting objectives to cohabit peacefully and reach those objectives. That's the beauty of liberty, as you say. But some objectives are not reachable through a market, even if all its participants have that objective: national defense ot social equality are some exemple. As a libertarian, the question that is relevant to me is how to attain these objectives with the least coercion possible.
@philbelanger2 "some objectives are not reachable through a market"
I disagree.
If an overwhelming majority of people want something done, which is what is required in a constitutional republic for the govt to do it, then there are enough people to fund it themselves without coercion.
National defense is very much a market good. I would subscribe to an insurance company with reciprocal agreements for "defense" against organized aggression. Wouldn't you?
@philbelanger2 "the scientific method, which is rejected by austrian economists"
Hahahaha! You're funny.
The scientific method is not rejected by the Austrian school. In fact, it is often pointed out that if history does not match your theory, change your theory.
If that's not the scientific method you are talking about, you and I have different dictionaries.
@CurtHowland Really at the time when austrian economics was made, the the scientific method was not used in is implementation, but nor was it used by Keynesian economics much either "one event does not prove a theory". There where tries to put economics into a mathematical system at the time, but they did not work. Today there is still a lot of work now testing economic work with the scientific method, but none of the major economic theories really use the scientific method.
@Loathomar Just because the Austrian analytic method is logic based and not mathematically based does not mean it cannot be tested. What it cannot do is make specific, quantitative predictions.
Keynesian "theory" uses statistics and mathematics, and cherry-picking, to make the data fit their desires and then pronounces that their accuracy is uncanny, "Just look at how this formula fits!"
The Austrians are following the most scientific of all methods, taking any and all data into consideration.
@CurtHowland You want to believe that is does, but that's only because you believe in it. Both Austrians and Keynesian like to ignore the data that doesn't fit. Claiming one is scientific and the other is not only shows personal bias. All major theories still hold to the belief of Adams, that all people act in there own economic best interest all the time. This idea has been tested and retested, and it is simply not true, yet you will find it as an assumption in all major theories.
@Loathomar "Both Austrians and Keynesian like to ignore the data that doesn't fit"
Where? When?
Point such an error out to ANY Austrian economist I've ever heard of, and they'll thank you for showing them something they didn't know about.
That some outside observer might JUDGE someone else's act as "not in the best interest" is irrelevant. That outside observer is not the one making that choice at that time.
It's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback, and cowardly.
@philbelanger2 Austrian economists have no problem with the scientific method. In fact it's the only economics I know of where science plays a part at all. It was Murray Rothbard who used chaos theory to explain the free market. Google "Chaos Theory: Destroying Mathematical Economics from Within?" if you'd like to read it.
@KenMacMillan That is the worst articular to represent the "scientific method" used in economics I have even read. It is like reading an articular trying to use the scientific method to explain creationism. First, it misrepresents "chaos theory" completely, using the ideas published in crappy news papers, rather then real science. 2nd It talks nothing of testing. 3rd. It make some BS about the Austrians having the right macro theory, with no reason. Horrible!
Someone who classifies themselves as "libertarian" who supports "limited" socialism? This is why so many liberty-minded folks have begun shying away from the use of "libertarian" in classifying their political/philosophical views - it has been watered down, just like the atrocity that is the Libertarian party.
@InsaneRevolt Is this just as true on the other side, can a person be a "libertarian" who supports a "limited" war on drugs? Or how about gay marriage, can you be a libertarian and support the governments right to define who adults marry? There are many who call them selves Libertarian, yet support those liberties being stop by the gov. And if you can not expect anything but the purest of "libertarian" views you will never have any political power as a group.
It's been my belief that being a libertarian means we should help people more, not less. It's better to have people helping other people instead of government doing it. More people caring for each other and less government.
@jontv "Does that mean it's nonsense to give a shit about what happens to other people?" No. "Society" doesn't "give a shit" about anybody. Only individuals can, because only individuals act. Only individuals can have values and make choices based on them. It's not about "caring", it's about understanding who does the caring. "Society" doesn't have any responsibility; only you and I do. "Social justice" is a meaningless term that is designed to obscure rather than to clarify.
@TheLegalImmigrant05 - Who said anything about "society" caring? I agree that's nonsense. The term is used to suggest that outcomes to people in society matter, not just in an interpersonal way, but on a social level. I care about what happens to large groups of people. I care what kind of society I live in, and what the outcomes are for more than just individuals. I think that what people mean by "social justice": how are we doing, as a society, in meeting human need at a macro-level.
@jontv "I care about what happens to large groups of people." No you don't. Not with the same intensity you care about people you know and love personally. But that's irrelevant.
"I think that what people mean by "social justice": how are we doing, as a society, in meeting human need at a macro-level." That's not what most of the people using the term "social justice" mean by it AT ALL :) Don't you watch TV at all? (Don't blame you if you don't). Also, define "human needs on a macro level"?
@TheLegalImmigrant05: That's pretty arrogant to say. How do you know how others feel? I care about every single human being on this planet. You're saying that you decide how many or whom I care about? This is what separates patriots from regular people: to care for people on a scale larger than a family or even a tribe requires heart and imagination. You either have it, or you don't. This is what separates the MLK's and Gandhi's from the failed souls of society. They loved all equally.
@Deadwind002 You do not care about every human being on the planet in the same way that you care about the people you love. The human mind can only conceive of something like 150 to 200 different individuals as actually being classified as people. The rest are just like extras in a movie: important but by no means the focus.
@Deadwind002 You do not care about every human being on the planet in the same way that you care about the people you love. The human mind can only conceive of something like 150 to 200 different individuals as actually being classified as people. The rest are just like extras in a movie: important but by no means the focus.
@Deadwind002 You, my friend, are full of shit. When your child is sick, you can't eat, you can't sleep, you can't enjoy a movie - all you KNOW is that your baby, whom you love more than life itself, is in pain. Yet you, I'm sure, enjoy your meals and entertainment regularly, while other children are dying in this world every second. If you loved everyone equally, you would not be able to function - you would simply stop and die of anguish. So get off the high horse, you unfailed soul of society.
@TheLegalImmigrant05 - So, who are you to tell me what I care about? What difference is it if I care about them as much or less than people close to me?
What I'm trying to get at with the macro-level needs thing is how standard of living varies from place to place, group to group, etc. If certain groups seem to be doing worse through no fault of their own, that is a concern for me. Like the video, I haven't said anything specific about how that should be addressed, only that it matters, IMO.
"Free markets" are depicted as a panacea for all ills. "Free" is one of those "happy" words. But "free-for-all" also denotes a no rules combat which will result in a winner and many losers.
I would like to see more discussion about the nature of this so-called utopian "free market" and what rules are required to maintain it from deteriorating into a "dominated market".
rdiamond401008 3 months ago
@rdiamond401008 oh how terrible it would be to be "dominated" by people providing the best goods and services.
quantumG 2 weeks ago
@rdiamond401008 No rules are needed to stop a 'dominated market'. Monopolies never occur in a free market and as long as there is competition any company that tries to screw consumers in anyway will fail.
666or999 6 days ago
@rdiamond401008 A market isn't at all like fre-for-all combat. In combat an exchange has 1 person come out victorious and the other defeated. In a marketa exchange has 2 people trading a item for something that they value more than thier own item, in other words it's mutually beneficial. The only rules required to keep a free market running at full potential are anti-violence, anti-theft and anti-fraud laws.
666or999 6 days ago
@666or999 The rules, which you admit are necessary for a free market, would need to address companies that become monopolies through buying competitors, controlling resources, etc. so that they become the sole provider of that market and use that power to restrict viable competition. Unbridled success leads to monopolies. The worship of the utopian free market is based faith for which there is no proof.
rdiamond401008 5 days ago
@rdiamond401008 You want proof? Your the one assuming that a monopoly can even exist in a free market. Name 1 monopoly that formed without government help.
666or999 5 days ago
@666or999 Standard Oil Company and At&T - both had to broken up by the courts. Perhaps you are saying that the US is not a free market, if so please tell me where the free market you worship exists.
rdiamond401008 5 days ago
@rdiamond401008 Standard oil never became a monopoly and AT&T was nationalized.
666or999 5 days ago
@666or999 On May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It ordered Standard to break up into 34 independent companies with different boards of directors, the biggest two of the companies were Exxon and Mobil.
rdiamond401008 5 days ago
@rdiamond401008 'In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales.', 'Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70% by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64% by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up' Yeh thats not a monopoly. In case you didn't know a monopoly is 'The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.'
666or999 5 days ago
@666or999 A "pure" monopoly is as rare as a "pure" free market. Let's not get caught up on splitting hairs.
rdiamond401008 5 days ago
@rdiamond401008 Well if your not tralking about 100% market shares the term monopoly becomes a vague concept that is only really useful to create strawman arguements.This very similar to how the term 'isolationist' is used in that it sometimes means closing all borders to interaction and at other times means zero political interaction. You can flip-flop the meaning to mean one to the other to create a strawman just as some people flip flop between 100% and most market shares.
666or999 5 days ago
@666or999 I learned from a wise man many years ago that one starts with a Discussion, then proceeds with a Debate and when it becomes apparent that further progress is not possible, then Depart. Bye.
rdiamond401008 5 days ago
@666or999 AT&T was at times the world's largest telephone company, the world's largest cable television operator, and a regulated monopoly.The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T
rdiamond401008 5 days ago
@rdiamond401008 'As a result of a combination of regulatory actions by government and actions by AT&T, the firm eventually gained what most regard as monopoly status.' , 'In 1918 the federal government nationalized the entire telecommunications industry'
666or999 5 days ago
The period of American history prior to the 1890's is the best example of how a free market system raises the living standards for the poor. During this period, wealth disparity declined precipitously. Granted, it wasn't a completely free market, unless you were a white male. But one can only imagine how much more social justice would have been provided by the market, if it were opened up to women and minorities.
intothevoid81 3 months ago
To a lot of philosophers and theorists communism sounded like a a great economic system, and many reasons and much logic was provided to explain why it would be the best of all systems. But, when put into actual practice, it didn't do a very good job of helping the poor and needy, often they ended up worse off. Totally free market theories can sound great as a theory, but I've never seen any convincing evidence that the poor and need were better off under such an economic model in real life.
mittcleaver 4 months ago
Would you please point out some studies, evidence, experiments that support the belief that laissez faire or some version of unregulated free markets/economies actually do benefit the poor and those in need more than markets/economies that are not as free and regulated. I'm aware there's a great deal of theory about how and why this works, but I'm not aware of anywhere it's been put fully put into practice on a country wide scale, where the result was that the poor were demonstrably better off.
mittcleaver 4 months ago
Absolute garbage!!!
alifeofreason 4 months ago
NO Social Justice, EQUAL JUSTICE!
OneObjectivist 4 months ago
I don't understand how someone can call himself a philosopher and believe this nonsense after Nietzsche. It's so vulgar.
Ontologistics 4 months ago
This moron is just another communist shill. Social Justice is fucking totalitarian evil. WTF is this dumbass talking about?
Shonenut213 4 months ago
lol, how pointless, libertarianism with a "guilt complex".
But I like the intention, a rational choice of libertarianism for humanistic reasons.
seppsters 4 months ago
@seppsters, I think you missed the point – there is no “guilt complex” here. You’re thinking of the wealthy “liberals” who want to increase government power to make everyone economically equal. As he said, there’s plenty of empirical evidence that that strategy is a miserable failure and does great damage to the poor, and everyone else (except the elite “liberals” with the political power.)
..
xit1254 4 months ago
@xit1254
You're the one who completely missed my point: These people are libertarians in all senses, except that "they care and suffer with the masses". lol, what non-sense.
They're libertarians, that is all.
So what happens if libertarianism fails ? Will he, as he claims, adopt socialism and still call himself a Bleeding-Heart Libertarian ? Rofl that makes no sense what-so-ever.
seppsters 4 months ago
Adam Smith was actually a pretty strong interventionist. Wealth of Nation is filled with accusations of the greed of Capitalists and cries for support for workers.
Distortion0 4 months ago
I agree. I became a libertarian when I realized individual freedom reduces poverty, and government power increases it.
xit1254 4 months ago
Altruism, uh-oh.
gta405421 4 months ago
blah.
theorizing, theorizing, theorizing.
markets do everything better than the government. including the "social safety net".
CrawlingAxle 4 months ago
HEY DOCTOR, to say that "most people" think social justice is a good thing (4:55), and use that claim to support your agenda is commiting a AD POPULUM FALLACY!!!
I thought philosophy was supposed to teach people to think?
ConstitutionBenFrank 4 months ago
What about a private safety net? Safety net does not equal public safety net per se.
Wormtail81 4 months ago
@Wormtail81 - Public safety net programs were created because charity wasn't good enough. Average people didn't want to see the poor starving in the streets, and the economic elite didn't to be overthrown by angry masses. Whether you like them or not, some people are dependent on them and ending them quickly would cause massive hardship and unrest. Private charity certainly couldn't make up the difference overnight, especially not in a slow economy. Long term, it's hard to say.
jontv 4 months ago
Well you prattled off a lot of bullet points, but it didn't seem like you really discussed policy. Granted thats hard to achieve in a 10 minute hit on your cause. Either way personally my entire job (Product Designer) is to process and clarify ideas. Im not the sharpest guy in the world, but as far as demonstrating a clear message, this fella did it poorly. Its gotta be "Call and Answer" if you make declaritves like "Its better..." "Its in the best interest of...." you have to qualify that...
ThePhantomnyx 4 months ago
@ThePhantomnyx agreed
ConstitutionBenFrank 4 months ago
This guy is another useful idiot who's ideas will be used to water down the freedom movement and the Libertarian message. Capitalism and free markets work great as long as they are operating within a strong constitutional republic which protects the liberties of EVERY individual. If I prosper more because the government takes less of my money, then I will have the ability to help those around me who can't help themselves.
thinkertank1 4 months ago
You don't get us. Ayn Rand believed that capitalism serves the poor best, but that this is not what we should build our case for capitalism around.
SataiWarp 4 months ago
Holy shit!
I deserve a cushy academic position if I get to spout such Chicken Shit!
I BELIEVE IN THE FREE MARKET BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT IT IMPROVES EVERY BODIES LIFE!
F**k social justice!
papeluso 4 months ago
Interesting thoughts. I think he makes a mistake however.
libertarians can claim that free markets are better for the poor without appealing to Social Justice which is not necessarily about just the poor.
It's kind of dishonest as a philosopher to criticize Rothbard's apriori axioms of human action without going into the problems of posteriori judgement on liberty.
Reckless3057 4 months ago
minarchists... frustratingly inconsistent. Advocating social justice while supporting the state, the most unjust and destructive institution to ever exist. Also apparently Zwolinski has never actually read Rothbard... or Spencer to a lesser degree. Its not that the anti-statist is against social justice, he merely realizes that the only just society is one without the State. Thus whenever someone advocates using state violence to solve social ills, the libertarian anarchist balks (& rightly so).
ProdigalSonofLiberty 4 months ago
social justice, or in other words, I was born therefore you owe me.
StatelessEuphoria 4 months ago
What Mr. Zwolinski is saying here is very important, and the dominance of what has been called "Vulgar, pro-corporate libertarianism," as well as the confusion of the neo-objectivists (Ayn Rand made it clear that she was neither a conservative nor a libertarian, yet both groups seem to claim her ideas as their own at times) has done a lot of damage to the baseline idea of respecting the the human rights, lifestyle choices, and property rights of all persons at all levels of society.
Frenetic23 4 months ago
1:55 I disagree, I don't think that analysis of circumstance would lead to a justification in Government "philanthropy". What I think might be admissible is the intervention into business when defending free-market principles... as a completely unregulated business sector would shortly provide proof that not all businesses are interested in a free market.
When it comes to the disfranchisement of personal wealth and liberty, government is often to blame, but businesses are not innocent either.
Sparkygravity 4 months ago
Both things are necessary. A "system" which promotes free markets and free individuals, and individuals who are spiritually aware and do care about their neighbor, and freely and voluntarily CHOOSE to help their less fortunate neighbors (sick, out of work, whatever) - as Americans do in fact DO more than any other people on earth! With a vibrant, strong, FREE economy, there will absolutely be LESS POOR and disadvantaged to help, also! This delicate balance should be there and be maintained.
AmericaTops 4 months ago
@AmericaTops
I have a question. Do you think it's right for society to take my money against my will and use it to maintain a national military? I'm confident that my buddies and I can defend our own property with the guns and weapons we have. I don't want my money going to help the less fortunate who didn't bother to learn how to shoot or can't afford good weapons. Why don't we permanently disban the US military? We can still voluntarily help each other out with defense when we want. Right?
dookdawg214 4 months ago
Why should a "positive social outcome" be anyone's agenda? Why are the needs of other people more important than your own? Why is altruism the "good" and rational self-interest the "evil"? You will never succeed in defending capitalism on an altruist base. It will always end in compromise and gradual disintegration. Capitalism needs to be defended on the basis of a man's RIGHT TO HIS OWN LIFE. Not because it benefits the poor or improves "social outcomes". BUT BECAUSE IT IS HIS RIGHT.
jonathanaconway 4 months ago
@jonathanaconway - I think that's short-sighted. Human beings are social animals. What happens to others affects us, both directly and indirectly.
I don't think that self-interest is "evil". Nor is all altruism "good". The point of this video, I think, is that without showing SOME concern for others, libertarianism appears morally bankrupt and VERY unlikely to attract support from anyone other than the most self-interested people. There's got to be some kind of balance.
jontv 4 months ago
Then he misses Mises as a libertarian thinker, but includes John Fucking Smith? Smith was no libertarian; not remotely. A fart at you, Matt Zwolinski. I hereby bescumber you.
032125 4 months ago
If I understand correctly, this is a utilitarian libertarian who supports a "social" (read:coercive) safety net, and thinks of Murray Rothbard as a cold-hearted beast, and considers Murray more averse to charity than Any Rand.
We are not impressed.
032125 4 months ago
This shit gets simplified waaay too much.. "Do free markets" is a false premise.. It depends totally on situation and distribution of resource and labor and education etc...
IloveJesusYesId0 4 months ago
It is self-serving to presume B.H.s own "social justice." Actual justice is for everyone, not just the Poor or the Bleeding Hearts. There are definite moral problems on the Left with the assumption that Authorities know best. Much of the problem with this video is the belief that a big, central government is the only solution for difficult problems. Local, community, maybe state actions are closer to the people and far more likely to be responsive than a vast, centralized bureaucracy.
leafwatch 4 months ago
In economics, laissez-faire -describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.
The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone." is pronounced "less-say faire". "Laisser" (infinitive) means "to let" or "to allow". "Faire" means "to make" or "to do".
dmhappy2777 4 months ago 2
@dmhappy2777 Thats the idea.But it appears we have a little corruption problem.Still though free markets do give anyone potential regardless of their worth.
RebelsLiberator 4 months ago
The notion that a "Free Market" is one that is completely without government intervention is simply wrong. A free market is one in which there are enough suppliers of a commodity, and enough buyers of a commodity, to ensure the free exchange of goods....without either party having enough control to coerce the other. Sometimes, markets need intervention and regulation to keep the market free.
kshackleton 4 months ago
@kshackleton How do you come by that definition? You're the first person I've ever heard define it that way.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001
The market is only free if it is free for the people making the exchange. It's basic.
kshackleton 4 months ago
@kshackleton It can't be free if there are people with guns (i.e. government) involved.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001
That's a silly statement.
kshackleton 4 months ago
The reason government has gotten as big as it is, is because someone, somewhere wanted a little bit of social net and protection..... just sayin'
zdrux 4 months ago
The whole part where he is saying "you want government' is throwing me off.
natepepin09 4 months ago
I don't take to kindly to being described through the use of a poorly defined terms that try to classify a vast number of people with various opinions and beliefs like that. They only confuse myself and others.
I would much rather explain to you in my own words what I think about a certain issue instead of using a useless label like this.
S0chan 4 months ago
Ok, so you're not libertarian, you're a mere opportunist. Libertarianism requires adherence to the non-agression principle. While "social justice" is an effect of the non-agression principle, and is an argument for it, if the NAP is not the priority, you're not libertarian. It's like saying "I won't hit anybody, except if it is required to reach my goal", it's meaningless.
myusernameisluc 4 months ago
Minarchism. Blech.
jtropeano 4 months ago
What is an "aberration" is one of the Prof's basic ideas that institutionalized "free" markets" are the savior of the poor & the middle class & it's patently false. The incipient "Occupy" movements are totally beyond the capacity of these political idealists to realize how much their institutions have & are failing. Does the Prof endorse the reconstitution of Glass-Steagall or not? If not, his Bleeding Heart Libertarianism is a non-sequitur covering a host of bad means as justifying his ends.
BrotherWoody1 4 months ago
This helped me understand why Libertarianism is non-functional as a PHILOSOPHY. The adherents refuse first principles in the name of expediency.
They surrender to PRAGMATISM. A house without a foundation.
356pla 4 months ago
Libertarians are Tea Partiers in sheep's clothing with absolutely NO agenda or defined platform(s)! Both have NO future in American politics, they will always be referred to as LOSERS! I'd like to see a multi-party system, meaning more than TWO, but NOT a group of disenfranchised idiots! Obamarama remains our only hope for getting America back in the black, no pun intended! The GOP is the party of HATE, Tea Pees should be taken out back and have their heads blown off! Abolish the electorate!
iwannaiguana60 4 months ago
A "social safety net" is a reasonable thing only if it distinguishes between those who truly are unable to thrive in our society and those who, through a series of poor personal decisions, artificially rendered themselves disadvantaged. Those who choose a path that leads to disadvantage are merely exercising their freedom to do so. Any responsibility of the State ended with guaranteeing that freedom. All of us should be willing to accept the outcomes of our own free actions.
tlr1997 4 months ago
Social Justice isn't just, otherwise you'd just call it Justice.
But the poor are unjustly dispossessed of their natural rights by property in natural resources, property in ideas, and the regulatory state. They should be compensated for these impositions, per Thomas Paine and Henry George.
Time enough to worry about Social Justice after we have lived up to Justice.
buybuydandavis 4 months ago
I'm not sure I would put Chicago School Monetarist Milton Friedman on the list, but otherwise this is well stated. I'll share it.
dskillz1 4 months ago
the hardcore libertarian ideologues (LRC, Rothbardian) aren't gonna like this, lol. Then again, they don't like Reason much at all. Rothbard was such a freakin' genius though, the world needs more scholars like him.
rescuemay 4 months ago
Libertarianism and social justice shouldn't be used in the same sentence. The day it's accepted in the libertarian crowd is the day I find a new party.
It's a complete oxymoron as (social justice is) defined by the left.
mcoop221 4 months ago
@mcoop221 please, what is the difference between libertarian "social justice" and government "social justice"
independence4wales 4 months ago
@independence4wales
None, this is my point.
mcoop221 4 months ago
@mcoop221 you lost me, what exactly do you want?
independence4wales 4 months ago
@independence4wales
Umm, I don't 'want' anything except to be left the hell alone.
In ref to the social justice definition, it has been hijacked as the word 'gay' has been. It use to mean that all person's were created equal; more or less. Now it has become the mantra of give me shit that isn't mine even though I am too fucking lazy to work for it.
Oh, what's that, you don't believe me? Great! I CHALLENGE you to go to a college campus and ask a dozen or so people what it is.
mcoop221 4 months ago
@mcoop221 okay, I agree.....
independence4wales 4 months ago
As usual, a philosopher who is flatly ignoring the underlying ethics of the so-called "safety net". How "safe" is the man who is being STOLEN FROM, in order to satisfy this pretense (and it is ONLY a pretense) to "helping the poor"?
ProjectFreeSelf 4 months ago
Correction concerning comment below...
I wrote "yet never bother to explain this is true..."
I meant to write "yet never bother to explain HOW this is true..."
dookdawg214 4 months ago
Rand libertarians are typically atrocious at philosophy and guilty of side-stepping meta-ethics problems. They build their entire foundation on the idea that humans have inherent rights (which assumes moral realism) yet never bother to explain this is true. Once you take moral realism out of the picture, libertarians are forced to accept that their ideals are grounded in subjectivism. As a philosopher, I would've liked to hear this guy address some of this, since libertarians usually ignore it.
dookdawg214 4 months ago
@dookdawg214 I am not a philosopher and I dont think that one has to be,to understand Rand ...The Individual is just that. It is absolutely Immoral for anyone to impose a morality on anyone else ..
dmhappy2777 4 months ago
@dmhappy2777
See, you just did it again! You asserted something is inherently immoral without backing it up. I can just as easily say the opposite and neither of us can be proven right. As a naturalist, I believe the only way our species thrived was, like many organisms, through a forced social structure. We choose to share and, as for the few who don't want to, yes, we force them to. Are we 'morally wrong' for forcing you to join our practices? I say no. You say yes. Can you prove your yes?
dookdawg214 4 months ago
To give you an analogy of why philosophy must be addressed to advance such a debate... Imagine if you and I want to argue about the credibility of a financial forecast, but we can't even agree on basic math. Say, I think 2+2=4 and you disagree. The conversation has to end there. We must first agree on basic logic! Likewise, you can't assert that things can be inherently immoral without demonstrating it deductively. Because I say moral realism doesn't exist and the conversation is over. Get it?
dookdawg214 4 months ago
@dookdawg214 I am an Individual. I impose nothing on you friend . But when you make it your business to be in my business .then we are no longer on a friendly terms. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal . For any individual to be compelled to act against his will for the good of other is neither Moral or legal ..For anyone to take from some one who has simply because someone else has not ...That is not moral.. it's stealing ..
dmhappy2777 4 months ago
@dmhappy2777
“make it your business to be in [mine]”: A healthy, peaceful society works best when we get in each other’s business. “We hold these truths”: Forefathers were't gods; they don’t dictate our morality. “[Forcing people to act against their] will for the good of others is neither moral or legal”: Just your opinion, which +90% of modern man doesn’t share. I say it’s very moral! Serious question: If you want total freedom, why not move to Sudan? How long do you think you’d last there?
dookdawg214 4 months ago
Serious question... Would you be fine with ZERO federal government? I mean, literally disban the US military? Because I can put on my Libertarian hat and say I don't want my money going to helping other people's defense. I'm confident that my buddies and I can defend ourselves with our own guns and weapons. Why should society steal my money to pay for YOUR protection. You should fight your own battles. This is immoral, right?
dookdawg214 4 months ago
@dookdawg214 You see this whole conversation started as a question on morality of the Individual VS Collectivism. You have insinuated that "90% of modern man" agree's with YOUR OPINION..Here you go ,this is not an opinion ....Whats mine is mine and when you make it your business to be in my business ..Whats yours is mine. I'm not moving any where this country is and was based on INDIVIDUAL freedom ..Sounds like you are the one who should move to the Sudan Maybe you can show them a better way...
dmhappy2777 4 months ago
@dmhappy2777
I didn't say you have to move to Sudan. I simply wonder why you don't. There are a few places in the world without government, where people are free to build their own stuff and trade however they want. It sounds like that's exactly what you want. Why settle for America's gang-rule system where society steals from you to build infrastructure, train soldiers and maintain schools? Wouldn't you be happier in Sudan?
dookdawg214 4 months ago
@dookdawg214 This is the last i will say on the subject ..However the *Subject* that was in discussion seems to have been put a side ..The Original Intent of the Constitution of the U.S, is to secure Liberty for all men.No greater Document has ever been crafted .I in no way said I would chose to live with out a government.The Gov. has a Rule of Law it must live within the confines that would be to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM...Hence the bill of Rights..Live well Live Free..Peace..!
dmhappy2777 4 months ago
@dmhappy2777
But I'm a Libertarian. I'm for freedom but I don't think I should have to pay my hard earnings to protect YOUR freedom. Why should I? That's stealing from me. You defend your freedom and I'll defend mine. Who do you socialist vultures think you are trying to steal a portion of my earnings to fund a military? How am I FREE if YOU are forcing ME to fund your military? You are enslaving me! How do you not see how immoral that is?
dookdawg214 4 months ago
@dookdawg214 I agree with this whole statement ..Until YOU placed the blame on the INDIVIDUAL...Kinda funny YOU Collectivist who want to force people to live to your standards of morality .I as an Individual have not enslaved you..Your collectivist bureaucrats who like your self believe that YOU know better what is best for the Individual and create the laws that do the enslaving ..This started as a rational conversation in hope of enlightenment on both side .alas i fear both are disappointed
dmhappy2777 4 months ago
@dmhappy2777
I'm confused by what you mean? Are you saying you DO agree with my perspective? You believe that totally disbanding the entire US military is the right thing to do?
dookdawg214 4 months ago
@dookdawg214 Milton Friedman - Self-Interest & Self-Ownership ..... this is my argument to you
dmhappy2777 4 months ago
It's not "lay-zay faire". "Laissez-faire" is pronounced "less-say faire". "Laisser" (infinitive) means "to let" or "to allow". "Faire" means "to make" or "to do".
dookdawg214 4 months ago
When your being robbed you don’t expect the police to be helping the crooks.
Our Government is broken.
The “first” thing we have to do is fix the Government.
Get angry, get out in the street, it’s a start in the right direction.
earlgray1947 4 months ago
@JTBEsq Think of it as a voluntary and mutually beneficial association.
Shanockdotcom 4 months ago
The government can't afford it's current welfare programs, and is making us *all* poor through their Statist policies.
oilhammer04 4 months ago
As a "philosopher" why make this practical argument from effect, instead of the argument from morality, which I'd consider much more powerful and philosophical?
MillerOutdoors1 4 months ago
Talking about free markets helping the poor is a Conservative line and in no way Social justice. Social Justice means using the poor to redistribute wealth and empower government to manage our lives for us. Libertarian is in no way compatible with socialism. The only difference between libertarians and Conservatives today is their view of radical Islam and marijuana legalization.
cozyfoxstudio 4 months ago
Social Justice is a Communist propaganda tool. WTF is this guy talking about.
cozyfoxstudio 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy sounds like a committed statist who one day realized that poverty can only be vanquished by markets, but can only apply this idea in terms of policy prescriptions.
BobbyW3363 4 months ago
Comment removed
BobbyW3363 4 months ago
This is why Reason sucks and LVMI and LRC are awesome.
BobbyW3363 4 months ago
Morality is taste, Inter-personal comparisons of value by third parties are also matters of taste. I think it's rather good taste to say that some of the poor can be recipients of wealth transfers and leave society better off in both the short and long run. Distinguishing lost causes (people whose sustenance implies increasing costs) from these cases is a considerable difficulty that would best be broached by small, decentralized, and accountable organizations.
Guest655321 4 months ago
@Guest655321 I can BS, allowing children to starve to death is not in the range of moral tastes. If you think it is moral to spend over $1 million a year, but spending/pay $1200 a year to save a child from starving to death is moral, you are a sick. There is a later question between "needs and wants" where the "moral tastes" comes into play. Is basic food/water/shelter enough, what about health care? What is "good food"? Good health care? ect..
Loathomar 4 months ago
...appreciation for the world as it has come to be and a curiosity for what made it that way.
shaverbh 4 months ago
You don't have to search for statistics on your computer you didn't build, through the Ethernet cable you didn't design, and the wifi hub you didn't develop, to a website you didn't code, all paid for by a profession that you and a handfull of others are better at than most, in order to prove that free markets work. It's like creation vs evolution: creation takes only faith in a higher power, evolution takes a bit of faith in historical analysis and theory but holds a depth of appreciation for
shaverbh 4 months ago
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision" F.A. Hayek, 1944
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar So what? Hayek isn't a god, hes an economist. He was strongly austrian and a weakly libertarian.
Hashishin13 4 months ago 3
@Hashishin13 No, but he is the default economist that libertarians use when they want to explain the economic theories. When the best economist that seems to agree with your economic views and general rule of the government's role in the economy strongly disagrees with your ideas of safety net, you should probably take note. Basically, libertarian claim that if we follow Hayek's economic ideas, we will have no need for a safety net, but Hayek does not agree with your idea.
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar "he is the default economist that libertarians use when they want to explain the economic theories"
By default, I use Rothbard or Mises, or one of the living examples if they've written on it.
The reason you hear more about Hayek than those other two is because, being a minarchist, he made excuses for the "need" for a state, which makes him more palatable to the mainstream media. Just like Milton Friedman, the govt's pet "radical" free market sock puppet.
CurtHowland 4 months ago
@CurtHowland The reason you hear about Hayek and not Mises, is that Hayek completed Mises's half done ideas work on the business cycle and got a Nobel Prize. Mises are entirely inflexible and viewed the world as black and white, which is why his ideas could not earn him a Nobel Prize. The world is not black and white and viewing it so will mean you ideas will fail to have real world app. Rothbard is mostly a political activist more then an economist.
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar Sorry world is black and white, it's only how you get from one to the other that gray. A textbook example of a gray area supposedly is the "steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving family" model. In fact this is not gray at all. This person has committed a crime and must be punished for this crime, the only question is the sentence. Without sentencing, you end up with unproductive anarchy.
The shades of gray argument is for primitive minds, devoid of understanding social compact
bigboss686 4 months ago
@bigboss686 I remember talking to you from before. Black and White. Murder is murder, it is the same it you kill someone because you fall asleep at the wheel or you kill a 12 year old girl in cold blood, it is murder and they should be punished the same. Having a tax rate that increase from 40% to 45% when you make less the $10K to where you make $10M is socialism and is as evil as communism, it is black and white. The government feeding starving kids is socialism and therefor evil, black/white
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar All you display is a warped idea of what black & white means. Black & white doesn't mean ignoring contributing factors, it's assessing the situation then responding. That's why gray proponents like you are intellectually primitive. Constantly focusing on the illusion of a gray area is akin to perpetual nonaction. You're hungry, you eat a sandwich= black & white. You're hungry, you starve to death because you can't decide what kind of sandwich to make= gray area. You're dismissed
bigboss686 4 months ago
@bigboss686 Wow you are a moron, I mean I give you 3 "gray" areas to talk about, you picked none, with some BS about starve because you have too many choices. Is the cause of someone death always murder? Is that black and white? Is any change in the income tax rate communism? Is that black and white? Two simple questions... If the world is black and white, things like manslaughter or socialism can not be, you are either all or none, black or white, so what is it?
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar Your premise is faulty so your questions are not answerable. Your argument of what black and white area is akin to saying the sky is green, then demanding that i identified to you what color of green. Which is impossible because the sky is not green, just as your premise on what the black and white is Is incorrect. As I said before, black and white is not devoid of logical analysis, it is the apex of it because Black is the problem and white is the inevitable solution. You primitive
bigboss686 4 months ago
@bigboss686 Right... you are a moron, got it. If there is a type of problem with more the one solution, it isn't black and white, it is green... that is retard. There are problems and solutions, but there are also big problems and small problems, good solution, bad solution, better solution and worse solution. Are all solution white and all problems black? Is a solution that solves a problem 10% the same that solve the problem 90%?
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar
if u really want to help the poor, then take out YOUR OWN CHECKBOOK and start sweating it out. Don't go stealin other people's checkbooks or having govt coerce other people. that is really straightforward
There is no morality in the use of coercion. It is impossible to ever have a net positive outcome if one uses coercion in means
Moreover, the use of coercion & coercive monopolies - ie govt/mafia, efficiency tends to degrade as cost tends to skyrocket.
swu880 4 months ago
@swu880
Case in point- only pennies on the dollar that is STOLEN for social security or medicaid is really given to any so called 'beneficiary'. Most of it- like 90+% of it is given to bureaucrats. If any market charity had that kind of track record, it would hardly even last a month let alone get established!
If u really want to help people, then go out and help them- take ur two hands and ur brain and go to work! else shut up and dont force others to do what u urself aint even willing to do
swu880 4 months ago
@Loathomar LOL name-calling because you got owned, pathetic. The retarded black & white theory is eradicated by simple causality. If you do A and B then C will happen. A child could understand this, but that's probably too high intellectually for you.
BTW a solution that solves a problem 10% still solves the problem, a solution that solves 90% still solves the problem. Both solutions solve the problem, which shows that once you choose one solution. The gray is eliminated. You're dismissed
bigboss686 4 months ago
@bigboss686 There is a reason a child could understand, A and B then C will happen, it is a childish idea. I am guessing you did not take calc in school, can at that point you stop can answer of "C" but a range of answer. Simply algebra does not answer much in real life, it only generally answer vastly over simplified statements which do a poor job of real world problem. Even simply physics this is true, but for any with people it is a million times more complex.
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar Like I said already, so what? He was wrong on government and right on economics. No big deal at all. He isn't the "default" at all, I've heard Murray Rothbard and Walter Block's names far more then Hayeks. Yet again, he is an economist not a political philosopher, so why should we care about his politics? Also he was born long before anarcho capitalism was formulated so his view is biased to the era of extreme socialism he grew up in. Also he is just assuming gov is the only option.
Hashishin13 4 months ago
The Minarchist position states that it is possible to create a net good with "just a little bit" of the initiation of violence. Sorry, we can't think of a way it would work without someone getting violated!
furyofbongos 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
You can't have a positive right for someone without violating a negative right of someone else.
furyofbongos 4 months ago
Comment removed
furyofbongos 4 months ago
Comment removed
furyofbongos 4 months ago
A million of my ancestors died in the 19th century due to your Libertarian bullshit. Fuck you scumbags, I wish you idiots could experience the full consequences of your stupidity.
draoi99 4 months ago
@draoi99 "A million of my ancestors died in the 19th century due to your Libertarian bullshit."
Goodness, where?
CurtHowland 4 months ago
@draoi99 Huh? Libertarianism has never been followed.......
Timasion 4 months ago
@draoi99 Lol. No. Stop confusing libertarians with socialists and totalitarians.
SquashDog01 4 months ago
@draoi99 How the fuck did liberty kill 1 million people? Are you talking about slavery? That is not libertarianism. That is a giant government program to increase the sales of human beings. Slavery only existed because governments would round up escaped slaves for free.
Or are you talking about a million of your white redneck ancestors who marched down to rape the south?
capitalist4life 4 months ago
@draoi99 Do tell. Your hyperbole has nabbed my attention.
yojimbo81 4 months ago
I think some libertarians embrace natural law and austrian economics because they are adverse to ambiguity and uncertainty.
philbelanger2 4 months ago
@philbelanger2 I consider it an embracing of self determination for myself, and for others.
How is liberty ambiguous?
As for uncertainty, if anything is more uncertain than the "justice" under arbitrary authority, I don't know what it could be.
CurtHowland 4 months ago
@CurtHowland What is ambiguious is that as citizens, we can have multiple social objectives (freedom, hapiness, equality, ect.) that sometimes conflict each other, and that calls for trade-offs.
As far as uncertainty is concerned, I was referring the uncertainty that is inherent to the scientific method, which is rejected by austrian economists.
philbelanger2 4 months ago
@philbelanger2 "as citizens, we can have multiple social objectives (freedom, hapiness, equality, ect.) that sometimes conflict each other"
That's the beauty of liberty.
You have your objectives, I have mine. They don't conflict, because neither of us has the power to coerce the other.
"the uncertainty that is inherent to the scientific method"
As in, "I don't know and I'm trying to find out"?
That's a strange way to put uncertainty.
I'm certain gravity exists, even if I don't understand it.
CurtHowland 4 months ago
@CurtHowland I agree that banning coercion from social relations allows individuals with otherwise conflicting objectives to cohabit peacefully and reach those objectives. That's the beauty of liberty, as you say. But some objectives are not reachable through a market, even if all its participants have that objective: national defense ot social equality are some exemple. As a libertarian, the question that is relevant to me is how to attain these objectives with the least coercion possible.
philbelanger2 4 months ago
@philbelanger2 "some objectives are not reachable through a market"
I disagree.
If an overwhelming majority of people want something done, which is what is required in a constitutional republic for the govt to do it, then there are enough people to fund it themselves without coercion.
National defense is very much a market good. I would subscribe to an insurance company with reciprocal agreements for "defense" against organized aggression. Wouldn't you?
CurtHowland 4 months ago
@philbelanger2 "the scientific method, which is rejected by austrian economists"
Hahahaha! You're funny.
The scientific method is not rejected by the Austrian school. In fact, it is often pointed out that if history does not match your theory, change your theory.
If that's not the scientific method you are talking about, you and I have different dictionaries.
CurtHowland 4 months ago
@CurtHowland Really at the time when austrian economics was made, the the scientific method was not used in is implementation, but nor was it used by Keynesian economics much either "one event does not prove a theory". There where tries to put economics into a mathematical system at the time, but they did not work. Today there is still a lot of work now testing economic work with the scientific method, but none of the major economic theories really use the scientific method.
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar Just because the Austrian analytic method is logic based and not mathematically based does not mean it cannot be tested. What it cannot do is make specific, quantitative predictions.
Keynesian "theory" uses statistics and mathematics, and cherry-picking, to make the data fit their desires and then pronounces that their accuracy is uncanny, "Just look at how this formula fits!"
The Austrians are following the most scientific of all methods, taking any and all data into consideration.
CurtHowland 4 months ago
@CurtHowland You want to believe that is does, but that's only because you believe in it. Both Austrians and Keynesian like to ignore the data that doesn't fit. Claiming one is scientific and the other is not only shows personal bias. All major theories still hold to the belief of Adams, that all people act in there own economic best interest all the time. This idea has been tested and retested, and it is simply not true, yet you will find it as an assumption in all major theories.
Loathomar 4 months ago
@Loathomar "Both Austrians and Keynesian like to ignore the data that doesn't fit"
Where? When?
Point such an error out to ANY Austrian economist I've ever heard of, and they'll thank you for showing them something they didn't know about.
That some outside observer might JUDGE someone else's act as "not in the best interest" is irrelevant. That outside observer is not the one making that choice at that time.
It's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback, and cowardly.
CurtHowland 4 months ago
@philbelanger2 Austrian economists have no problem with the scientific method. In fact it's the only economics I know of where science plays a part at all. It was Murray Rothbard who used chaos theory to explain the free market. Google "Chaos Theory: Destroying Mathematical Economics from Within?" if you'd like to read it.
KenMacMillan 4 months ago
@KenMacMillan That is the worst articular to represent the "scientific method" used in economics I have even read. It is like reading an articular trying to use the scientific method to explain creationism. First, it misrepresents "chaos theory" completely, using the ideas published in crappy news papers, rather then real science. 2nd It talks nothing of testing. 3rd. It make some BS about the Austrians having the right macro theory, with no reason. Horrible!
Loathomar 4 months ago
Someone who classifies themselves as "libertarian" who supports "limited" socialism? This is why so many liberty-minded folks have begun shying away from the use of "libertarian" in classifying their political/philosophical views - it has been watered down, just like the atrocity that is the Libertarian party.
InsaneRevolt 4 months ago
@InsaneRevolt Is this just as true on the other side, can a person be a "libertarian" who supports a "limited" war on drugs? Or how about gay marriage, can you be a libertarian and support the governments right to define who adults marry? There are many who call them selves Libertarian, yet support those liberties being stop by the gov. And if you can not expect anything but the purest of "libertarian" views you will never have any political power as a group.
Loathomar 4 months ago
Social Justice is bullshit! This guy is making being a libertarian uncool.
I'm a go watch a Ron Paul video now to wash out my brain from all this homo.
SuperSneakySteve 4 months ago
It is a good blog. I think in a free market individuals can adopt what ever economic model they want.
znirich 4 months ago
It's been my belief that being a libertarian means we should help people more, not less. It's better to have people helping other people instead of government doing it. More people caring for each other and less government.
rabidabbey 4 months ago
This Rocks!
HairyCheeseNuts 4 months ago
how many times did he mention Locke? explain to me how Locke isn't a natural law thinker.
aezldren 4 months ago
Very, very weak. An example of a "terrified" libertarian (as opposed to "unterrified" ones, to liberally quote from Jefferson).
There is no "social justice". it is a meaningless concept.
TheLegalImmigrant05 4 months ago
@TheLegalImmigrant05 - Does that mean it's nonsense to give a shit about what happens to other people? Where does the rubber hit the road on that?
jontv 4 months ago
@jontv "Does that mean it's nonsense to give a shit about what happens to other people?" No. "Society" doesn't "give a shit" about anybody. Only individuals can, because only individuals act. Only individuals can have values and make choices based on them. It's not about "caring", it's about understanding who does the caring. "Society" doesn't have any responsibility; only you and I do. "Social justice" is a meaningless term that is designed to obscure rather than to clarify.
TheLegalImmigrant05 4 months ago
@TheLegalImmigrant05 - Who said anything about "society" caring? I agree that's nonsense. The term is used to suggest that outcomes to people in society matter, not just in an interpersonal way, but on a social level. I care about what happens to large groups of people. I care what kind of society I live in, and what the outcomes are for more than just individuals. I think that what people mean by "social justice": how are we doing, as a society, in meeting human need at a macro-level.
jontv 4 months ago
@jontv "I care about what happens to large groups of people." No you don't. Not with the same intensity you care about people you know and love personally. But that's irrelevant.
"I think that what people mean by "social justice": how are we doing, as a society, in meeting human need at a macro-level." That's not what most of the people using the term "social justice" mean by it AT ALL :) Don't you watch TV at all? (Don't blame you if you don't). Also, define "human needs on a macro level"?
TheLegalImmigrant05 4 months ago
@TheLegalImmigrant05: That's pretty arrogant to say. How do you know how others feel? I care about every single human being on this planet. You're saying that you decide how many or whom I care about? This is what separates patriots from regular people: to care for people on a scale larger than a family or even a tribe requires heart and imagination. You either have it, or you don't. This is what separates the MLK's and Gandhi's from the failed souls of society. They loved all equally.
Deadwind002 4 months ago
@Deadwind002 You do not care about every human being on the planet in the same way that you care about the people you love. The human mind can only conceive of something like 150 to 200 different individuals as actually being classified as people. The rest are just like extras in a movie: important but by no means the focus.
t3hsauce 4 months ago
@Deadwind002 You do not care about every human being on the planet in the same way that you care about the people you love. The human mind can only conceive of something like 150 to 200 different individuals as actually being classified as people. The rest are just like extras in a movie: important but by no means the focus.
t3hsauce 4 months ago
@Deadwind002 You, my friend, are full of shit. When your child is sick, you can't eat, you can't sleep, you can't enjoy a movie - all you KNOW is that your baby, whom you love more than life itself, is in pain. Yet you, I'm sure, enjoy your meals and entertainment regularly, while other children are dying in this world every second. If you loved everyone equally, you would not be able to function - you would simply stop and die of anguish. So get off the high horse, you unfailed soul of society.
TheLegalImmigrant05 4 months ago
@TheLegalImmigrant05 - So, who are you to tell me what I care about? What difference is it if I care about them as much or less than people close to me?
What I'm trying to get at with the macro-level needs thing is how standard of living varies from place to place, group to group, etc. If certain groups seem to be doing worse through no fault of their own, that is a concern for me. Like the video, I haven't said anything specific about how that should be addressed, only that it matters, IMO.
jontv 4 months ago
Some times I wonder why I bother watching any thing from Reason any more. Where's your hatred of the anti-moral monstrosity of the state? It's sad.
Lechteron 4 months ago