Sagan complexly misses the point - as soon as we allow control then there is always a gap for extremist to take control - take the example of the Imam - yes if we allow control through government of education this is a real risk - and then we have to go and decide which is right and use force against other people to maintain it - realistically how many people would send their children to schools who taught the earth is flat if they had equal choice - especially considering the success of grads ?
...It may be to me and a few other "confederates", but to the vast majority of the world?..Not so much. We have a thousands year old tradition of worship, and Sagan knew this and even at times spoke of it sentimentally. So why be so stubborn about it? I'm not a Christian but I do enjoy the fuzzy feeling I get from Christmas time. Does the more than likely "truth" have to rain on all of our parades? Come on, Doc. Smoke a J and chill out! I love'ya Carl. Don't be a butthead Astronomer. :p
I speculate it reflects on the epistemological bankruptcy that plagues modern day scientism. Much in the same manner as he is unable to articulate why he has reason to dismay libertarian principles, I speculate that he would also be unable to formulate a proper modus operandi as to how to justify the belief in a specific religious tradition. If the latter were the case, then he would be on par with individuals who stake their life on blind faith.
One thing I'll never get is why Sagan, who was an ethnic Jew, would frown on Libertarianism when his people have been the target of many a "big government" throughout history, both Right and Left wing. I also can't believe he fails to see the difference between atheism and theism, since both are basically beliefs that can neither be proven or disproven. The lack of there being a God isn't as apparent as our round Earth. (cont.)
@jackiedegracia I'm guessing Sagans frowning on Libertarianism isn't based on the Jewish peoples tribulations from big government at all, it's probably based on the fact that he and many of his friends in the scientific communitiy recieve giant government resarch and project grants that would end if Libertarianism caught hold again. Same reason many people now would frown is because they are dependents of the state.
@MirageScience How would you have them arranged, then? Personally I think that a "free market" system should be limited to individual consumer products, with the abolition of the right of propaganda for the organizations in charge of production. In this way it would be possible for people to buy goods on merit instead of on advertising, forcing them to actually produce goods that are worthwhile.
@Keinlicht I'm for a real free market with no state. I'm for self individual governance, and perhaps a operational consensus towards laws. (far greater than a majority) Laws need to be limited to leave men and women on equal legal footing. As for your idea, what would happen to all the t.v. programs? and how do you think they made money to pay for the advertising?(advertizement is an expense option, it's rarely economical.)
There are plenty of anti-statists that share my view. (fringeelements)
@MirageScience TV as we know it I think should be abolished. Mass communication can be used much more effectively for education, news ect. if wrestled from the hands of Corporations. I think "Advertisments" could be reduced to a database of products regulated by a public institution. This would allow an informed consumer base, which is one of the main things our so-called "Free markets" lack today.
As for the entertainment aspect of TV, its already being usurped by the Internet.
Carl Sagan: poster-boy for totalitarian stateism. He replaced faith in religion and in a god with worship of the state, or at least a state that would ram his ideology down other people's throat. This is the same Sagan that predicted the Kuwait oil fields would produce a nuclear winter effect. He's a political shill hiding behind the mantle of science.
@GnomesAmok Actually, I'm a Christian. I don't support any state-sponsored religion, even the one I belong to. Statism is a state-sponsored religion where the state itself is worshiped. Statlists would ram their beliefs down other people's throats-the very thing they accuse theists of doing.
The libertarian is not arguing that society should not teach science in schools, he was trying to argue that it is morally wrong to FORCE people to learn science in school.
It is morally wrong to teach kids to be able to speak english (or whatever language is relevant for their country - I use english under the assumption you're from an english-speaking country)..
okay - so more broadly - is it morally wrong to teach kids to use LANGUAGE? not at all! otherwise, they can't survive!
so why it is morally wrong to teach kids not only truth, but logic, and critical thinking? THIS is what science IS.
I think what Carl does is get right to the heart of the issue by relating the underlying notions. I wouldn't consider that digression - more of a roundabout answer, yes - but in my view, much more effective than directly answering to a principle. If you can illustrate why a question is not grounded on sound ideas, then answering it becomes irrelevant.
Also Sagan needs to get his financial literacy up to scratch, the profit motive is a well recognized part of economics and is widely accepted to help bring prosperity for all income classes. Even left wing economists (non-marxists) don't want to do away with the profit motive as its positive effects are obvious.
@bonfirejovi Sagan is Dead and he never was what you believe a "libertarian" to be and he was a very "socially aware person" One of the best Authors of his type and a credit to humanity. i would have rather had him give me advice than the morons from the mises in any day of the week. RIP Carl your a hero
What has this got to do with libertarians? Science, history, mathematics are facts and not opinions/ views while religion has no factual basis. I think even Sagan would admit that all the best schools at all education levels (primary, secondary, university) are all private. Private schools are able to teach students both practical/ vocational and academic skills much better than public schools even though public schools spend twice as much per student. This man is no libertarian.
While I'm with Sagan on this one... I think he was a bit overly smug and dismissive of the caller who seemed like an intelligent and reasonable individual whether one agrees with him or not.
Would you rather have the government spending money on what's better for the government ans using science as just another political tool to keep the populace in line?
Or do you want the people spending money on what's better for people, using science as a means of the betterment of all mankind even if profit is the incentive?
Don't kid yourself, the government doesn't care about global warming, clean water or outer space - but they'll pretend they do to get elected.
@TehSmellulare This makes no sense. You are saying the gov. will pretend to support the betterment of human kind just to get elected, but a company will pretend to support the betterment of human kind in order to make a profit. What is the difference? Do you think, for example, that the FDA doesn't give a damn about public health, but McDonald's does?
McDonald's marketing strategy isn't healthy food, it's good tasting food, for some anyway. Thanks to the law, in this case the FDA, McDonald's needs to be truthful about what's in their food and if you or I don't like it, thanks to the current system, there's a market for healthy food as well. Demagogues will say whatever they have to in order to keep getting elected, in an open market, the individual can strive for what ambitions are most pertinent to him.
@TehSmellulare How is that any different than voting for a different candidate or running for office one's self? It seems to me that the entity with more to gain is the business. A politician gains power, a corporation gains both money AND power.
Well yea, I'm understanding your perspective, that money shouldn't control the people one way or the other. But the unfortunate truth is that the guy who gets elected is usually the one to which the money flows, so who's to say that giving the government more power wouldn't be for the benefit of corporations and at the expense of the average guy. The two sides are in far less opposition to each other than the average liberal likes to believe, me thinks.
@TehSmellulare I think that corporations have MORE power than the government as it is. At least with government there is some semblance of accountability. Why let the corporations take the reins completely? The governments job is to protect the people, and that includes protection from exploitative monopolies. It's not doing it's job right now, but that doesn't mean you scrap it and start over...
@IamLiterallyRetarded I may be at odd ends with other libertarians in that I agree with you that government, though plagued by human err, should ALWAYS have the authority to regulate businesses and corporations. But when a corporation can influence a government process, why advocate making it more powerful? I believe we live in a corporate-run society and with bigger gov't I see more of that on it's way. Sometimes I don't even see Reps vs Dems, just corps. on either side vying for power.
...and might I add that once corporations control your choices, it's right back to serfs and lords. All I can say is that it's a good thing the corporations are still competing against each other, because as far as a government that's supposed to be "for and by the people" goes, they don't have much else to compete with.
@TehSmellulare That's how it looks to me, I just think an unregulated market would lead to bloodshed. The only real solution is to have a separation of corporation and state. I don't know how that will be done, but I don't think it's by giving companies LESS regulation, that's for sure.
@IamLiterallyRetarded Well, there's certainly no easy fix, and as a libertarian looking historically at places that have found some limited success under libertarian-esque rules of play (the early Greek cities, Italian states, Singapore and Hong Kong) you recognize they're all very centralized individual states with smaller, homogeneous populations, a bit opposite the USA. Certainly our country is one of the more complicated to govern efficiently, despite it's relative success.
@TehSmellulare The US is a different animal than any other country. We have no culture besides consumerism. That's not much to grow on. Sometimes I wish that the South had actually seceded, if only to have 2 smaller countries.
@IamLiterallyRetarded Less regulation means more small business. Regulation helps big business as they have the economies of scale to absorb the compliance cost which obviously increases with additional regulation. The higher the compliance cost, the greater the damage to small business. Recently the Europeans have been developing a standard cost model which will try to index the average compliance costs in an aim to lower them to help small business.
@IamLiterallyRetarded Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand have very unregulated markets and have the fastest growing economies in the world. Look at the 19th century of the US when most of the wealth was created and the standard of living rose. During that period wages remained stagnant but prices fell thus increasing the standard of living.
@bonfirejovi There were widespread strikes in the late 18/early 1900's, which resulted in regulations such as minimum wage, no child labor, shorter workweek, workman's comp, etc. The Socialist party actually had some power at this time.
@bonfirejovi Bullshit and a LIE. New Zealand has a highly regulated market just like Singapore, they have free markets yes but the controls on those markets are much stricter than in the USA. The banking sector for one, due to regulation has not been effected by "risk" regulation works. The proof is they are better placed to deal with 'a bubble" than the USA. As for bailouts nearly all nations have stimulated their economies and for the most part growth has returned Fact.
This is disappointing because I have a deep respect for Carl Sagan and feel that he was one of the most influential scientists of our age, Dawkins too.
But both of them seem to think that bigger government will equate to more scientific funding and in doing so they allow for their scientific genius to be exploited.
Self-made men and women will fund scientific expenditures as has always been the case - I'd give my money to Google, SpaceX, XCOR or Virgin Galactic before I gave it to NASA.
I admire Carl Sagan very much, but I do think he is in the wrong on this matter. And his and the host's hastiness to bring in political sides revealed more about them then it did about the caller.
Government subsidization necessarily politicizes anything it touches. It's like a floodgate and once you open it, you don't know where it's going to go. Public schools are a necessary form of government, but as we've seen the public schools have become a hotbed of meandering politics at a large cost.
I see the Libertarian's point. I was once a Libertarian.
Still, Libertarianism would have a tendancy to create a large disparity between communities.
That is to say, the education system in Detroit or Alabama would deteriorate rapidly in a Libertarian society. The educated would flee to more prosperous communities, and what you would have is millions of disenfranchised Americans with no access to adequate education or services. It destroys opportunity for the non-exceptional.
That's a valid concern. I think the real danger comes from corporate statism, like we have now. That's what really creates disparities between communities. It does so by stealing from the politically vulnerable and forcibly transferring to the powerful. The politically-connected gain at the expense of others. Experience has shown that when people are free and governments do not redistribute wealth, some people may get richer faster than others, but everyone tends to be much better off.
If there is no government to lobby (bribe) there can be no immoral theft from the people to, for example, the morons who ran the investment banks into the ground.
There is a video on YouTube titled "Is Limited Government An Oxymoron?," featuring Thomas Woods and Doug Casey, which you may not agree with, but I think, as a self-described "former libertarian," you would find it thought-provoking and entertaining.
Libertarianism is a broad term, which includes both anarchists, who advocate no government, and minarchists, who advocate limited government. Minarchists would include most Libertarian Party members, for example. I am advocating no government. Government is immoral at its core and unworkable in the real world. I could live with limited government, but I do not believe that it is possible.
I recommend the video "Is Limited Government An Oxymoron?" available here on YouTube for more on this.
"Government is immoral at its core and unworkable in the real world."
This is certainly an extraordinary claim, considering government has been working in the real world for millenniums.
You can't expect intelligent people to take you seriously if you want them to believe something without empirical evidence just because you claim it to be true, unless you're talking about religion.
Without empirical evidence to backup you up, your claims can be dismissed just as easily as they were asserted.
You are asking me to write essays which are too long for the space provided. There has been plenty written on this subject if you are interested in pursuing it. The essay "The Anatomy of the State" by Murray Rothbard, available online, is a good start. Web sites like Strike-the-Root or The Voluntaryist are also good.
My claim that government is immoral at its core is a simple one. Government is violence. Do you advocate the initiation of violence? Do you agree with laws against drugs, porn, prostitution and other victimless "crimes" or are those exceptions where the state somehow just went wrong? If you cannot see that forcible taxation is theft on a grand scale, then nothing that I write will convince you.
I didn't expect to convert you, by the way, nor do I think you're stupid, nor do I wish to impose anything on you. I simply wish to not have others' wishes imposed on me. Isn't that what you want for yoruself?
"Do you agree with laws against drugs, porn, prostitution"
Do you have a reason why these should not only be legal but also completely unregulated? There are obvious benefits to regulation of all three, from lessening the spread of disease to protecting people from harm.
@bonfirejovi Bull and Shit. the majority of Private schools in the western world are religious. A very high percentage in the uSA are "fundamentalist" in nature and they teach their kids the views expressed according to their doctrine. They do not do a better job. The US IVVY school like most high end private schools pays to bring in the best teachers money can buy. But None of the students will ever "have to work" or need to find jobs
I encourage people to enter "Pete Seeger - What Did You Learn In School?" in the YouTube search field as a reminder that schools may not teach creationism, (thank God! ha-ha) but they teach a lot of pro-state propaganda, which is the real reason that there is so much opposition to privatizing schools.
badmuffy (below) does not understand libertarianism at all. Specifically, libertarian concepts of property rights. I have never met a libertarian who thinks that corporations should be allowed to dump toxic chemicals in "drinking water" or lakes or rivers. The libertarian position is that corporations are responsible for the harm that they cause to others through their pollution.
If Mr. Sagan had really thought things through, he would have realized that he is necessarily defending coercion and theft. He clearly did not follow the caller's reasoning as to why the state should not be involved in education. The state does nothing well. Even so, did Sagan really believe that education should be provided at the point of a gun? Also, Sagan equates "libertarian" with "right wing," which is incorrect.
I agree with you. despite having a few thumbs down. Sagan didn't thought it though. I guess we can't blame him, since he for so long participated in NASA as a consultant, which in essence is just money they got from us out of coercion. honestly I believe that´s money much better spent than in the military. It would be far better if the money they could get could be funded voluntarily, that way all space missions could be called truly virtuous.
I love the movie "The Astronaut Farmer." It's fiction, but it captures the government attitude: "Hey! Only the STATE can do that! How dare you try to compete with our monopoly?!"
It's funny how one can sometimes accumulate so many thumbs downs on YouTube and not get a single reply explaining why they think the comment is in error. But then, trying to argue that taxation is voluntary is a tough one. :)
"he would have realized that he is necessarily defending coercion and theft"
I think this statement epitomizes the foolishness of libertarian ideology (and I used to be one); they have trouble seeing value in the things which government is better suited to provide than the free market.
This can further be seen in the statement, "The state does nothing well.", which is a statement of no merit. Does the state not provide safe water, food, roads, fire protection, law enforcement, and so forth?
You have a point. I should have said "The state does nothing VALUABLE well." There's nothing that the government is better suited to do than the free market, except to monopolize legal violence to the end of destroying things, waging war, and reducing our overall prosperity and happiness. Everything government does it does by force; everything it has, it stole. Government produces nothing and can give nothing away that it hasn't first taken by force. Morally, government is indefensible.
When you advocate that the state do something, you are necessarily advocating the use of implicit violence to achieve your goal. The state doesn't provide a thing: individuals do. States interfere with the efficiency of that process. Everything the state gets marginally right, like roads, tends to cost much more than it would in a free market. The state always creates multiple unintended negative consequences to its actions which is an unavoidable result of doing everything through force.
Another way of saying this is, even if the government could provide things that are better and cheaper than the free market provides (which it cannot) even that would not morally justify doing those things at the point of a gun. The market is, by definition, voluntary. Both parties to a transaction participate voluntarily because they are better off. If you must force people by threat of violence to do things, they clearly do not see those things as desirable or they would already be doing them.
Then you'd better start providing empirical evidence for anarchy being a better system of social order than all other forms of governance, if you want to be taken seriously.
You appear to want me to write a book -- 500 words at a time. There are only two ways to structure a society: voluntarily or coercively. If a little violence and coercion is a good thing, would more be better, or is it preferable to err on the side of too little violence? I prefer no violence or threats of any kind. Anarchy simply means "without rulers," not chaos. There is a natural order to things which coercion disrupts. Freedom works.
Without order, there is disorder, with disorder, there is chaos.
I don't want you to write a book, I want you to be reasonable and recognize that government regulations are for the good of humanity, not a threat of violence against individual freedom. Unless you are suggesting you should have the freedom to kill, rape, and steal.
Your position on government is entirely unreasonable. You do the libertarian ideology a disservice by trying to sneak your anarchy in under its banner. Please stop.
True. Order is the opposite or disorder. But government is not order. It is merely some people imposing their will on others. But who rules the rulers?
Well, I did not invent the word libertarian and I am not the first to use it in this manner. "Libertarianism" has been used in conjunction with anarchy for much longer than I have been alive. As for stopping, I was only responding out of courtesy to you. I will stop now.
Libertarians typically don't call themselves patriots, their allegiance is to the concept of self-ownership and individual rights. The act of "pour toxic chemicals in our drinking water" would be a violation of those rights and a crime.
These so called Libertarian "patriots" will defend the rights of giant multi million dollar corporations to pour toxic chemicals in our drinking water. For them ideology comes first then human life.
@badmuffy Actually that is a third party effect/ externality as they have effected another's property. Milton Friedman covers this and advocates for government interference of prior restraint and after the fact.
entregar argumentos religiosos apoyados en la fe es mas bien adoctrinar, lo cual es diametralmente opuesto a educar .
patoguayabero 2 weeks ago
Sagan complexly misses the point - as soon as we allow control then there is always a gap for extremist to take control - take the example of the Imam - yes if we allow control through government of education this is a real risk - and then we have to go and decide which is right and use force against other people to maintain it - realistically how many people would send their children to schools who taught the earth is flat if they had equal choice - especially considering the success of grads ?
jnevins64 3 months ago
...It may be to me and a few other "confederates", but to the vast majority of the world?..Not so much. We have a thousands year old tradition of worship, and Sagan knew this and even at times spoke of it sentimentally. So why be so stubborn about it? I'm not a Christian but I do enjoy the fuzzy feeling I get from Christmas time. Does the more than likely "truth" have to rain on all of our parades? Come on, Doc. Smoke a J and chill out! I love'ya Carl. Don't be a butthead Astronomer. :p
jackiedegracia 3 months ago
@jackiedegracia
I speculate it reflects on the epistemological bankruptcy that plagues modern day scientism. Much in the same manner as he is unable to articulate why he has reason to dismay libertarian principles, I speculate that he would also be unable to formulate a proper modus operandi as to how to justify the belief in a specific religious tradition. If the latter were the case, then he would be on par with individuals who stake their life on blind faith.
Respectfully.
AkivaII 2 months ago
Oh dear...politics.
One thing I'll never get is why Sagan, who was an ethnic Jew, would frown on Libertarianism when his people have been the target of many a "big government" throughout history, both Right and Left wing. I also can't believe he fails to see the difference between atheism and theism, since both are basically beliefs that can neither be proven or disproven. The lack of there being a God isn't as apparent as our round Earth. (cont.)
jackiedegracia 3 months ago
@jackiedegracia
Should read: "...he fails to see the lack of a difference between atheism and theism".
jackiedegracia 3 months ago
@jackiedegracia I'm guessing Sagans frowning on Libertarianism isn't based on the Jewish peoples tribulations from big government at all, it's probably based on the fact that he and many of his friends in the scientific communitiy recieve giant government resarch and project grants that would end if Libertarianism caught hold again. Same reason many people now would frown is because they are dependents of the state.
brewerscrew 2 months ago
DOCTOR Sagan issued an amazing smackdown. Love it.
Darconville 6 months ago
I miss him so.
badmovebaker 6 months ago
Sagan was on a whole different level.
SPRoubi2020 7 months ago
and yes im an extreme right wing crazy nught job libertarian, infact I'm even worse as an anrcho-capitalist.
That's not to say i like what most stupid main stream economics call "free markets".
MirageScience 7 months ago
@MirageScience How would you have them arranged, then? Personally I think that a "free market" system should be limited to individual consumer products, with the abolition of the right of propaganda for the organizations in charge of production. In this way it would be possible for people to buy goods on merit instead of on advertising, forcing them to actually produce goods that are worthwhile.
Keinlicht 6 months ago
@Keinlicht I'm for a real free market with no state. I'm for self individual governance, and perhaps a operational consensus towards laws. (far greater than a majority) Laws need to be limited to leave men and women on equal legal footing. As for your idea, what would happen to all the t.v. programs? and how do you think they made money to pay for the advertising?(advertizement is an expense option, it's rarely economical.)
There are plenty of anti-statists that share my view. (fringeelements)
MirageScience 6 months ago
@MirageScience TV as we know it I think should be abolished. Mass communication can be used much more effectively for education, news ect. if wrestled from the hands of Corporations. I think "Advertisments" could be reduced to a database of products regulated by a public institution. This would allow an informed consumer base, which is one of the main things our so-called "Free markets" lack today.
As for the entertainment aspect of TV, its already being usurped by the Internet.
Keinlicht 6 months ago
This is the first time I have heard Carl Sagan taking calls, but it would seem that he doesn't even want his callers to talk or he just can't listen.
MirageScience 7 months ago
I really love Carl Sagan, but the caller is totally right. Government subsidies always limit the progress or growth of an aspect in the free market.
IceCreamRueckert 7 months ago
Carl Sagan: poster-boy for totalitarian stateism. He replaced faith in religion and in a god with worship of the state, or at least a state that would ram his ideology down other people's throat. This is the same Sagan that predicted the Kuwait oil fields would produce a nuclear winter effect. He's a political shill hiding behind the mantle of science.
CrossoverManiac 8 months ago
@CrossoverManiac
Lol, YOU replaced religion for worship of the market. See how that works?
GnomesAmok 6 months ago
@GnomesAmok Actually, I'm a Christian. I don't support any state-sponsored religion, even the one I belong to. Statism is a state-sponsored religion where the state itself is worshiped. Statlists would ram their beliefs down other people's throats-the very thing they accuse theists of doing.
CrossoverManiac 6 months ago
The libertarian is not arguing that society should not teach science in schools, he was trying to argue that it is morally wrong to FORCE people to learn science in school.
dopejoel 9 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@dopejoel
Why is it morally wrong?
It is morally wrong to teach kids to be able to speak english (or whatever language is relevant for their country - I use english under the assumption you're from an english-speaking country)..
okay - so more broadly - is it morally wrong to teach kids to use LANGUAGE? not at all! otherwise, they can't survive!
so why it is morally wrong to teach kids not only truth, but logic, and critical thinking? THIS is what science IS.
TheRealityofNature 6 months ago
@kristopheraugust
I think what Carl does is get right to the heart of the issue by relating the underlying notions. I wouldn't consider that digression - more of a roundabout answer, yes - but in my view, much more effective than directly answering to a principle. If you can illustrate why a question is not grounded on sound ideas, then answering it becomes irrelevant.
taicleis 1 year ago
Also Sagan needs to get his financial literacy up to scratch, the profit motive is a well recognized part of economics and is widely accepted to help bring prosperity for all income classes. Even left wing economists (non-marxists) don't want to do away with the profit motive as its positive effects are obvious.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Sagan is Dead and he never was what you believe a "libertarian" to be and he was a very "socially aware person" One of the best Authors of his type and a credit to humanity. i would have rather had him give me advice than the morons from the mises in any day of the week. RIP Carl your a hero
franks2732 1 year ago
Lol PBS is in no way libertarian.
If they wanted a real libertarian/ classical liberal to present his views to Carl Sagan then they should have brought on Milton Friedman.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
What has this got to do with libertarians? Science, history, mathematics are facts and not opinions/ views while religion has no factual basis. I think even Sagan would admit that all the best schools at all education levels (primary, secondary, university) are all private. Private schools are able to teach students both practical/ vocational and academic skills much better than public schools even though public schools spend twice as much per student. This man is no libertarian.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
I'm a fan of Sagan, and I agree with his arguments against the caller, I just didn't like the almost belittling of libertarians here.
xXJADEXx7 1 year ago
Who says Carl Sagan's dead? He's still fighting for reason and compassion.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
All of you`re are political keyboard warriors who do nothing but contribute to cyber discourse.
YANKEEKID95 1 year ago
While I'm with Sagan on this one... I think he was a bit overly smug and dismissive of the caller who seemed like an intelligent and reasonable individual whether one agrees with him or not.
caleb462 1 year ago
It comes down to this:
Would you rather have the government spending money on what's better for the government ans using science as just another political tool to keep the populace in line?
Or do you want the people spending money on what's better for people, using science as a means of the betterment of all mankind even if profit is the incentive?
Don't kid yourself, the government doesn't care about global warming, clean water or outer space - but they'll pretend they do to get elected.
TehSmellulare 2 years ago
@TehSmellulare This makes no sense. You are saying the gov. will pretend to support the betterment of human kind just to get elected, but a company will pretend to support the betterment of human kind in order to make a profit. What is the difference? Do you think, for example, that the FDA doesn't give a damn about public health, but McDonald's does?
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded
McDonald's marketing strategy isn't healthy food, it's good tasting food, for some anyway. Thanks to the law, in this case the FDA, McDonald's needs to be truthful about what's in their food and if you or I don't like it, thanks to the current system, there's a market for healthy food as well. Demagogues will say whatever they have to in order to keep getting elected, in an open market, the individual can strive for what ambitions are most pertinent to him.
TehSmellulare 1 year ago
@TehSmellulare How is that any different than voting for a different candidate or running for office one's self? It seems to me that the entity with more to gain is the business. A politician gains power, a corporation gains both money AND power.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded
Well yea, I'm understanding your perspective, that money shouldn't control the people one way or the other. But the unfortunate truth is that the guy who gets elected is usually the one to which the money flows, so who's to say that giving the government more power wouldn't be for the benefit of corporations and at the expense of the average guy. The two sides are in far less opposition to each other than the average liberal likes to believe, me thinks.
TehSmellulare 1 year ago
@TehSmellulare I think that corporations have MORE power than the government as it is. At least with government there is some semblance of accountability. Why let the corporations take the reins completely? The governments job is to protect the people, and that includes protection from exploitative monopolies. It's not doing it's job right now, but that doesn't mean you scrap it and start over...
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded I may be at odd ends with other libertarians in that I agree with you that government, though plagued by human err, should ALWAYS have the authority to regulate businesses and corporations. But when a corporation can influence a government process, why advocate making it more powerful? I believe we live in a corporate-run society and with bigger gov't I see more of that on it's way. Sometimes I don't even see Reps vs Dems, just corps. on either side vying for power.
TehSmellulare 1 year ago
@TehSmellulare *its*
...and might I add that once corporations control your choices, it's right back to serfs and lords. All I can say is that it's a good thing the corporations are still competing against each other, because as far as a government that's supposed to be "for and by the people" goes, they don't have much else to compete with.
TehSmellulare 1 year ago
@TehSmellulare That's how it looks to me, I just think an unregulated market would lead to bloodshed. The only real solution is to have a separation of corporation and state. I don't know how that will be done, but I don't think it's by giving companies LESS regulation, that's for sure.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded Well, there's certainly no easy fix, and as a libertarian looking historically at places that have found some limited success under libertarian-esque rules of play (the early Greek cities, Italian states, Singapore and Hong Kong) you recognize they're all very centralized individual states with smaller, homogeneous populations, a bit opposite the USA. Certainly our country is one of the more complicated to govern efficiently, despite it's relative success.
TehSmellulare 1 year ago
@TehSmellulare The US is a different animal than any other country. We have no culture besides consumerism. That's not much to grow on. Sometimes I wish that the South had actually seceded, if only to have 2 smaller countries.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded Less regulation means more small business. Regulation helps big business as they have the economies of scale to absorb the compliance cost which obviously increases with additional regulation. The higher the compliance cost, the greater the damage to small business. Recently the Europeans have been developing a standard cost model which will try to index the average compliance costs in an aim to lower them to help small business.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi BINGO!!!!
uhaegde2wiceover 1 year ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand have very unregulated markets and have the fastest growing economies in the world. Look at the 19th century of the US when most of the wealth was created and the standard of living rose. During that period wages remained stagnant but prices fell thus increasing the standard of living.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi There were widespread strikes in the late 18/early 1900's, which resulted in regulations such as minimum wage, no child labor, shorter workweek, workman's comp, etc. The Socialist party actually had some power at this time.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Bullshit and a LIE. New Zealand has a highly regulated market just like Singapore, they have free markets yes but the controls on those markets are much stricter than in the USA. The banking sector for one, due to regulation has not been effected by "risk" regulation works. The proof is they are better placed to deal with 'a bubble" than the USA. As for bailouts nearly all nations have stimulated their economies and for the most part growth has returned Fact.
franks2732 1 year ago
This is disappointing because I have a deep respect for Carl Sagan and feel that he was one of the most influential scientists of our age, Dawkins too.
But both of them seem to think that bigger government will equate to more scientific funding and in doing so they allow for their scientific genius to be exploited.
Self-made men and women will fund scientific expenditures as has always been the case - I'd give my money to Google, SpaceX, XCOR or Virgin Galactic before I gave it to NASA.
TehSmellulare 2 years ago
I admire Carl Sagan very much, but I do think he is in the wrong on this matter. And his and the host's hastiness to bring in political sides revealed more about them then it did about the caller.
Government subsidization necessarily politicizes anything it touches. It's like a floodgate and once you open it, you don't know where it's going to go. Public schools are a necessary form of government, but as we've seen the public schools have become a hotbed of meandering politics at a large cost.
HapaLife 2 years ago
Lol@the libertarians.
HisRoyalDudeliness 2 years ago
lol at people advocating freedom? Really?
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Lol@you.
HisRoyalDudeliness 2 years ago
I see the Libertarian's point. I was once a Libertarian.
Still, Libertarianism would have a tendancy to create a large disparity between communities.
That is to say, the education system in Detroit or Alabama would deteriorate rapidly in a Libertarian society. The educated would flee to more prosperous communities, and what you would have is millions of disenfranchised Americans with no access to adequate education or services. It destroys opportunity for the non-exceptional.
LukeShetler 2 years ago
That's a valid concern. I think the real danger comes from corporate statism, like we have now. That's what really creates disparities between communities. It does so by stealing from the politically vulnerable and forcibly transferring to the powerful. The politically-connected gain at the expense of others. Experience has shown that when people are free and governments do not redistribute wealth, some people may get richer faster than others, but everyone tends to be much better off.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
"Experience has shown"
Oh has it, really? Where? When? How?
"from the politically vulnerable"
The who??
"The politically-connected gain at the expense of others."
You're describing corporate lobbying; how do libertarian ideals stop it?
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
If there is no government to lobby (bribe) there can be no immoral theft from the people to, for example, the morons who ran the investment banks into the ground.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Good talking with you! Take care.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
There is a video on YouTube titled "Is Limited Government An Oxymoron?," featuring Thomas Woods and Doug Casey, which you may not agree with, but I think, as a self-described "former libertarian," you would find it thought-provoking and entertaining.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Again, you have not addressed libertarianism with your reply to my questions, instead you've embraced anarchy.
Not to mention you completely dodged the challenge to back up your claims with evidence and explain who the "politically vulnerable" are.
You're not making very convincing arguments in favor of libertarianism so far.
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
Libertarianism is a broad term, which includes both anarchists, who advocate no government, and minarchists, who advocate limited government. Minarchists would include most Libertarian Party members, for example. I am advocating no government. Government is immoral at its core and unworkable in the real world. I could live with limited government, but I do not believe that it is possible.
I recommend the video "Is Limited Government An Oxymoron?" available here on YouTube for more on this.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Comment removed
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
"Government is immoral at its core and unworkable in the real world."
This is certainly an extraordinary claim, considering government has been working in the real world for millenniums.
You can't expect intelligent people to take you seriously if you want them to believe something without empirical evidence just because you claim it to be true, unless you're talking about religion.
Without empirical evidence to backup you up, your claims can be dismissed just as easily as they were asserted.
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
You are asking me to write essays which are too long for the space provided. There has been plenty written on this subject if you are interested in pursuing it. The essay "The Anatomy of the State" by Murray Rothbard, available online, is a good start. Web sites like Strike-the-Root or The Voluntaryist are also good.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
My claim that government is immoral at its core is a simple one. Government is violence. Do you advocate the initiation of violence? Do you agree with laws against drugs, porn, prostitution and other victimless "crimes" or are those exceptions where the state somehow just went wrong? If you cannot see that forcible taxation is theft on a grand scale, then nothing that I write will convince you.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
I didn't expect to convert you, by the way, nor do I think you're stupid, nor do I wish to impose anything on you. I simply wish to not have others' wishes imposed on me. Isn't that what you want for yoruself?
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
"Do you agree with laws against drugs, porn, prostitution"
Do you have a reason why these should not only be legal but also completely unregulated? There are obvious benefits to regulation of all three, from lessening the spread of disease to protecting people from harm.
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
Make them legal? Yes. Leave them completely unregulated? Absolutely not.
You're putting ideology ahead of common sense and your position is simply unreasonable because of it.
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
That anyone thinks that society should not teach science in schools, or provide it through other means... is just stupid and dangerous.
kablamo9999 2 years ago 16
@kablamo9999 That isn't libertarianism. You don't see private schools avoiding these subjects and they teach them much better than public schools.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Bull and Shit. the majority of Private schools in the western world are religious. A very high percentage in the uSA are "fundamentalist" in nature and they teach their kids the views expressed according to their doctrine. They do not do a better job. The US IVVY school like most high end private schools pays to bring in the best teachers money can buy. But None of the students will ever "have to work" or need to find jobs
franks2732 1 year ago
@kablamo9999 I accidentally voted this comment down so please always consider this with +1 thumb lol
TheYella20 6 months ago
Ahh... The old "thumbs down" without any argument response. I guess that means I'm right.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
I encourage people to enter "Pete Seeger - What Did You Learn In School?" in the YouTube search field as a reminder that schools may not teach creationism, (thank God! ha-ha) but they teach a lot of pro-state propaganda, which is the real reason that there is so much opposition to privatizing schools.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
badmuffy (below) does not understand libertarianism at all. Specifically, libertarian concepts of property rights. I have never met a libertarian who thinks that corporations should be allowed to dump toxic chemicals in "drinking water" or lakes or rivers. The libertarian position is that corporations are responsible for the harm that they cause to others through their pollution.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
If Mr. Sagan had really thought things through, he would have realized that he is necessarily defending coercion and theft. He clearly did not follow the caller's reasoning as to why the state should not be involved in education. The state does nothing well. Even so, did Sagan really believe that education should be provided at the point of a gun? Also, Sagan equates "libertarian" with "right wing," which is incorrect.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
I agree with you. despite having a few thumbs down. Sagan didn't thought it though. I guess we can't blame him, since he for so long participated in NASA as a consultant, which in essence is just money they got from us out of coercion. honestly I believe that´s money much better spent than in the military. It would be far better if the money they could get could be funded voluntarily, that way all space missions could be called truly virtuous.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
I love the movie "The Astronaut Farmer." It's fiction, but it captures the government attitude: "Hey! Only the STATE can do that! How dare you try to compete with our monopoly?!"
It's funny how one can sometimes accumulate so many thumbs downs on YouTube and not get a single reply explaining why they think the comment is in error. But then, trying to argue that taxation is voluntary is a tough one. :)
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
"he would have realized that he is necessarily defending coercion and theft"
I think this statement epitomizes the foolishness of libertarian ideology (and I used to be one); they have trouble seeing value in the things which government is better suited to provide than the free market.
This can further be seen in the statement, "The state does nothing well.", which is a statement of no merit. Does the state not provide safe water, food, roads, fire protection, law enforcement, and so forth?
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
You have a point. I should have said "The state does nothing VALUABLE well." There's nothing that the government is better suited to do than the free market, except to monopolize legal violence to the end of destroying things, waging war, and reducing our overall prosperity and happiness. Everything government does it does by force; everything it has, it stole. Government produces nothing and can give nothing away that it hasn't first taken by force. Morally, government is indefensible.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
When you advocate that the state do something, you are necessarily advocating the use of implicit violence to achieve your goal. The state doesn't provide a thing: individuals do. States interfere with the efficiency of that process. Everything the state gets marginally right, like roads, tends to cost much more than it would in a free market. The state always creates multiple unintended negative consequences to its actions which is an unavoidable result of doing everything through force.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Another way of saying this is, even if the government could provide things that are better and cheaper than the free market provides (which it cannot) even that would not morally justify doing those things at the point of a gun. The market is, by definition, voluntary. Both parties to a transaction participate voluntarily because they are better off. If you must force people by threat of violence to do things, they clearly do not see those things as desirable or they would already be doing them.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Do you realize you just argued in favor of anarchy?
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
Yes, I do.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Then you'd better start providing empirical evidence for anarchy being a better system of social order than all other forms of governance, if you want to be taken seriously.
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
You appear to want me to write a book -- 500 words at a time. There are only two ways to structure a society: voluntarily or coercively. If a little violence and coercion is a good thing, would more be better, or is it preferable to err on the side of too little violence? I prefer no violence or threats of any kind. Anarchy simply means "without rulers," not chaos. There is a natural order to things which coercion disrupts. Freedom works.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Without order, there is disorder, with disorder, there is chaos.
I don't want you to write a book, I want you to be reasonable and recognize that government regulations are for the good of humanity, not a threat of violence against individual freedom. Unless you are suggesting you should have the freedom to kill, rape, and steal.
Your position on government is entirely unreasonable. You do the libertarian ideology a disservice by trying to sneak your anarchy in under its banner. Please stop.
OlSpazzy 2 years ago
True. Order is the opposite or disorder. But government is not order. It is merely some people imposing their will on others. But who rules the rulers?
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Well, I did not invent the word libertarian and I am not the first to use it in this manner. "Libertarianism" has been used in conjunction with anarchy for much longer than I have been alive. As for stopping, I was only responding out of courtesy to you. I will stop now.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Libertarians typically don't call themselves patriots, their allegiance is to the concept of self-ownership and individual rights. The act of "pour toxic chemicals in our drinking water" would be a violation of those rights and a crime.
steveszkircsak 2 years ago 16
@steveszkircsak yeah but most libertarians think the government is like... putting fluoride in the water
Cheshirecat55 1 year ago
@steveszkircsak Who said they were toxic chemicals? I didn't know they were toxic chemicals. I'm not a chemist so I can plead ignorance so there!
technatezin 1 year ago
These so called Libertarian "patriots" will defend the rights of giant multi million dollar corporations to pour toxic chemicals in our drinking water. For them ideology comes first then human life.
badmuffy 2 years ago
@badmuffy Actually that is a third party effect/ externality as they have effected another's property. Milton Friedman covers this and advocates for government interference of prior restraint and after the fact.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago