Unregistered 43: Dave Smith
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- Dave Smith is a stand-up comedian, CNN and HLN contributor, host of the podcast Part of the Problem, and co-host of the Legion of Skanks podcast. He can be seen regularly on CNN's S.E. Cupp Unfiltered.
For bonus episodes, our Discord channel for supporters, and access to Unregistered Live, go to / unregistered
For courses you won't find on a college campus, go to www.unregisteredacademy.com/
Please follow us on alternative platforms as RUclips is an unreliable host:
rumble.com/user/UnregisteredP...
odysee.com/@unregisteredpodca...
Dave Smith is one of the best younger libertarian folks out there. Tom Woods is also fantastic.
Russell keeps saying Weinstein 'virtually' has a monopoly. 'Virtually' having a monopoly is not having a monopoly. 'Virtually' having a monopoly is not a legal infraction, is not illegal. I don't really see his point. Great conversation though
monopoly isn't illegal at all. govt is the biggest monopoly. and every institution they create and enforce is a monopoly. every instance of intellectual property is a monopoly on that idea, enforced with violence.
He’s like 60% stupid takes, he has great guests but he frustrates the shit out of me. Quick to unironically reference being an egghead and an intellectual and is completely outmatched in every facet of this conversation by a college dropout/ comedian. Dave is an exceptional case, of course.
I've hit "like" on this video at least 5 times and Everytime i look back again it's undone.
It really bothers me you don’t get more views. This is the best podcast available.
This is why I prefer Michael Huemer's approach to Libertarianism. Rather than trying to convince people of any objective moral claims, he just reasons on the basis of general common sense moral conclusions that virtually everyone would agree with.
Hey, Thadd. There's an add every few minutes. It's like watching primetime corporate tv. But thanks for the content!
Liberating idea though it may be, I don't think we should seek to be liberated from the shackles of reality....
I counted "like" 1000000 times
Thad, are you seriously not aware of the book Molyneux wrote on precisely the questions you're asking? You had an interview with the guy. That's his main shtick. If you were genuinely interested in this topic (and you seemed eager to discuss this with Molyneux when you spoke to him), why didn't you bother reading his arguments? (Or Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics which is very similar.)
Russell has it wrong about natural rights, objective morality, and his criticisms of the Declaration of Independence. The morality expressed in natural rights is individualistic. In other words it is immoral for anyone to kill or enslave or rob from _me_ to _me._ It has nothing to do with one's subjective opinion about other people and what their rights are. Literally every non-mentally defective member of every society that has ever existed has had this belief, because its just not possible to form a civil society without it. It's members would be murdered, or starve, or be enslaved, and would be bred out of the gene pool. This is self-evident and therefor objective. This behavior can even be seen in lower animals.
The Declaration of Independence is claiming this when it says that all men are created equal; it is referring to their rights, not to how well they can play basket ball. This was the revolutionary thing about Enlightenment thinking and classical liberalism; it is self-evident that no one believes that it is morally acceptable for others to murder them, enslave them, or steal from them; the lack of consent is implicit in and inseparable from the ideas. So we must all recognize the fact of our equality and 'do unto others as we would have them do unto us'. This is why governments _derive their just powers_ from the _consent_ of the governed.
Even the part in the DoI about "duty" is of a personal nature; one has a duty to defend themselves against those immoral things. Once again, this is not call to an obligation to intervene in others' defense, only to one's own. This is why natural rights are negative rights; they do not demand that others provide anything to the rights holder the way that positive rights do. So you have a natural right to life, but the police are not constitutionally bound to protect you, you have a duty to protect yourself, etc.
Clearly none of what you explained was self-evident -- yours is a minority interpretation. Taxation is theft, a positive obligation, and existed since the beginning, I think. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that morality (eg. "natural rights") has nothing to do with how others are treated (what (negative) rights they have) -- surely you agree that morality is universal, and anyone being raped anywhere, can justly be rescued?
>Clearly none of what you explained was self-evident -- yours is a minority interpretation.
So you think the right to self-preservation is a minority opinion? Dude, it's derived from an instinct that is found in every living creature. Can you point to anyone who believes that they themselves don't have a right to defend themselves from murder, enslavement, or theft?
>surely you agree that morality is universal, and anyone being raped anywhere, can justly be rescued?
The morality that is universal is that of the right to self-preservation, and while others may justly be aided in their defense, opinions vary on whether there exists any obligation to.
Self-preservation is obviously basically a universal instinct -- I was referring to your (the libertarian-ish) interpretation of the DoI/Constitution. I gave you the example of taxation -- most people don't see that as enslavement. Although, admittedly, it is a bit complicated, 'cuz as long as there was a way to peacefully opt-out, then it might have been justifiable.
Obviously there is no positive /obligation/ to help anyone. I just got confused a bit, I thought you didn't believe in universal morality, like Thad awkwardly claims :|. "The right to self-preservation" is an awkward synonym for the "non aggression principle" :p. It's awkward cuz it's not clear what "rights" are, nor what constitutes "preservation" -- mere survival, or comfort -- obviously not -- what you mean is "the right not to be aggressed upon".
>I was referring to your (the libertarian-ish) interpretation of the DoI/Constitution.
I never mentioned the constitution. I was referring strictly to the DoI since that's where natural rights are explicitly mentioned, and it's what Russell had a problem with.
>Obviously there is no positive /obligation/ to help anyone.
I would also like to amend my comment about the justness of assisting others. It needs to be with the others' consent, or at the very least one would need to have a reasonable belief that those they are trying to assist would consent if they could. Walter Block talks about this proviso regarding the relationship between parents and children, and caretakers and the infirm. Just thought I'd clarify.
> I just got confused a bit, I thought you didn't believe in universal morality, like Thad awkwardly claims :|.
Nope, not me. I believe in universal morality even as an atheist, and that it can be traced back to basic instincts for survival. Natural rights are just a codification, so to speak, of the universal instinct for survival.
>"The right to self-preservation" is an awkward synonym for the "non aggression principle" :p.
Well, yes, but it doesn't extend to other people until you accept that we all have that same natural right. Then it becomes immoral, by extension, to violate other's rights.
> It's awkward cuz it's not clear what "rights" are, nor what constitutes "preservation" -- mere survival, or comfort -- obviously not -- what you mean is "the right not to be aggressed upon".
That may be but that's a problem with language in trying to make the link between the ideas of Lockean natural rights and how the universality of the survival instinct makes those rights a description of something that is objective.
@ArtemiaSalina, what is "unnatural" / "immoral" about trying to hurt or conquer others? I'm pretty sure that passes the self-preservation test?
Let me explain why Libertarians use moral absolutes, and why I think that we MUST increase such claims.
--I do agree that when you get to the philosophical point, all we can say is that there is indeed not such thing as an external A.E objective morality.
--Now to why I think we must increase moral claims. When we argue with the left, or the right, you will quickly notice that we as Libertarians are simply playing on their field and use their tools. Not a single person who argues for their "welfare" or the "duty to overthrow dictators" doe so on the basis of a subjective perception of morality. Every time we make a consequentialist argument, the opposition immediately falls back on moral argument, also, if we ever want to make an argument to the people at large, I doubt many will even understand "subjectivity of morality, yet if you consider living in a particular society, categorical imperative would dictate that we follow such dictates, " argument.
--I would also like to challenge you. As you talk to other people and argue certain positions, do notice how often you use morality as if it is indeed an objective value.
One tiny industry in one corner of one country and an incomplete monopoly anyway. The industry is open to new firms and there are multiple competitors. I also really doubt Weinstein had such sway over his competition.
I am here because of Dave Smith but Thaddeus impressed me. I am not sure his logic is solid but he certainly has some points and of course, perhaps I am wrong.
Here is a first argument that comes to my mind:
- OK, sure, some women in some Muslim countries want sharia law, so we agree, morality is not universal, so we should not impose to them our culture (do I understand him correctly?).
- But on the other hand, he is saying that science did some terrible things to gays and some other groups. Terrible? By what standards? For some people this was right, so why impose your judgement and say that they were terrible? What are you? An imperialist? Also, some people are supporting wars, others don't. See there?? Morality is not universal, why then support not going to wars? Why do you want to impose your morality again? What are you dude? An imperialist (for not want to go to war - I think that is a good joke, if I may say so)?
I think that the logical conclusion to his train of thought would be nihilism, which he reaches in a way, but not all the way. Again, perhaps my arguments have flaws that I don't see.
20:30 Judith Curry said on Power Hour she gets this from climate scientists.
I tuned in to hear Dave Smith. I just about quit when Russell said he didn't know if slavery was wrong because most humans have been fine with it throughout history. >.> Does Russell say: "I don't know if the Earth is a sphere, because most people throughout history thought it was flat / I don't know if germs exist, because most people throughout history thought ailments were caused by evil spirits"? That's not an argument. How tedious.
Virtually every military honcho advised Truman not to drop the bomb and he did it anyway.
Human rights are like currency. They make society massively better, but only if we all believe in the collective abstraction.
roman gollum's still make you feel small thad?
that shit is google's auto correct fault not mine.. but google is the smartest AI so... lol
"All men are created equal" _regarding their rights_ and nothing else. That phrase is in the same sentence as, and in fact the clause prior to, the subject clause, which is natural rights. Of course people are not equal in the egalitarian sense, and the declaration of independence is not talking about people's abilities, strengths, level of poverty, or freshness of breath. What the DoI is saying is that every human being has a right to _defend_ their life, liberty, and property (the "pursuit of happiness" is a poorly chosen deviation from Locke's formulation because it is redundant since "liberty" already covers pursuit of happiness).
Thaddeus makes the same mistake that many on the left do, and that is to confuse "liberty" with "freedom." Liberty is the right to make decisions about your life choices, and freedom is the ability to implement them. The difference can be illustrated this way: you are not _free_ to jump off of a building while flapping your arms and fly away, but you _are at liberty_ to try.
Everything Russell says about objectivity and morality is fallacious. Straw manning and question begging, all of it.
Podcast gets boring and dumb around the 1:04:00 mark due to Thads attempts at semantically convincing Dave to adopt a postmodernist view of the world and never really gets back on track.
Alright Thaddeus, you are very opinated, and it's just opinions, but there are 2 facts that you got wrong, 1) there is no proof muggsy bouges ever dunked, nothing, no video anywhere, so you saying you saw a video, proves you're a liar and very opinated, this alone takes everything you ever said and casts all doubt. 2) you're wish for bionic knees means you have bad genetics, this is not opinion but fact. Therefore, before you keep embarrassing yourself and pushing your views on people, you should stop trying to make money by lying and start being truthful, it pays off not to lie. Credibility is profitable and takes effort, you do not take the effort to be truthful. You are a man who is taking advantage of young people by forcing your opinion on them and loose your credibility. Practice what you preach Thaddeus, how many immigrants have you let live with you and share your social media money with? The answer is none, so before you tell others how to act, which you love doing, and lead by example first and we will start taking you seriously.