Sam, your problem is that you're looking at the facts before you choose what policy to support. If you want to be a libertarian, you have to first pick your side, then disregard every inconvenient fact that comes your way, and stick to your hypotheticals, that will never graduate to theoreticals.
i keep thinking a Libertarian will come along to debate Sam and have something intelligent to say, and I keep being proven wrong. I'm wrong so often in this assumption that I'm beginning to worry I might actually be a Libertarian.
The few times Sam seder debated a libertarian philosophers and gave them time like Stefan molyneux and Walter block, sam couldn´t defend his point. To most random callers, if they say something unreasonable Sam gives them talk, and makes fun of them, but when they are being reasonable and shoving their point sam interrupts them, dont let them talk more than a fifth of the time he talks and then shuts the conversation asap and claims"well he wasnt saying anything" I tried to call, he interrputed me non stopand 10 minutes in when i managed to make my point he said "ok I have to move on, cal another time"
Martin - i've debated with libertarians, i used to be a libertarian - you have no rational position, your entire theory can be broken down into the simple argument of you want everyone to be free - you hate it when others force their morality on you. The problem is, you don't realize that you're forcing your morality on others with NAP. So if you can enforce NAP on me, then using the same logic, i have every intelligent right to force you to pay for social security. Libertarianism will never be a mainstream party - and it's because every government program we have was created because the libertarian philosophy of 'freedom' was failing the overwhelming majority of the population.
I´m a moral nhilist, so the moment you say i´m forcing my morality on others makes no sense to me. I can debate you if you want, I just think youtube comments are a bad place to do so.
Sam: Ok, give me an example. Libertarian: Well, with a 401k you can't day trade with it Sam: Ok, so if people could day trade with their 401k Libertarian: SAM YOU ARE SO ARROGANT OMG SLEAZING YOUR WAY THROUGH DON'T DO THAT TO ME
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
This debate wasn't fair! Sam was using facts, and every clear thinking, common sense anarcho-capitalist knows that facts have a far-left socialist bias. Next time Sam needs to play fair and only speak in philosophical, hypothetical terms.
"The facts have a far left socialist bias", my god what a stupid ass comment. Every comment on here praising this idiot Sam have no substance at all or data to support their claims.
Love that line at 10:00 or so - Matt: "Let's talk about this philosophically." Sam: "No, let's talk about it practically." And that's the Libertarian argument in a nutshell, which Matt comes back to over and over and over in this debate: Talk about everything as if there isn't a century of empirical data that reaches the concrete conclusions to support the system that just doesn't allow them to act on their own greed.
Because they know that their idea's are bad when you try to apply them to the real world. Sometimes their solutions are basically just worse than what we are currently doing.
Matt knew he had to talk about his beliefs in the realm of philosophy, because if he talked about them practically, he'd be seen as monstrous. "People should be trusted with their own retirement." "What would replace social security?" "Things like investing and real estate, stuff along those lines." "There are winners and losers in those things, right?" "Yeah, there are." "What happens when someone is a loser?" "Friends and family." "What happens if they're losers too?" "They would die by the millions in the streets." "That doesn't sound good." "Well it's good for the winners, like me and mine."
@@TheKrossRoadsPretty much... libertarianism leads to two paths... Path 1. Communism By eradicating criminalizing the very concept of currency... preventing people from being able to monopolize or coerce. Path 2. Use their deregulated state and currency to create a quest-enlightened feudal oligarchy. This is what Matt wants.
Liberty does not mean free from compromise. To be apart of a community, a nation, and a society ...you have to compromise some things for the greater good of society. I don't know why libertarians have such a hard time with that fact.
Darius1295 No the strawman argument is getting on television and downing those very successful social programs that these so called libertarians are benefiting from everyday.
'Libertarianist' isn't even a real term, and even if what you said is true (which it isn't) that is not even a straw man at all. Also stop +1'ing your comment's, it's pitiful.
Well Im voting for Gary Johnson who is the libertarian canidate for office Another viewpoint is to vote for the most destructive canidate to collapse everything because it be easier to rebuild. Your asking why someone would not my personal beliefs
They try and find some philosophical justification for some policy change that'll ruin millions of people's lives without ever talking about it's practicality.
He starts off saying he wants to talk about it philosophically, and then charges Sam with sneaking theoretical arguments in to his facts lolol god damn if I made this much of an ass of myself I would want to eat a gun (not saying dude should kill himself of course, just like…this is shitting your pants during a high school play level humiliation)
"What happens to the losers?" "They rely on friends and family." My God it's almost like he destroyed his own argument ironically without even realizing it.
I cannot think of one debate I have seen sam have with a libertarian where they do not debunk their arguments (philosphies). This guy did it a few times. Sad he doesn't even see it.
No man is an island. The only people who think in strict individualistic terms are rich people who don’t appreciate how much effort it takes for other people to support their lifestyle
This is the problem with libertarians in a nutshell, they don't care about the greater societal needs. Fact is, so many jobs pay such shit wages, it would be almost impossible for most people to save enough to invest. The reason Sam wins every debate with these people is less about his skill, and more to do with the utter ridiculousness of the arguments they make!
You have just stated the biggest misconception about libertarianism. Let me ask you this how do think government should show concern for the lesser in society?
That's pretty much they're argument: "society would be better if we do "x". but all of the people who don't have the means to advance into the middle class and their issues, that's up to them. I shouldn't be forced to help them, they should just be better day traders"
@Aaron By ensuring equal access to resources and opportunity, preventing of their exploitation by enforcing laws equally across all races/genders/economic classes, and applying all necessary regulations to corporate entities that have the most to gain from said exploitation. Also progressive taxation; because it does not make sense to have someone who is not rich pay a bigger portion of they living wage than someone who is wealthy.
a.fro80y You're referring to the "you're smart, i'm stupid, your good looking I am not attractive" comment aren't you? It was a pretty brief joke and I didn't see any moral justification to the question about why it is ok for government to steal (probably because there is no justification). And all Sam did was assert that it is working (by his definition of "working") and claimed it's not a Ponzi scheme because the money only runs out when people stop paying into it (which they are currently not allowed to do). But that is the same as a Ponzi scheme, they only fail when it runs out of "investors" and if the use of force to make people keep paying into it is all you need to prevent it becoming a Ponzi scheme then armed robbery can be used to negate fraud if you steal enough to cover your losses
+Matthew Sands Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme in the slightest, unless you define "Ponzi Scheme" to mean something that is not actually a Ponzi Scheme. www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/sep/24/carlos-curbelo/nod-rick-perry-carlos-curbelo-calls-social-securit/
Steve The link you provided does not really support your statement. You claim it is not a Ponzi scheme "in the slightest" as if there is no parallels at all. But the link you gave just refutes that it is exactly the same by giving 3 examples of ways in which it is different from a Ponzi scheme. So it doesn't really support your absolutist position. In fact, though it does not admit this in so many words, it does allude to similarities by listing the 3 aspects that make it different. If it was not "in the slightest" similar then there would be no need to point out 3 differences. Also there is a flaw in these 3 differences listed as 2 of them are actually the same difference rephrased and the other one is built on that same difference. For example, it says that it is not a Ponzi scheme because continued payments, which prevent the bottom from falling out, are guaranteed. But they are only guaranteed through forcing people to pay for it, which is one difference that I already spoke about in my original comment. The other difference it lists is that there is no deception involved, no actual fraud. And while this is kind of true (though you could make a case for deception as most people have been misled over the details of such programs, it is not technically fraud and does not require deception to fund it). But the only reason it doesn't require deception is because it uses force instead. I don't have to lie to you to con money out of you if I am just going to put a gun to your head to extract the money. So while this maybe an undeniable difference from Ponzi schemes (where deception is used instead of force) this is not a virtuous difference. If anything the use of force over deception makes it more criminal, not less. I am pretty sure the criminal charges I would face for conning you out of money would be far less than the criminal charges I would face for using force to rob you. I am not saying that it is identical to a Ponzi scheme. The unfunded aspect of it is where it is similar to a Ponzi scheme and makes it a Ponzi scheme according to very loose definitions. But if you explore in more detail there are very specific differences. The problem is that those differences increase the criminality of it, rather than decreasing them, as replacing deception with out right force only increases the criminality. I am afraid your argument has fallen flat on its face as your own link admits that the ONLY difference from a Ponzi scheme is the replacing of deception with force and the threat of violence. It is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that it is unfunded and rather than having any self sufficiency it actually requires constant funding to prevent the bottom falling out. That is how it is the same as a Ponzi scheme. The way in which is different is that rather than conning people to pay into it, they are forcing people to pay into it. This may make it different from a Ponzi scheme but by most sensible standards of morality actually makes it more criminal
Haha, look at this libertarian chump trying to move the goalposts. No, you said, "But that is the same as a Ponzi scheme." I posted a link showing that it is not. Don't try to weasel words your way out of this.
Steve How the fuck is quoting your exact words "moving the goal posts"? Chump? FFS. It is your fucking words. If you didn't mean it that way perhaps you should have chosen your words more wisely. But even if you think that is overly pedantic I just explained in detail why it is a Ponzi scheme in virtually every sense except one, where instead of conning people into paying into it they just flat our force them (so it doesn't matter if they are fooled by the con or not), which as I pointed out only makes it more criminal. So it is basically identical to a Ponzi scheme in every sense except it uses force as a back up for if the trickery fails. But don't worry about the reality of the situation or the content of my response, Just keep telling your self that I am a libertarian chump and you won the debate. What ever helps you sleep at night, moron
A voluntaryist, an anarchist and a libertarian walk into a bar... All of them are kicked out for being underage since only teenagers believe that shit.
haha unfortunately there are many adult Libertarians as well, I have a few on my fb list, they are animal activists which is why I've kept them, but yes..their views are really out there.
Victoria P That's odd. The LP platform is anti-animal rights. Libertarian Kooks Lew Rockwell and Tibor Machan have written extensively on why animal rights "do not exist", and can not exist in libertarianism. Of course, the paulbots on your fb list would claim that these two LP figureheads aren't "real libertarians."
@@scottgrohs5940 Ironically, the same police he would abolish. Libertardians are such idiotic hypocrites. Which actually, if you think about it makes total sense, their idol, Ayn Rand was against all governmental help, and cashed in her social security from the first day she got it until the day she died.
Sam you were outstanding!! You've said it before and it still holds true; all you have to do is let these guys talk, and their whole philosophy unravels in front of your eyes.
I remember when I was a Libertarian. It lasted for about 6 months until I realized how flawed my ideology was. Unfortunately I still have this name lmao
Wicker _ Oh I have a stalker. Lovelly. Welcome back Wicker_ Liberterians are minimalists government should be primarilly for organising the national army police and courts. The two basic rules are to not initiate force And do what you agree to do The free market relys on human instinct often refered to as "the invisibal hand" How does the invisibal hand have anything to do with human instinct? Humans move were the food is.
+Sprin Draconis biggest flaw is the assumption that corporations don't inherently do the right thing and are not always forced to by the free market. the libertarian ideology tries to be consistent but it's impossible. there always needs to be some amount of government. Why not label yourself as a liberal that wants government to only regulate when the regulations make sense because a lot of the time it does..
Libertarian like I said "minimalist" As bare minimum government as required based around the two rules I stated already. I think your confusing libertarian with anarchist.
As for regulation all that I feel is required is people are aware of the risks of what they agree too. If they decide its alright for them, well I don't think its anyones buissness to say otherwise.
People like the caller are actually deluded, they believe they are going to be the one who beats Sam at the debate. After all, they believe they win 'intellectual, philosophical debates' with their friends, therefore, they stand to win against Sam. The entitled, over confident, self opinion is astounding and very, very funny.
What is it with these libertarians being so defensive that they often fall back on pissing and moaning on how Sam debates them rather than focusing on their own arguments. Of course having an argument to begin with would helpful
Who mentioned socialism? The problem with libertarians is that they have to argue against a straw man to justify a view completely divorced from the consequences of reality.
Ematched So now in America we have welfare, government controlled healthcare, social security, retirement, medicare, medicaid, public schools, government controlled mega-corporations like Monsanto and Blackwater, government control over every facet of economic interaction etc. Calling that socialist is nowhere NEAR a straw man, calling it fascism would barely be a straw man, calling it 'liberal' or 'leftist' is a misnomer.
Bouchon211 Total straw-man. "Government-regulated" is not the same thing as "government-controlled," genius. How many of the fields you cited sell stock (i.e. draw on private funds), pay dividends to private citizens, and disburse outlandish bonuses to already-overpaid CEOs, execs, or, dare I say, mercenaries? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the only "government-controlled" entities you listed, and each works with far lower overhead and far superior results than their private-sector counterparts. Are you just mad that you don't have the "freedom" to buy light bulbs that waste an unnecessary about of energy and donuts that literally kill you as they make you addicted to their negligible, fleeting benefits?
dffykvn Hahaha! It is government controlled! They are too inept to actually run a healthcare system or do anything beneficial so the government controls private entities. Look up the definition of bureaucrat, because you obviously don't know what it means if you say a government run system wouldn't be run by bureaucrats. The government has no money, they can only steal from the taxpayers, they can't run or create anything. I find it hilarious that I payed $100 for the "profit hoarding" capitalist healthcare a month, now the government gets involved and I pay $200 for less care. Sounds like a fantastic plan!
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." What part of *promote the general Welfare* don't these selfish assholes understand?
Let me make this VERY simple for everyone listening to this here Sam: "How do you account for the data that says you're wrong?" Matt: (avoids it) "I don't. Like a kid I ignore things that are tough"
This guy challenges someone to a debate and comes with no facts? If you listen to Sam you know he has facts. You know he has numbers. If you are going to mouth off have something to back it up. I wanted to help the guy in half of the debate. I've heard enough libertarians that I can make better arguments for their side than this guy.
"So what happens to the losers?''. Answer is apparently 'Their family and friends help them out' or 'not your problem'. When outlined the outcome of this attitude he whines about emotive language. Half my family lives in Malaysia where there is no social contract for the elderly and the reality is emotive.
"Let's look at it philosophically" NO, let's look at the DEMONSTRABLE FACTS and REALISTIC RESULTS of the program. Because we live in the real world and know math.
actually, even if people save in a bank or put their money in 401k, the problem is the bank can close and the 401k can be a total loss. so a guarantee system is probably the best alternative. its not a Ponsy scheme because the income guarantee is fixed and not a fraudulent return on investment.
"You're appealing to emotion" = "I'm selfish and I don't care what befalls other people." When you're arguing the fundamental question of whether or not we should help people in need, you know you're a libertarian.
Why can’t people take care of the parents in their old age? Why do we have to start crying and saying “oh, the elderly are going to die in the streets”. It’s an emotional lie. Old people have been taken care of by family and friends for tens of thousands of years before we had social security.
@@firstlast9916Elderly people without children, or who do not have a relationship with their children, sick people, disabled people... what happens to them? Before social security, they were institutionalised. Before that, maybe they were literally left to die in the streets, subject to death hastening or senicide. If they were lucky, maybe they were taken care of by society (some form of socials security). Also, isn't the assumption that people will take care of their own parents in their old age an emotional one?
@@HollyComstock15 yes. it’s an emotional obligation for family to take care of. Not an emotional issue for strangers. Where is the evidence that old people were dying in streets before social security existed?
@@firstlast9916 What if the family is poor? What do you expect happens to people with no family to take care of them? Google geronticide and senicide. People would literally murder the elderly to save resources or the elderly would feel obligated to kill themselves.
Matt doesn't seem to know the difference between an appeal to emotion and a fact that's just horrible. If you say: "If you don't vaccinate your kids, they might die of an illness they wouldn't otherwise get", that's not an emotional argument, just because the thought of dead children evokes emotions in people. Same goes for "If you get rid of social security, more old people will be in poverty." An emotional argument is when you say: "This person, who was a father of three and worked as a social worker was killed by a MEXICAN IMMIGRANT!!! Build the Wall! MAGA!" It's emotional because it's not rational. Because other Mexican immigrants are not connected to him. The murder rate will not become better when you keep immigrants out.
“You’re appealing to emotion for arguing we should care about old people” lol I think we defined them finally. Libertarians doesn’t want to care about people
***** Lose? Not really, Matt. You started the "debate" off making excuses, and even acknowledged you were in search of a "new name" for libertarianism. Although, I'm not sure why. It's not like past libertarian rebranding efforts such as anarcho capitalism, agorist, praxeology or voluntaryism to name a few, were successful in masking your sociopathic agenda. “Libertarianism” is nothing more or less than an apology for sociopathic behavior presented as an ideology. Always has been, always will be.
***** Actually, you lose. You said many libertarians live in the classroom, where resides the "philosophy" you espouse (though libertarianism hardly deserves such a feeble classification to begin with), thus distancing yourself from the purebreeds and differentiating between "practical" libertarians and the nutjobs who maintain strong consistency with their economic delusions to the very end. All you've got is a data-free fantasy that sounds appealing to people who lack critical thinking skills and the capacity to assess outcomes. It must suck being you.
I'm a 401k auditor - we test the compliance of plans and an audit is one of the reporting requirements of the DOL in order for an employer to maintain a tax preferential plan. The whole basis of a 401k plan is to have the government take "their fingers" OUT of people's earnings, as long as certain conditions are met. The conditions are not the government putting their fingers IN to the system when the system was created by the government in the first place so that people could save and pay less taxes while doing so. I hope this illustrates why the caller's framing of 401ks is ridiculous, and also how absurd it is for him to denounce 401k as a libertarian. This guy saying the 401k system is "jacked up" is pure ideological cope with Sam's data that 401ks cannot be the sole source of retirement income. With all that said, 401ks are a beautiful retirement investment vehicle with all the incentives in the right place. If they do not support someone's retirement, it has nothing to do with the 401k system itself and everything to do with the person's saving power and spending habits.
The thing is Mr. Libertarian here was incapable of seeing how the 401k is exactly the hypothetical platform where people VOLUNTARILY invest! With a 401k the individual decides how much to put in, which funds to invest in and when to take it out...and the REAL LIFE DATA says ...it’s disastrous! So no, by in large people are not more capable of funding their own retirement!
Guys like this so frustrating Libertarian: “what data do you have to show people would be irresponsible with their money and won’t save for retirement?” “how about the data the government used to install Social Security” Libertarian: “Stop bringing facts into this conversation!!!”
Dang...been watching since 2014 and I've never seen this debate until now. TOO GOOD! Happy Holidays (and Merry Christmas) MR crew !! .....left is best (:
Strong arguments by Sam here. If people are poor after living in the US and paying taxes and having their money be made worthless by inflation for decades, obviously the government should step in and solve that problem
Matt: My principles say that there are better things than Social Security Sam: Real data in the real world says otherwise Matt: My principles say that there are better things than Social Security Matt is trying the bait and switch of saying the generally true statement "Successful people took great risks" but pretending it means "Great risk makes people successful" and ignoring the people for whom that risk doesn't work out.
Sam "lets talk about social security" Other guy "ok" Sam *begins to discuss social security* Other guy "hold on buddy we were talking about 401ks" Sam *begins to talk about 401ks* Other guy "WOAH WOAH WOAH I said to talk about social security buddy. TALK TO NE LIKE A MAN" *whines and complains the whole time*
I'm dying. I just found your show through Michael Brooks last week. My father used to say things like this to me when we argue about the state of the world; the classic Bill Buckley Jr. "Call me a Crypto-fascist again"
When 401k accounts were first introduced, they were supposed to be the end all be of retirement. They were supposed to be one leg of a three legged stool: 401k, company pension, social security. Companies have over the last three decades changed what a pension means. Guaranteed benefit has been replaced by guaranteed contribution with little if any protection for the worker's investment. 401ks were never guaranteed in their return and for many people have replaced completely company pension, leaving people with a two legged stool which can support only the best performers in a balancing act. Now the powers of capital want to get their hands on social security, literally the last leg for many to stand on. 401ks and guaranteed contribution were the money men's idea and you see how well they worked out. Care to trust them with social security?
Expecting everyone to start investing as a way to safe for old age is a terrible idea. Most people don't have a clue on what to do and they shouldn't have to. To argue that it's their problem if they lose is sociopathic. The whole idea of social security is that everyone can win, as it should be.
DiGeronimo's also in lala land about the 401k's. To start with, uh, yes, you can "day trade" your 401k's, invest in real estate (SOLO's) and invest them in your own business (ROBS plan). So yeah, it's *big bad government's fault* that 401k's success record isn't so hot since government ALLOWS you to use them to invest in a million different things of your choosing while exempting the moneys you put in your 401k from taxation. And he's serious..?
Libertarians seem to always defend a fantasy over reality, seriously every last one of these blokes behaved this way to me. I laughed when he accused Sam of appealing to emotion.
*My experience with debating libertarians:* Some get angry, frustrated and confused. A suprising number admit to being hypocrites who honestly dont care about other people and plan to live like gods in large glass towers "bladerunner style" looking down upon the drek, but its okay because selfishness is a virtue and its okay to be a hypocrite if its in you'r own Godly self-interest. Some insist that libertarianism IS actually for the greater good, and have some fairy tale idea of how it will all work out (invisible hands and shit).
I LOVED debating them in college. We had to debate in political science courses every two weeks or so, and people were always nervous, b/c we had a lot of bright people in the class. When a libertarian was signed up to debate I would volunteer every single time to get it out of the way, and to have a far easier time than if I went against another student. For the most part they just do not have the knowledge about facts, data, or anything in the real-world.
Yeah you aren't a hypocrite at all, bashing businesses on the internet on your Macbook while texting on your iPhone. Look around the room you're sitting in and realize that you're nothing but a hypocritical consumer. Give up all your "capitalist" goods that you bought voluntarily without threat of force and go live in a commune.
Matt (not the boss manning the studio) is unbelievably hypocritical, he tries to criticize Sam for making an appeal to emotion, and then does the same thing when he says that Sam is saying that people are too stupid to make their own retirement decisions. He doesn't want to accept the reality of his argument, its all well and good to be "philosophically" opposed to Social Security, but that isn't going to do much good when you're a retiree eating cat food because you don't have a regular income. He also ignores the fact that the market has performed very poorly for many people in recent years, and at the very least the Social Security system provides them with a guaranteed income every month so they have something. It's all well and good to be "philosophically" opposed but when the outcomes are disastrous that "philosophy" isn't going to put food on your plate and keep the lights on. I can see his point about Sam being a little acerbic when debating libertarians but he was restrained here and really just tried to pin him down on the realities of what he was saying.
***** Hey Matt, how about you stop insisting on metaphysical debates that are totally divorced from reality (in regards to Social Security, for instance) and instead debate the actual RESULTS of the program. But of course you don't want to do that because that's inconvinient for your philosophy. Libertarians never want to debate facts or real world results because their philosophy doesn't work in the real world.
Hey Sam....you should make this a regular feature. Nominate a topic - say Social Security or Industry Regulation (like the EPA) and the two of you have it out for 30 minutes a week. Please....EPA next. I want to hear Matt defend the Libertarian stance (as mouthed by Rabid Ronnie Paul and his gump son) of shutting down the EPA and placing trust in the Koch brothers to play nice and not pollute. That should be a laugh.
If your worried about pollution, you probably should be against the gov't since it pollutes more than any other group. (Wars, public projects, subsidizes to polluters etc.) Plus the supposed state solutions, carbon taxes and cap n trade, never reach their stated goals. Pollution always increases and the costs of the regulation get passed onto the consumers.
I disagree. This guy is not bright enough to go against Seder on a regular basis. He is a clown. The day trading bit is just moronic. On every single topic it went exactly the same; libertarian provides an example, Seder demolishes it in one or two sentences, and then the libertarian accuses him of being unfair. Depending on the example he says he wants to talk about philosophy, unless the philosophy part was destroyed, in which case he wants to "talk about the data". Total clown. Seder has been begging libertarians to call in constantly, and every one of them aside from 2-3 have been absolute morons.
I don't mean to offend Mr. DiGeronimo, but to paraphrase the late great Peter Boyle in 'Everybody Loves Raymond', I could have eaten a bowl of Alpha-Bits and crapped out a better argument.
This guy was pretty explicit about his ideology only working when you're avoiding facts and reality and only considering theory ("philosophy"). Libertarianism in a nutshell.
I'm a progressive libertarian... where "libertarianism" means "for maximizing personal liberty"... Anti-taxitarians that call themselves "libertarian" are not maximizing liberty, in my view. The issue is that anarchy is not "liberty". Traditional liberty includes SOCIAL LIBERTIES... you can go through town without being arrested as a foriegner. Personal liberty is a feature of a society. So people that want to have no rules on them, and don't care about the liberty -of others- are "not real libertarians" in the sense that they are not "really maximizing 'liberty'". Progress also has an appropriate technical definition.
***** um, no, I won't shut up, and I don't recall saying you were an anarchist. You are not "the issue". Do you realize that 2/3 of the elderly were in poverty and on the streets before SS?
***** sam hit the truth with the fact that he seems to think that the outcome is justified by definition if it was by the Libertarian Principles as he understand them. If it looked bad, like, lots of homeless elderly he sees that as an "emotional" issue and not a way to judge the system being discussed.
I would like to talk to you guys, but you seem to have your minds made up about me and about Libertarianism . . . but I'll give it a stab anyway. (Ematched . . talking like a man, includes talking like a gentleman. You obviously have strong feelings on this topic, I recommend you stop assuming everyone that disagrees with you is your personal chew toy . . . I can assure you wouldn't talk like that to me face to face.) First off, if you have any notion that I am a "fend for yourself" type of guy . . you have the wrong guy . . I believe that we have a moral obligation to help those in need . . however, I don't believe that we can evaluate a program based on its "intent" . . . All SS does is give people their money back . . . the disability portion of the SSA, is a totally separate discussion . . . what is so noble about that? For my generation we are likely to get less than we contributed back . . are we just supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to get anything at all back? Further, are we just supposed to accept (with shoulders shrugged an administration that requires $11 billion / year in administrative costs . . .$11 BILLION . . I say NO. . ) I view the government as a service provider of last resort. Therefore, if there was a crisis in our country regarding the care of our elderly . . . I don't dispute the role of the government to "step in" . . .what I dispute is now holding that position FOREVER. . . which will, in an environment, that lacks any oversight or competition, eventually eat away at the money they are supposed to be saving for us . . which it IS. I can understand disagreeing with me, but why could anyone be so violently opposed to alternate scenario where the government respects the people enough to let them invest their own money. For those that say, but I need help, that's what financial planners are for. As far as what happens to those that "lose" don't we already have programs such as welfare, food stamps, government housing, etc . . . and if that is not enough (which it might not be), what would be so brutal about establishing a program as safety net (insurance) for those that truly need it .. if you make below a certain amount per year over the lifetime of your working age, then . ."x". I'm not expressing this sentiment because "i want what's mine" . . .I'm a retired Naval Officer, I have no retirement concerns. I will repeat, i believe we have an obligation to assist those in need, to care for the sick, to care for the elderly . . .what confuses me is why any mention of, maybe the government is not the best institution to handle this . . people lose their minds. My motivations are to provide a stronger and more comfortable retirement for the elderly . . not less. If you disagree. . I get that. . but please, knock it off with the assumption that anyone that disagrees with the govt program of SS must "hate old, poor people" . . the reverse is true. What I really think we should be asking ourselves is why are the elderly dependent on SS at all? SS was not intended to be a living wage . . it was intended to be "insurance" . . . Here's the real kicker . . . the disparity between the rich and poor . .which is growing by the minute . . is causing this situation. . tax reform will not fix this situation. Until we realize that we have allowed our elected officials (Rs and Ds) to become dependent on the money of the truly rich to fund their campaigns . . to uphold their reputations within organizations, unions, corporations . . .we will never stop the trend of the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer . . regulations and tax reform is GREAT for the wealthy and the corporations . . they LOVE it . . they are invited to the table in DC to draft up the words of the regulations . . and in doing so ensure there is a back door or loop hole for them . . the regulations and tax reform ends up hurting the little guy . .not them . .they get richer and the poor get poorer. . .this . .in my opinion is the issue we should be focused on .. .most of the R vs. D is just recreational drama.
btw, Ematched . . for someone that conceals his/her identity, you sure talk a tough game. It's the internet, if you want to lurk in the shadows, go ahead, I get it. But please recognize that you are leading with a strong dose of cowardice right off the bat, by "hiding" online.
oh that was uncomfortable. DiGeronimo comes across as an extremely sympathetic guy but then he becomes really defensive all of a sudden and it gets super awkward.
Sam just rolled over this guy. The sad thing is that he challenged Sam to a debate. He's obviously seen Sam debate. He knows that Sam is aggressive, heavy on statistics, and is not interested solutions that are not proven practical. You want to sway Sam? Then prove to him that Libertarianism is grounded in reality.
***** So let me get this straight...Libertarianism is dervived from quantum mechanics? Its very hard to take Libertarians seriously when they spout specious nonsense like this.
***** Ohhh give me a break! Libertarianism is "rooted" in quantum mechanics...but statistics, mathematics and facts are not? Wtf are you even talking about?
I really liked that dude as a debater compared to the rest of the Libertarians Sam has debated over the years. That being said I think he was definitely arguing from a philosophical point of view when you boiled it all down. I see his freedom-based argument but it is hard to argue with, from a factual perspective, the positive impact social security has had on our elderly folks.
That's why family, friends, and community is so important. You think just because coercion is taken out of the picture people all of a sudden become heartless? Just look at things like Fundme.com ,all the voluntary charities around the world, all the marathons people do for research, etc. People will voluntarily help each other out. Communities will come together to solve problems. Libertarians are just saying take the gun (coercion) out the situation.
Eddie Diaz How much of the aid to the poor is actually from the government or government subsidised? Do you really think private charity can actually replace welfare?
I do believe charity will work, it will have to work. Humans in general want to help each other out, of course there are cunts here and there but for the most part we want to be of assistance to others. Even the "greedy' corporatist such as Bill gates, donate millions of dollars all the time. The other proof is how the majority want to legislate mandatory social security. A majority already wants a system to help the poor. Just take the coercion out of the picture.
Eddie Diaz Diaz Wishful thinking. Firstly; Most humans are good people, but it takes just a handful of influential assholes (Koch brothers, Monsanto, oil industry, private militarise etc)to absolutely crush a system made up of good intentions, just for profit. Secondly; "it will have to" is not an intelligent solution to a problem that would force other human beings to starve to death or whole families to sleep outside without shelter, maybe even freeze to death. How many homeless people are turned away from shelters every night because they are at capacity already; even with both private & government assistance already here.
you claim that my argument is wishful thinking but I can turn that around and say that the state without corruption is wishful thinking. Those Influential assholes you mentioned will always be attracted to centralized power. Have you ever heard the quote " If voting made a difference they would make it illegal"? I can also say that people who lean towards having more government involvement are thinking out of fear. The arguments always against no state is but who will do this, who will do that, etc.. It could of been wishful thinking when people pondered the idea of the world not accepting slavery. But it happened! Well we could argue about different levels of slavery that still exist but you know what I mean. I get the idea of wanting a centralized power to mandate wealth distribution to help people... I want that too. But since seeing the state for what it is has completely changed my paradigm. Government is simply a small group of people that some people give authority to initiate coercion. For a government to even exist it has to be funded somehow. That somehow is what we currently call taxes. But what happens if you disagree how these small "elected" representatives are running society? you don't contribute to the pot you get men in costumes coming at your door. You resist peacefully you get locked in a cage. you resist being locked in a cage you get shot. Just see the gun in the room. Anytime you advocate more government more legislation, etc just always remember there is a gun behind that. If i was your brother or best friend and was a peaceful person, never hurt anyone, gave to charities, helped people out, but just despised the endless wars so much that i refused to Pay my taxes because I knew that they were partially going to the death of millions of people. Would you be willing to lock me in a cage? This is why everything must be voluntary. That way if you don't like how a service is running, you simply stop paying them.
Sam, your problem is that you're looking at the facts before you choose what policy to support. If you want to be a libertarian, you have to first pick your side, then disregard every inconvenient fact that comes your way, and stick to your hypotheticals, that will never graduate to theoreticals.
Haha this actually made me laugh
Yep libertarians live in a alternative universe a selfish one at that
That is not the guy to debate, but those are also not the questions to ask. Come up with a better plan.
coladict 😆
And then threaten anybody who points out those inconvenient facts and the complete disconnect between your hypotheticals and reality.
i keep thinking a Libertarian will come along to debate Sam and have something intelligent to say, and I keep being proven wrong. I'm wrong so often in this assumption that I'm beginning to worry I might actually be a Libertarian.
The few times Sam seder debated a libertarian philosophers and gave them time like Stefan molyneux and Walter block, sam couldn´t defend his point. To most random callers, if they say something unreasonable Sam gives them talk, and makes fun of them, but when they are being reasonable and shoving their point sam interrupts them, dont let them talk more than a fifth of the time he talks and then shuts the conversation asap and claims"well he wasnt saying anything"
I tried to call, he interrputed me non stopand 10 minutes in when i managed to make my point he said "ok I have to move on, cal another time"
+Martin Gelso I watched those, and respectfully disagree.
Martin - i've debated with libertarians, i used to be a libertarian - you have no rational position, your entire theory can be broken down into the simple argument of you want everyone to be free - you hate it when others force their morality on you.
The problem is, you don't realize that you're forcing your morality on others with NAP. So if you can enforce NAP on me, then using the same logic, i have every intelligent right to force you to pay for social security.
Libertarianism will never be a mainstream party - and it's because every government program we have was created because the libertarian philosophy of 'freedom' was failing the overwhelming majority of the population.
I´m a moral nhilist, so the moment you say i´m forcing my morality on others makes no sense to me. I can debate you if you want, I just think youtube comments are a bad place to do so.
"moral nihilist"
That's redundant.
"Don't go into theory!!!!! Anyhow, lets look talk about it theoretically, philosophically, hypothetically, possibly, maybe, in some way, somehow..."
"I've never made an extreme point, anyhow, lets abolish social security, privatize the courts, cops, and water sources."
...and don't forget: everyone travels by jet-pack because there will be no roads.
@@kenbob1071 i said this 5 years ago, and I still stand by it today
@@kenbob1071 but wait we have to make our own jet packs so we have to teach our selves engineering without any help.
and firefighters
@@kenbob1071 The only person who doesn't need roads is Doc Brown.
Sam: Ok, give me an example.
Libertarian: Well, with a 401k you can't day trade with it
Sam: Ok, so if people could day trade with their 401k
Libertarian: SAM YOU ARE SO ARROGANT OMG SLEAZING YOUR WAY THROUGH DON'T DO THAT TO ME
When he said: "Dont do that to me" he was talking about "critically think about what i just said".
there's that philosophy talk he was going on about I guess
@@jeova0sanctus0unusthink critically about people not being able to day trade with their retirement money!
Matt: "This system is bankrupt!"
Sam: "You wanna argue that the system is bankrupt!?"
Matt: "Nononono..."
🤣
7:48 Amazing.😄👍
He made it 20 minutes before resorting to physical threats. Matt Digeronimo is a major intellectual powerhouse.
kippy1997 He 19:51 _almost_ made it 20 minutes.
@@redlightmax okay so he's a *minor* intellectual powerhouse then, lol 🤣
Emotional heavyweight!
@@redlightmax He's not even on until 40 seconds in lol
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
perfect
True
This debate wasn't fair! Sam was using facts, and every clear thinking, common sense anarcho-capitalist knows that facts have a far-left socialist bias. Next time Sam needs to play fair and only speak in philosophical, hypothetical terms.
"The facts have a far left socialist bias", my god what a stupid ass comment. Every comment on here praising this idiot Sam have no substance at all or data to support their claims.
@@Bouchon211 Except for all the substance and data that Sam brought up.
Love that line at 10:00 or so -
Matt: "Let's talk about this philosophically."
Sam: "No, let's talk about it practically."
And that's the Libertarian argument in a nutshell, which Matt comes back to over and over and over in this debate: Talk about everything as if there isn't a century of empirical data that reaches the concrete conclusions to support the system that just doesn't allow them to act on their own greed.
Because they know that their idea's are bad when you try to apply them to the real world. Sometimes their solutions are basically just worse than what we are currently doing.
Matt knew he had to talk about his beliefs in the realm of philosophy, because if he talked about them practically, he'd be seen as monstrous.
"People should be trusted with their own retirement."
"What would replace social security?"
"Things like investing and real estate, stuff along those lines."
"There are winners and losers in those things, right?"
"Yeah, there are."
"What happens when someone is a loser?"
"Friends and family."
"What happens if they're losers too?"
"They would die by the millions in the streets."
"That doesn't sound good."
"Well it's good for the winners, like me and mine."
@@TheKrossRoadsPretty much... libertarianism leads to two paths...
Path 1. Communism
By eradicating criminalizing the very concept of currency... preventing people from being able to monopolize or coerce.
Path 2.
Use their deregulated state and currency to create a quest-enlightened feudal oligarchy. This is what Matt wants.
“You’re using the data in a very disingenuous way”
Also known as: quoting it
Liberty does not mean free from compromise. To be apart of a community, a nation, and a society ...you have to compromise some things for the greater good of society. I don't know why libertarians have such a hard time with that fact.
well said ..
Straw man argument
Darius1295 No the strawman argument is getting on television and downing those very successful social programs that these so called libertarians are benefiting from everyday.
'Libertarianist' isn't even a real term, and even if what you said is true (which it isn't) that is not even a straw man at all.
Also stop +1'ing your comment's, it's pitiful.
FORCE
It's so easy to debate with Libertarians.
fight me scoob
Sprin Draconis
Why are so many Libertarians cucks to authoritarian right-wing dipshits?
Something_to_appease_Google Lack of alternative options for public office.
Sprin Draconis
So fuck your ideology because the people who share your ideology are too lazy to run for public office?
Well Im voting for Gary Johnson who is the libertarian canidate for office
Another viewpoint is to vote for the most destructive canidate to collapse everything because it be easier to rebuild.
Your asking why someone would not my personal beliefs
"Let's talk about it philosophically"
This is why libertarianism is stupid.
They try and find some philosophical justification for some policy change that'll ruin millions of people's lives without ever talking about it's practicality.
Then even when you do think about it purely philosophically their hypothetical society still breaks down almost instantly.
He starts off saying he wants to talk about it philosophically, and then charges Sam with sneaking theoretical arguments in to his facts lolol god damn if I made this much of an ass of myself I would want to eat a gun (not saying dude should kill himself of course, just like…this is shitting your pants during a high school play level humiliation)
"What happens to the losers?"
"They rely on friends and family."
My God it's almost like he destroyed his own argument ironically without even realizing it.
I cannot think of one debate I have seen sam have with a libertarian where they do not debunk their arguments (philosphies). This guy did it a few times. Sad he doesn't even see it.
@@ghostoftoller51 The fact that he doesn't see it is why he's a Libertardian.
I love it when people try to pretend the world is as simple as "I make money - it's mine" as if it's not in a context of 300 million other people.
No man is an island. The only people who think in strict individualistic terms are rich people who don’t appreciate how much effort it takes for other people to support their lifestyle
@@52flyingbicycles - Yeah, pretty sure the vast majority of these libertarian nutjobs have never actually suffered, especially in a financial sense.
This guy was not ready to debate with Sam Seder. I am sorry.
It's always the guy that works at a deli that's arguing against his own interests.
zwergie256 And of course you still know better?
@@davincicod1 yes
Man, Sam is the king of this shit, he had the guy on the back foot from the minute he took the call.
Being a hard core Libertarian is like living life on magic mushrooms 24 - 7.
Don't disrespect mushrooms like that
DiGeronimo jumps around like a frog catching flies, he stutters and stammers because he has no cogent argument. Good one Sam.
This is the problem with libertarians in a nutshell, they don't care about the greater societal needs. Fact is, so many jobs pay such shit wages, it would be almost impossible for most people to save enough to invest. The reason Sam wins every debate with these people is less about his skill, and more to do with the utter ridiculousness of the arguments they make!
Asian immigrants with little to no formal education would like to disagree.
You have just stated the biggest misconception about libertarianism. Let me ask you this how do think government should show concern for the lesser in society?
That's pretty much they're argument: "society would be better if we do "x". but all of the people who don't have the means to advance into the middle class and their issues, that's up to them. I shouldn't be forced to help them, they should just be better day traders"
@Aaron By ensuring equal access to resources and opportunity, preventing of their exploitation by enforcing laws equally across all races/genders/economic classes, and applying all necessary regulations to corporate entities that have the most to gain from said exploitation. Also progressive taxation; because it does not make sense to have someone who is not rich pay a bigger portion of they living wage than someone who is wealthy.
@@DreadPages Asians that come to America tend to have old world money from their country, you absolute doorknob
Wait a minute, who's getting emotional here? The guy litterally has the emotional maturity of Happy Gilmore when he's been outsmarted!
a.fro80y You're referring to the "you're smart, i'm stupid, your good looking I am not attractive" comment aren't you? It was a pretty brief joke and I didn't see any moral justification to the question about why it is ok for government to steal (probably because there is no justification). And all Sam did was assert that it is working (by his definition of "working") and claimed it's not a Ponzi scheme because the money only runs out when people stop paying into it (which they are currently not allowed to do). But that is the same as a Ponzi scheme, they only fail when it runs out of "investors" and if the use of force to make people keep paying into it is all you need to prevent it becoming a Ponzi scheme then armed robbery can be used to negate fraud if you steal enough to cover your losses
+Matthew Sands Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme in the slightest, unless you define "Ponzi Scheme" to mean something that is not actually a Ponzi Scheme. www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/sep/24/carlos-curbelo/nod-rick-perry-carlos-curbelo-calls-social-securit/
Steve The link you provided does not really support your statement. You claim it is not a Ponzi scheme "in the slightest" as if there is no parallels at all. But the link you gave just refutes that it is exactly the same by giving 3 examples of ways in which it is different from a Ponzi scheme. So it doesn't really support your absolutist position. In fact, though it does not admit this in so many words, it does allude to similarities by listing the 3 aspects that make it different. If it was not "in the slightest" similar then there would be no need to point out 3 differences.
Also there is a flaw in these 3 differences listed as 2 of them are actually the same difference rephrased and the other one is built on that same difference.
For example, it says that it is not a Ponzi scheme because continued payments, which prevent the bottom from falling out, are guaranteed. But they are only guaranteed through forcing people to pay for it, which is one difference that I already spoke about in my original comment.
The other difference it lists is that there is no deception involved, no actual fraud. And while this is kind of true (though you could make a case for deception as most people have been misled over the details of such programs, it is not technically fraud and does not require deception to fund it).
But the only reason it doesn't require deception is because it uses force instead.
I don't have to lie to you to con money out of you if I am just going to put a gun to your head to extract the money.
So while this maybe an undeniable difference from Ponzi schemes (where deception is used instead of force) this is not a virtuous difference. If anything the use of force over deception makes it more criminal, not less.
I am pretty sure the criminal charges I would face for conning you out of money would be far less than the criminal charges I would face for using force to rob you.
I am not saying that it is identical to a Ponzi scheme. The unfunded aspect of it is where it is similar to a Ponzi scheme and makes it a Ponzi scheme according to very loose definitions. But if you explore in more detail there are very specific differences. The problem is that those differences increase the criminality of it, rather than decreasing them, as replacing deception with out right force only increases the criminality.
I am afraid your argument has fallen flat on its face as your own link admits that the ONLY difference from a Ponzi scheme is the replacing of deception with force and the threat of violence.
It is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that it is unfunded and rather than having any self sufficiency it actually requires constant funding to prevent the bottom falling out.
That is how it is the same as a Ponzi scheme.
The way in which is different is that rather than conning people to pay into it, they are forcing people to pay into it. This may make it different from a Ponzi scheme but by most sensible standards of morality actually makes it more criminal
Haha, look at this libertarian chump trying to move the goalposts. No, you said, "But that is the same as a Ponzi scheme." I posted a link showing that it is not. Don't try to weasel words your way out of this.
Steve How the fuck is quoting your exact words "moving the goal posts"? Chump?
FFS. It is your fucking words. If you didn't mean it that way perhaps you should have chosen your words more wisely.
But even if you think that is overly pedantic I just explained in detail why it is a Ponzi scheme in virtually every sense except one, where instead of conning people into paying into it they just flat our force them (so it doesn't matter if they are fooled by the con or not), which as I pointed out only makes it more criminal.
So it is basically identical to a Ponzi scheme in every sense except it uses force as a back up for if the trickery fails.
But don't worry about the reality of the situation or the content of my response, Just keep telling your self that I am a libertarian chump and you won the debate. What ever helps you sleep at night, moron
A voluntaryist, an anarchist and a libertarian walk into a bar...
All of them are kicked out for being underage since only teenagers believe that shit.
haha unfortunately there are many adult Libertarians as well, I have a few on my fb list, they are animal activists which is why I've kept them, but yes..their views are really out there.
Victoria P That's odd. The LP platform is anti-animal rights. Libertarian Kooks Lew Rockwell and Tibor Machan have written extensively on why animal rights "do not exist", and can not exist in libertarianism. Of course, the paulbots on your fb list would claim that these two LP figureheads aren't "real libertarians."
MintV2
Based on my experience with Libertarians, the only true Libertarian is the Libertarian you're talking to in that moment.
devourerofbabies That's my experience, too.
Hi guise, I love you too. Growing up is all about accepting that forceful compulsion is the only way to get things done
Matt Digeronimo: "I wish we were face to face..." *Thug Life - Libertarian*
ooooooh such a badass man! 😂
And after he got smacked down in the physical altercation area, he would be the first one to go crying to the police.
@@scottgrohs5940 Ironically, the same police he would abolish. Libertardians are such idiotic hypocrites. Which actually, if you think about it makes total sense, their idol, Ayn Rand was against all governmental help, and cashed in her social security from the first day she got it until the day she died.
I lost it when he suggested investing retirement savings into real estate..really, really stupid idea.
Especially if EVERY AMERICAN did it
Debating a libertarian is like sword-fighting a fart.
🤣
in this "match of wits"...sam should have been arrested for attacking an unarmed man
"Of course I'm not serious" - Every Libertarian
18:56 "...but I'm happy to do this, really, every day for the rest of my life."
I believe Sam, he's having a blast.😄
Sam you were outstanding!! You've said it before and it still holds true; all you have to do is let these guys talk, and their whole philosophy unravels in front of your eyes.
I remember when I was a Libertarian. It lasted for about 6 months until I realized how flawed my ideology was. Unfortunately I still have this name lmao
whats the bigest flaw
Wicker _ Oh I have a stalker. Lovelly.
Welcome back Wicker_
Liberterians are minimalists government should be primarilly for organising the national army police and courts.
The two basic rules are to not initiate force
And do what you agree to do
The free market relys on human instinct often refered to as "the invisibal hand"
How does the invisibal hand have anything to do with human instinct? Humans move were the food is.
+Sprin Draconis biggest flaw is the assumption that corporations don't inherently do the right thing and are not always forced to by the free market. the libertarian ideology tries to be consistent but it's impossible. there always needs to be some amount of government. Why not label yourself as a liberal that wants government to only regulate when the regulations make sense because a lot of the time it does..
Libertarian like I said "minimalist"
As bare minimum government as required based around the two rules I stated already. I think your confusing libertarian with anarchist.
As for regulation all that I feel is required is people are aware of the risks of what they agree too. If they decide its alright for them, well I don't think its anyones buissness to say otherwise.
Wow. I don’t think I have ever heard “you’re a very talented debater” as a debate move.
This is a pretty hilarious takedown...the interaction is like oil and water.
People like the caller are actually deluded, they believe they are going to be the one who beats Sam at the debate. After all, they believe they win 'intellectual, philosophical debates' with their friends, therefore, they stand to win against Sam. The entitled, over confident, self opinion is astounding and very, very funny.
What is it with these libertarians being so defensive that they often fall back on pissing and moaning on how Sam debates them rather than focusing on their own arguments. Of course having an argument to begin with would helpful
It's all about adhering to a principle (also known as the libertarian delusion) regardless of the consequences.
Who mentioned socialism? The problem with libertarians is that they have to argue against a straw man to justify a view completely divorced from the consequences of reality.
Ematched So now in America we have welfare, government controlled healthcare, social security, retirement, medicare, medicaid, public schools, government controlled mega-corporations like Monsanto and Blackwater, government control over every facet of economic interaction etc. Calling that socialist is nowhere NEAR a straw man, calling it fascism would barely be a straw man, calling it 'liberal' or 'leftist' is a misnomer.
Bouchon211 Total straw-man. "Government-regulated" is not the same thing as "government-controlled," genius. How many of the fields you cited sell stock (i.e. draw on private funds), pay dividends to private citizens, and disburse outlandish bonuses to already-overpaid CEOs, execs, or, dare I say, mercenaries?
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the only "government-controlled" entities you listed, and each works with far lower overhead and far superior results than their private-sector counterparts.
Are you just mad that you don't have the "freedom" to buy light bulbs that waste an unnecessary about of energy and donuts that literally kill you as they make you addicted to their negligible, fleeting benefits?
dffykvn Hahaha! It is government controlled! They are too inept to actually run a healthcare system or do anything beneficial so the government controls private entities. Look up the definition of bureaucrat, because you obviously don't know what it means if you say a government run system wouldn't be run by bureaucrats. The government has no money, they can only steal from the taxpayers, they can't run or create anything.
I find it hilarious that I payed $100 for the "profit hoarding" capitalist healthcare a month, now the government gets involved and I pay $200 for less care. Sounds like a fantastic plan!
*Day trading with 401k!* LMAO
The Constitution says "We the People" not "you are own your own." We are all in this together.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What part of *promote the general Welfare* don't these selfish assholes understand?
I love the way he keeps making points and then backing away from them.
Let me make this VERY simple for everyone listening to this here
Sam: "How do you account for the data that says you're wrong?"
Matt: (avoids it) "I don't. Like a kid I ignore things that are tough"
This debate was a great treat. I've been waiting for a good Libertariain thrashing for a while.
This guy challenges someone to a debate and comes with no facts? If you listen to Sam you know he has facts. You know he has numbers. If you are going to mouth off have something to back it up. I wanted to help the guy in half of the debate. I've heard enough libertarians that I can make better arguments for their side than this guy.
And bias is what?????? Wrong?????? Or is it an opinion?
Call the show.
"So what happens to the losers?''. Answer is apparently 'Their family and friends help them out' or 'not your problem'. When outlined the outcome of this attitude he whines about emotive language. Half my family lives in Malaysia where there is no social contract for the elderly and the reality is emotive.
This is hilarious, the best one so far
"Let's look at it philosophically"
NO, let's look at the DEMONSTRABLE FACTS and REALISTIC RESULTS of the program. Because we live in the real world and know math.
actually, even if people save in a bank or put their money in 401k, the problem is the bank can close and the 401k can be a total loss. so a guarantee system is probably the best alternative. its not a Ponsy scheme because the income guarantee is fixed and not a fraudulent return on investment.
“Sam, this isn’t fair. You’re winning the debate. If you win the debate, I lose the debate!”
The classic "I got mine, fuck you if you don't have yours" philosophy of Libertarianism.
"You're appealing to emotion" = "I'm selfish and I don't care what befalls other people."
When you're arguing the fundamental question of whether or not we should help people in need, you know you're a libertarian.
"You're appealing to emotion" is an accusation coming from the side based on anger and fear.
Why can’t people take care of the parents in their old age? Why do we have to start crying and saying “oh, the elderly are going to die in the streets”. It’s an emotional lie. Old people have been taken care of by family and friends for tens of thousands of years before we had social security.
@@firstlast9916Elderly people without children, or who do not have a relationship with their children, sick people, disabled people... what happens to them? Before social security, they were institutionalised. Before that, maybe they were literally left to die in the streets, subject to death hastening or senicide. If they were lucky, maybe they were taken care of by society (some form of socials security).
Also, isn't the assumption that people will take care of their own parents in their old age an emotional one?
@@HollyComstock15 yes. it’s an emotional obligation for family to take care of. Not an emotional issue for strangers. Where is the evidence that old people were dying in streets before social security existed?
@@firstlast9916 What if the family is poor? What do you expect happens to people with no family to take care of them? Google geronticide and senicide. People would literally murder the elderly to save resources or the elderly would feel obligated to kill themselves.
"you're good looking, i'm not"
this guy has it baaad for Sam
This Matt dude is like "DONT USE FACTS...IT"S UNFAIR!!!" lololololololzzzzz
Matt doesn't seem to know the difference between an appeal to emotion and a fact that's just horrible.
If you say: "If you don't vaccinate your kids, they might die of an illness they wouldn't otherwise get", that's not an emotional argument, just because the thought of dead children evokes emotions in people.
Same goes for "If you get rid of social security, more old people will be in poverty."
An emotional argument is when you say: "This person, who was a father of three and worked as a social worker was killed by a MEXICAN IMMIGRANT!!! Build the Wall! MAGA!" It's emotional because it's not rational. Because other Mexican immigrants are not connected to him. The murder rate will not become better when you keep immigrants out.
“You’re appealing to emotion for arguing we should care about old people” lol I think we defined them finally. Libertarians doesn’t want to care about people
Just starting to watch it.. making a prediction - Matt Digeronimo will claim some other libertarian isn't a true libertarian
You lose.
***** Lose? Not really, Matt. You started the "debate" off making excuses, and even acknowledged you were in search of a "new name" for libertarianism. Although, I'm not sure why. It's not like past libertarian rebranding efforts such as anarcho capitalism, agorist, praxeology or voluntaryism to name a few, were successful in masking your sociopathic agenda.
“Libertarianism” is nothing more or less than an apology for sociopathic behavior presented as an ideology. Always has been, always will be.
***** Actually, you lose. You said many libertarians live in the classroom, where resides the "philosophy" you espouse (though libertarianism hardly deserves such a feeble classification to begin with), thus distancing yourself from the purebreeds and differentiating between "practical" libertarians and the nutjobs who maintain strong consistency with their economic delusions to the very end.
All you've got is a data-free fantasy that sounds appealing to people who lack critical thinking skills and the capacity to assess outcomes.
It must suck being you.
I'm a 401k auditor - we test the compliance of plans and an audit is one of the reporting requirements of the DOL in order for an employer to maintain a tax preferential plan.
The whole basis of a 401k plan is to have the government take "their fingers" OUT of people's earnings, as long as certain conditions are met. The conditions are not the government putting their fingers IN to the system when the system was created by the government in the first place so that people could save and pay less taxes while doing so. I hope this illustrates why the caller's framing of 401ks is ridiculous, and also how absurd it is for him to denounce 401k as a libertarian.
This guy saying the 401k system is "jacked up" is pure ideological cope with Sam's data that 401ks cannot be the sole source of retirement income.
With all that said, 401ks are a beautiful retirement investment vehicle with all the incentives in the right place. If they do not support someone's retirement, it has nothing to do with the 401k system itself and everything to do with the person's saving power and spending habits.
This fool Matt Digeronimo should go back to posting on Yahoo comments. He is clearly out of his depth.
The amount of old people that don't have friends and family to support them is considerable.
The thing is Mr. Libertarian here was incapable of seeing how the 401k is exactly the hypothetical platform where people VOLUNTARILY invest! With a 401k the individual decides how much to put in, which funds to invest in and when to take it out...and the REAL LIFE DATA says ...it’s disastrous!
So no, by in large people are not more capable of funding their own retirement!
Guys like this so frustrating
Libertarian: “what data do you have to show people would be irresponsible with their money and won’t save for retirement?”
“how about the data the government used to install Social Security”
Libertarian: “Stop bringing facts into this conversation!!!”
Dang...been watching since 2014 and I've never seen this debate until now. TOO GOOD! Happy Holidays (and Merry Christmas) MR crew !!
.....left is best (:
Day trading and house flipping for grandma's retirement, now that's a retirement plan.
Strong arguments by Sam here. If people are poor after living in the US and paying taxes and having their money be made worthless by inflation for decades, obviously the government should step in and solve that problem
"The problem is, people like you Sam, THINK" The caller should have stopped right there!
lol! awesome!
I love how this caller continues to attempt to butter up Sam. I can only assume it's his only debate tactic the caller has
Matt: My principles say that there are better things than Social Security
Sam: Real data in the real world says otherwise
Matt: My principles say that there are better things than Social Security
Matt is trying the bait and switch of saying the generally true statement "Successful people took great risks" but pretending it means "Great risk makes people successful" and ignoring the people for whom that risk doesn't work out.
Every libertarian is a winner in their own mind.
LOL! "You're doing the debate thing here, I can't keep up."
Libertarian philosophy is gross.
This is dangerous to watch at work. I lolled way too much and my boss raised his eyebrows at me a couple times.
Sam "lets talk about social security"
Other guy "ok"
Sam *begins to discuss social security*
Other guy "hold on buddy we were talking about 401ks"
Sam *begins to talk about 401ks*
Other guy "WOAH WOAH WOAH I said to talk about social security buddy. TALK TO NE LIKE A MAN" *whines and complains the whole time*
I'm dying. I just found your show through Michael Brooks last week. My father used to say things like this to me when we argue about the state of the world; the classic Bill Buckley Jr. "Call me a Crypto-fascist again"
When 401k accounts were first introduced, they were supposed to be the end all be of retirement. They were supposed to be one leg of a three legged stool: 401k, company pension, social security. Companies have over the last three decades changed what a pension means. Guaranteed benefit has been replaced by guaranteed contribution with little if any protection for the worker's investment. 401ks were never guaranteed in their return and for many people have replaced completely company pension, leaving people with a two legged stool which can support only the best performers in a balancing act. Now the powers of capital want to get their hands on social security, literally the last leg for many to stand on. 401ks and guaranteed contribution were the money men's idea and you see how well they worked out. Care to trust them with social security?
401k's were made because banks wanted to gamble with retirement money. That's basically all you need to know about them.
I spent years debating these clowns on Mediaite. I've finally given up. They lack the ability to accept facts and form logical conclusions.
Expecting everyone to start investing as a way to safe for old age is a terrible idea. Most people don't have a clue on what to do and they shouldn't have to. To argue that it's their problem if they lose is sociopathic. The whole idea of social security is that everyone can win, as it should be.
DiGeronimo's also in lala land about the 401k's. To start with, uh, yes, you can "day trade" your 401k's, invest in real estate (SOLO's) and invest them in your own business (ROBS plan).
So yeah, it's *big bad government's fault* that 401k's success record isn't so hot since government ALLOWS you to use them to invest in a million different things of your choosing while exempting the moneys you put in your 401k from taxation. And he's serious..?
FLAWLESS VICTORY
Stop tugging at my heartstrings with facts.
Libertarians seem to always defend a fantasy over reality, seriously every last one of these blokes behaved this way to me. I laughed when he accused Sam of appealing to emotion.
Matt's entire argument: "I DON'T LIKE YOUR TONE SAM AHHHHHHHHH"
A libertarian with the last name Geronimo. Now I've heard of everything.
I hope that if he comes back, he's a little more prepared.
Algorithm brought me here. Good old classic
*My experience with debating libertarians:*
Some get angry, frustrated and confused.
A suprising number admit to being hypocrites who honestly dont care about other people and plan to live like gods in large glass towers "bladerunner style" looking down upon the drek, but its okay because selfishness is a virtue and its okay to be a hypocrite if its in you'r own Godly self-interest.
Some insist that libertarianism IS actually for the greater good, and have some fairy tale idea of how it will all work out (invisible hands and shit).
I LOVED debating them in college. We had to debate in political science courses every two weeks or so, and people were always nervous, b/c we had a lot of bright people in the class. When a libertarian was signed up to debate I would volunteer every single time to get it out of the way, and to have a far easier time than if I went against another student. For the most part they just do not have the knowledge about facts, data, or anything in the real-world.
I'm a libertarian and whenever I've debated leftists I've always won and the leftists end up resorting to logical fallacies. Interesting, isn't it?
Yeah you aren't a hypocrite at all, bashing businesses on the internet on your Macbook while texting on your iPhone. Look around the room you're sitting in and realize that you're nothing but a hypocritical consumer. Give up all your "capitalist" goods that you bought voluntarily without threat of force and go live in a commune.
Socialism is force, and we're $17,000,000,000,000 in debt. Please tell me how you could deconstruct that argument.
27:00 it’s not an argument to say we are a representative republic and we have a constitution
Matt (not the boss manning the studio) is unbelievably hypocritical, he tries to criticize Sam for making an appeal to emotion, and then does the same thing when he says that Sam is saying that people are too stupid to make their own retirement decisions. He doesn't want to accept the reality of his argument, its all well and good to be "philosophically" opposed to Social Security, but that isn't going to do much good when you're a retiree eating cat food because you don't have a regular income. He also ignores the fact that the market has performed very poorly for many people in recent years, and at the very least the Social Security system provides them with a guaranteed income every month so they have something. It's all well and good to be "philosophically" opposed but when the outcomes are disastrous that "philosophy" isn't going to put food on your plate and keep the lights on.
I can see his point about Sam being a little acerbic when debating libertarians but he was restrained here and really just tried to pin him down on the realities of what he was saying.
***** Hey Matt, how about you stop insisting on metaphysical debates that are totally divorced from reality (in regards to Social Security, for instance) and instead debate the actual RESULTS of the program.
But of course you don't want to do that because that's inconvinient for your philosophy. Libertarians never want to debate facts or real world results because their philosophy doesn't work in the real world.
Do any of these guys ever explain what they mean when they word vomit about regulations
“OH COME ON”
Well you can’t argue with that
Hey Sam....you should make this a regular feature. Nominate a topic - say Social Security or Industry Regulation (like the EPA) and the two of you have it out for 30 minutes a week.
Please....EPA next. I want to hear Matt defend the Libertarian stance (as mouthed by Rabid Ronnie Paul and his gump son) of shutting down the EPA and placing trust in the Koch brothers to play nice and not pollute.
That should be a laugh.
If your worried about pollution, you probably should be against the gov't since it pollutes more than any other group. (Wars, public projects, subsidizes to polluters etc.) Plus the supposed state solutions, carbon taxes and cap n trade, never reach their stated goals. Pollution always increases and the costs of the regulation get passed onto the consumers.
kathy kelly and the corporations would be any better?
I disagree. This guy is not bright enough to go against Seder on a regular basis. He is a clown. The day trading bit is just moronic. On every single topic it went exactly the same; libertarian provides an example, Seder demolishes it in one or two sentences, and then the libertarian accuses him of being unfair. Depending on the example he says he wants to talk about philosophy, unless the philosophy part was destroyed, in which case he wants to "talk about the data".
Total clown. Seder has been begging libertarians to call in constantly, and every one of them aside from 2-3 have been absolute morons.
I don't mean to offend Mr. DiGeronimo, but to paraphrase the late great Peter Boyle in 'Everybody Loves Raymond', I could have eaten a bowl of Alpha-Bits and crapped out a better argument.
THIS IS THE FUNNIES DEBATE I'VE SEEN IN LIKE..EVER! LOL
has brought great shame to the digiorno family...its not delivery, its a disappointment
Caller is proposing a Darwinian retirement philosophy
This guy was pretty explicit about his ideology only working when you're avoiding facts and reality and only considering theory ("philosophy"). Libertarianism in a nutshell.
I'm a progressive libertarian... where "libertarianism" means "for maximizing personal liberty"... Anti-taxitarians that call themselves "libertarian" are not maximizing liberty, in my view. The issue is that anarchy is not "liberty". Traditional liberty includes SOCIAL LIBERTIES... you can go through town without being arrested as a foriegner. Personal liberty is a feature of a society. So people that want to have no rules on them, and don't care about the liberty -of others- are "not real libertarians" in the sense that they are not "really maximizing 'liberty'".
Progress also has an appropriate technical definition.
I'm not an anarchist and you don't understand what liberty is. Until you do, do yourself a favor and keep your mouth shut.
***** um, no, I won't shut up, and I don't recall saying you were an anarchist. You are not "the issue". Do you realize that 2/3 of the elderly were in poverty and on the streets before SS?
***** sam hit the truth with the fact that he seems to think that the outcome is justified by definition if it was by the Libertarian Principles as he understand them. If it looked bad, like, lots of homeless elderly he sees that as an "emotional" issue and not a way to judge the system being discussed.
I would like to talk to you guys, but you seem to have your minds made up about me and about Libertarianism . . . but I'll give it a stab anyway. (Ematched . . talking like a man, includes talking like a gentleman. You obviously have strong feelings on this topic, I recommend you stop assuming everyone that disagrees with you is your personal chew toy . . . I can assure you wouldn't talk like that to me face to face.)
First off, if you have any notion that I am a "fend for yourself" type of guy . . you have the wrong guy . . I believe that we have a moral obligation to help those in need . . however, I don't believe that we can evaluate a program based on its "intent" . . .
All SS does is give people their money back . . . the disability portion of the SSA, is a totally separate discussion . . . what is so noble about that? For my generation we are likely to get less than we contributed back . . are we just supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to get anything at all back? Further, are we just supposed to accept (with shoulders shrugged an administration that requires $11 billion / year in administrative costs . . .$11 BILLION . . I say NO. . )
I view the government as a service provider of last resort. Therefore, if there was a crisis in our country regarding the care of our elderly . . . I don't dispute the role of the government to "step in" . . .what I dispute is now holding that position FOREVER. . . which will, in an environment, that lacks any oversight or competition, eventually eat away at the money they are supposed to be saving for us . . which it IS.
I can understand disagreeing with me, but why could anyone be so violently opposed to alternate scenario where the government respects the people enough to let them invest their own money. For those that say, but I need help, that's what financial planners are for. As far as what happens to those that "lose" don't we already have programs such as welfare, food stamps, government housing, etc . . . and if that is not enough (which it might not be), what would be so brutal about establishing a program as safety net (insurance) for those that truly need it .. if you make below a certain amount per year over the lifetime of your working age, then . ."x".
I'm not expressing this sentiment because "i want what's mine" . . .I'm a retired Naval Officer, I have no retirement concerns. I will repeat, i believe we have an obligation to assist those in need, to care for the sick, to care for the elderly . . .what confuses me is why any mention of, maybe the government is not the best institution to handle this . . people lose their minds.
My motivations are to provide a stronger and more comfortable retirement for the elderly . . not less. If you disagree. . I get that. . but please, knock it off with the assumption that anyone that disagrees with the govt program of SS must "hate old, poor people" . . the reverse is true.
What I really think we should be asking ourselves is why are the elderly dependent on SS at all? SS was not intended to be a living wage . . it was intended to be "insurance" . . .
Here's the real kicker . . . the disparity between the rich and poor . .which is growing by the minute . . is causing this situation. . tax reform will not fix this situation. Until we realize that we have allowed our elected officials (Rs and Ds) to become dependent on the money of the truly rich to fund their campaigns . . to uphold their reputations within organizations, unions, corporations . . .we will never stop the trend of the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer . . regulations and tax reform is GREAT for the wealthy and the corporations . . they LOVE it . . they are invited to the table in DC to draft up the words of the regulations . . and in doing so ensure there is a back door or loop hole for them . . the regulations and tax reform ends up hurting the little guy . .not them . .they get richer and the poor get poorer. . .this . .in my opinion is the issue we should be focused on .. .most of the R vs. D is just recreational drama.
btw, Ematched . . for someone that conceals his/her identity, you sure talk a tough game. It's the internet, if you want to lurk in the shadows, go ahead, I get it. But please recognize that you are leading with a strong dose of cowardice right off the bat, by "hiding" online.
I love how angry these people get when confronted with a basic socratic dialog. Grannted Sam is great at it and really know his stuff.
The fact that this guy was triggered every time 401k popped up was hilarious.
oh that was uncomfortable. DiGeronimo comes across as an extremely sympathetic guy but then he becomes really defensive all of a sudden and it gets super awkward.
Sam just rolled over this guy. The sad thing is that he challenged Sam to a debate. He's obviously seen Sam debate. He knows that Sam is aggressive, heavy on statistics, and is not interested solutions that are not proven practical. You want to sway Sam? Then prove to him that Libertarianism is grounded in reality.
***** So let me get this straight...Libertarianism is dervived from quantum mechanics?
Its very hard to take Libertarians seriously when they spout specious nonsense like this.
***** Ohhh give me a break! Libertarianism is "rooted" in quantum mechanics...but statistics, mathematics and facts are not? Wtf are you even talking about?
***** your referring to praxeology...which has nothing to do with physics....at all.Also behavior = biology? care to prove that?
***** Ok, Im going to end this conversation...because thats the stupidest thing Ive ever read.
***** If you are trolling me here...well played. But on the off chance that you are serious, go read what Hayek had to say about "Scientism".
I really liked that dude as a debater compared to the rest of the Libertarians Sam has debated over the years. That being said I think he was definitely arguing from a philosophical point of view when you boiled it all down. I see his freedom-based argument but it is hard to argue with, from a factual perspective, the positive impact social security has had on our elderly folks.
Sam: What do we do with the losers?!
Matt: Eerrrr...
That's why family, friends, and community is so important. You think just because coercion is taken out of the picture people all of a sudden become heartless? Just look at things like Fundme.com ,all the voluntary charities around the world, all the marathons people do for research, etc. People will voluntarily help each other out. Communities will come together to solve problems. Libertarians are just saying take the gun (coercion) out the situation.
Eddie Diaz How much of the aid to the poor is actually from the government or government subsidised? Do you really think private charity can actually replace welfare?
I do believe charity will work, it will have to work. Humans in general want to help each other out, of course there are cunts here and there but for the most part we want to be of assistance to others. Even the "greedy' corporatist such as Bill gates, donate millions of dollars all the time. The other proof is how the majority want to legislate mandatory social security. A majority already wants a system to help the poor. Just take the coercion out of the picture.
Eddie Diaz Diaz Wishful thinking. Firstly; Most humans are good people, but it takes just a handful of influential assholes (Koch brothers, Monsanto, oil industry, private militarise etc)to absolutely crush a system made up of good intentions, just for profit.
Secondly; "it will have to" is not an intelligent solution to a problem that would force other human beings to starve to death or whole families to sleep outside without shelter, maybe even freeze to death.
How many homeless people are turned away from shelters every night because they are at capacity already; even with both private & government assistance already here.
you claim that my argument is wishful thinking but I can turn that around and say that the state without corruption is wishful thinking. Those Influential assholes you mentioned will always be attracted to centralized power. Have you ever heard the quote " If voting made a difference they would make it illegal"? I can also say that people who lean towards having more government involvement are thinking out of fear. The arguments always against no state is but who will do this, who will do that, etc.. It could of been wishful thinking when people pondered the idea of the world not accepting slavery. But it happened! Well we could argue about different levels of slavery that still exist but you know what I mean. I get the idea of wanting a centralized power to mandate wealth distribution to help people... I want that too. But since seeing the state for what it is has completely changed my paradigm. Government is simply a small group of people that some people give authority to initiate coercion. For a government to even exist it has to be funded somehow. That somehow is what we currently call taxes. But what happens if you disagree how these small "elected" representatives are running society? you don't contribute to the pot you get men in costumes coming at your door. You resist peacefully you get locked in a cage. you resist being locked in a cage you get shot. Just see the gun in the room. Anytime you advocate more government more legislation, etc just always remember there is a gun behind that. If i was your brother or best friend and was a peaceful person, never hurt anyone, gave to charities, helped people out, but just despised the endless wars so much that i refused to Pay my taxes because I knew that they were partially going to the death of millions of people. Would you be willing to lock me in a cage? This is why everything must be voluntary. That way if you don't like how a service is running, you simply stop paying them.