DEBATE! Walter Block vs. Ben Burgis on Libertarianism (from GTAA Episode 15)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Independent creators rely on your support to create the content you want!
Support Give Them An Argument on Patreon: / benburgis . Patrons get early access to every episode as well as a weekly bonus episode and regularly scheduled "Discord Office Hours" group voice chats.
Follow Ben on Twitter: / benburgis
Like, subscribe, and get notifications on Ben’s channel: / benburgisgtaa
Visit benburgis.com
Walter Block is a legendary figure for Majority Report viewers.
Hey hey hey hey, you can't say that about him.
Hey hey hey *hey* *hey* HEY HEY!!
My favorite will always be Darryl Perry and his meltdown.
i got your wallet
Anytime you take on the left you'll get the typical idiotic responses. Comes with the territory.
This is great. Definitely have him back on. He is the closest thing to a living Murry Rothbard.
@@ericrodwell8706 lol you don't know Murray very well.
He walked with Murray as a good friend of his for several years
Great job Ben..thank you for this
great debate! good job Ben!
Hillary Clinton a socialist? This is news to me. Biden is a "Bernie Sanders type"? What?
Whats a socialist? One example, a politician that expands gov power and central planning. Fascist use war and hidden coups as hilldawg dide. Bernie, Hilldawg, Trump, Bushes, are all socialist, maybe they dont all agree on the amount of gov rule but they all grow gov
@@YanraOnesja
by that definition of socialist, pretty much everyone on earth is a socialist. as pretty much everyone(except libertarians, of course) want governments to take a more active role in addressing the welfare of their people, specially the welfare of those who have no way to repay it.
@@sabin97 id say an adocate for the US 1787 constitution, a constitutional republic / republican, would not be a socialist, or almost anyone that is actively against central banking and perpectual waring isnt a socialist. The US article 1 section 8 list the scope of the central gov, socialist seek to expan scope and power of gov for their personal gain. ✌️
@@YanraOnesja
my bad. i always tend to overestimate the people of usa and assume that what's obvious to everyone else is also obvious to them.
i was unfair to you, and i'm sorry about that. so please let me rephrase what i said so that you can understand what i meant:
by that definition of socialist, pretty much everyone who is alive today on earth is a socialist. as pretty much everyone alive today on earth(except libertarians, of course) want governments to take a more active role in addressing the welfare of their people, specially the welfare of those who have no way to repay it.
@@sabin97 there are constitutional conservatives today, but it is true as you say, most ppl are socialist minus the libertarians, but feel free to add others that desire limits on government. Whats your stance sabin? Are you a socialist?
Not the most intellectually cohesive thing I've ever listened to
In fairness, it's a massive improvement on Walter's previous appearance on Majority Report.
It's impossible to take seriously anyone who clings to Libertarianism after the age of 15.
ideas , all are welcome. Opinions who cares ..libertarians seem to have some pretty strange ideas , but we need to think them thru, rather than reject them on first view. They probably have something to offer. That's my opinion.
"Hey hey hey shut up!" Guy is a truth seeker. Who knew?
If he is a genuine "truth seeker" then at his age he should have found more of it than he appears to have here.
‘Kamala Harris is more radical than Bernie’
This confirms it, water block literally knows nothing.
He called Hillary a socialist. 🙄
I’m a Ancap but I come from the Ben Shapiro Steven Crowder conservatism (I know I’m still disgusted by it lol) anyway when I was in that ideology I thought I could debunk socialism with ease. Ben offers a great defense and explanation of socialism. I’m watching him debate Gene Epstein Tonight and I couldn’t be more excited.
how is your intellectual journey going? are you still ancap???
@@Le_Samourai no lol, I’ve gone into the catholic GK Chesterton/ Hilaire Belloc distributism or as it’s called today (localism)
Coming to this a little late, but I think Block is perfectly demonstrating how people on the Right very often fail to take actual history into account, and if they do they cherry pick. A perfect example of this is his belief regarding reparations and how only the descendants of slaveholders should be considered responsible. Let me explain.
First Slavery was legalized in the Constitution that was ratified by all of the original Colonies.
Next slave owners often used slaves as collateral for loans or to apply for credit, just as somebody might use their home for today. The person's or institutions that would supply these loans or credit would then make a profit, so even if they didn't own a slave themselves they and their shareholders benefited directly from slavery.
Next we have the Revolution. The profits of Slavery helped to pay for the Revolution. It also made it possible for while men who would otherwise had been farming in support of the war to instead be men at arms.
Slavery also sped Western expansion, all the way to Texas, so again the Nation as a whole benefited from Slavery. Heck it can be argued that western expansion breathed new life into the institution.
Finally it's not just about Slavery, it's also about Jim Crow. UI formed during the New Deal originally excluded the occupations usually performed by African Americans. The original FHA loans that fueled white home ownership, and forbid African Americans from buying said homes, robbed Black people of participating in the primary method of transferring wealth between generations until the 1960's. That's why now the average Black family has 10% of the wealth of a White Family. Southern politicians, fearing Black Veterans would use their Service in WWII to gain sympathy to overturn Jim Crow got the Laws providing Veterans Benefits to have said Benefits administered by the States. So if their State barred Blacks from attending College they could not use the GI College Bill, same went for trade schools. A combination of States barring home sales to Blacks along with the codicils preventing resale to Blacks in the deeds purchased with the FHA loans meant that they were still blocked out of home ownership. This was Federal Law that the Nation, not just slave owners, existed until the 1960's. If reparations are paid the Nation is responsible because the Nation did this.
To say it's just about slave owners is a completely disingenuous argument because it myopically focuses on only one singular aspect of the oppression that began in 1619.
very well written point
I feel like I’m the only libertarian who could find a happy medium between these two beliefs
I feel like ur the only person to like the comment too
No, you’re not alone, Justin. You’re reasonable! You realize we will never get a full libertarian society/economy and the other side will never get a full socialist society /economy society. Take the best elements of the 2 and it’s probably better than the current structure.
most self-labeled "libertarians" would label you a "statist" if you dare question their one true faith.
So you're like a right-libertarian that believes in mandatory unions or something?
@@ericrodwell8706 they have their problems, like all bureaucracies but, if boss man's gonna try to fuck me over, i want someone at my back.
Thanks Ben ❤️
Ben is so sensible and intelligent. So good. Also great guests
sometimes
Usually he seems lost in a brain fog. Take his take on free health care. I live in a country with a national health service. That is State medicine. The german nazis were. developeing a National health service. I n essence it is a nazi concept. Health" care'' for the poor ,in relation to our societey, was first developed by the early Christians. Essentially their "Hospitals "were a place for the poor to die or with a bit of soup ,recover. The rich had other resourses . In fact so did the poor in pre capitalist societey. People have resourses the State steals those resourses or dis qualifies them. That's why we live in a crap societey. In the period of the french revolution there was a move to close hospitals as a threat s to peoples health. The hospitals survived the revolutionaries attacks and went on to become expeimental laborataries for the newly devolopeing scientific medical community . This culminated in the Nazi medical experiments on their enemies .They hoped to use what they learned to improve the german stock . What we have now the in modern world are huge public resourses focused on cureing essentially incurable illnesses,
and keeping the dying alive ,some of whom actually want to die . This is all very positve ..We are stuck with these technologies like we are stuck with the atom bomb . In a sense ,though the people involved will never admit it ,the military industrial comlex and ,obviously in a different way ,the medical industrial complex are a threat to societey. We can't get rid of this threat, we are dependent on it. If we don't study the situation and really try to understand what is going on we will be destroyed . Glib belief in a National Health service as a wholey positive force is mis -placed.
@@Djordj69 What nonsense. Condemning free health care as state medicine conceived by the Nazis is a new low in guilt by association arguments.
Whatever is motivating your rambling account of how health care was weaponized under fascism has nothing to do with what a national health policy should be. You clearly have some personal agenda regarding health issues and are looking for someone to blame.
@@ivandafoe5451 There is no such thing as free health care in a capatalist society.Public health care is not free. Of course i think public health care is a good thing in our societies. I live in England where we have a national health service which i greatly value. It is plainly indecent for a society not to provide health care to its citizens. My point was more about government and potential for abuse. In England our government has in essence privatised (for profit) heath care. Health care is a for profit industry. Anyway my comment was meant to be provocative and thuoght provoking, not to offend.
Truly a great debate. The arguments were developed thoughtfully and in good faith in an engaging, polite dialectic. Wish it could have gone on for at least another hour. Props to both debaters. Please have Walter back again!
If I push someone out of harms way to save them from an oncoming vehicle, then have I violated NAP?
Where do/did those legitimate titles come from? We can't get rid of government but keep current property arrangements.
Some positions are dealbreakers; these two just didn't happen to hit one.
did...did he just call Hilary Clinton a socialist?
She's not only a socialist.. She's a National-Bolshevique-Eco-Feminist!!! :v
Nahhh... She's not a socialist by any means, but that doesn't make her either a good person at all!! XD
Sorry I missed this live
It's adorable that Walter is still on the "interruptions and equal time" thing after it was found and pointed out to him directly years ago that he got pretty much equal time in the Seder debate despite feeling as if he got barely any time at all. He always does he just loves to dominate conversations just like the free market always gets dominated by monopolies. What a guy.
I lol’ed when Ben said he mentioned that beforehand
Prof. Block(head) seems to think that every situation comes down to this...him lecturing students and enforcing his rules for their behavior.
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY !!!!!!!!
Wonder what his phrase was this time?
Ben is such a nice guy.
Then why does he want to steal my money?
Libertarians running for office seems like a perfect oxymoron.
How is a libertarian society possible then?
@@garrickmorales7786 It isn't possible...neither would it be viable nor beneficial if ever somehow achieved.
Like all Libertarians Walter seems to want to shuffle away from the original theft of property that leads to such obscene accruing of wealth.
Libertarianism isn't meant to be a way to 'fix' past inequality. It's just a framework for how society could be structured in an economic and moral way.
@@robertoguy100 but if most land and natural resources were were initially acquired illegitimately, their sale or appropriation for production isn’t legitimate either. Libertarian capitalists need a fresh space from which to exercise their principles. Otherwise the actual illegitimate property acquisitions ‘taints’ or leaks into title transfers. It delegitimizes it. Think of it like this: I go to someone’s home, person A, and steal their cool stuff. I then sell the cool stuff to B. B knows more about that cool stuff than me, and uses it to make things, like thing-1, thing-2, etc., and B sells those things to C. And so on. The worry is that the original acquisition was illegitimate. Person A retains their rightful claim on the cool stuff. Sure, maybe B made some other cool things with it, but it wasn’t his to transform or sell. And therein is the basic complaint from left-libertarians and others: the original appropriation of capital in the real world renders the implementation of right-libertarian propertarain ideas something that cannot be justly implemented.
The response from the idea of reparations looks initially helpful but ultimately it’s not clear that the fairly terrible differential property/ownership relations cemented by the illegitimate original acquisition of property will go away by reparations. (Who would even enforce that?) This challenge should make us suspicious of right-libertarian confidence in the practical sphere. Maybe it would avoid this challenge if people were sent charitably to, say, another planet to implement this system. Otherwise it’s hard to see. In any case, the key important different for left-libertarian vs right is really the emphasis on syndicates/democratic workplaces and shared ownership of natural resources, land, and production.
@@robertoguy100 In other words, libertarianism is arbitrary as well as self-centered and delusional.
@@ivandafoe5451 Yeah, I know. Libertarians don't want to be robbed or brutally subjugated by anyone. They're such weird people, really!
HEY HEY HEY HEY
Hey hey hey guy is sort of well meaning, but my god his worldview is savage and disgusting.
I literally started laughing out loud when he started elaborating on his "evictionist position on abortion" (haven't managed to get any further). Reconceptualising a woman's womb as a piece of private property.... Whatever else he is, he really is a libertarian.
@@CallousCarter Do women not own their own bodies? You do realize that the abortionist argument relies on the idea that a womans womb is her own private property.
@@robertoguy100 Stop. You're going to make me burst out in hysterics again.
@@robertoguy100 bodily-autonamy and property are quite distinct... I don't own my heart or my brain they are just parts of me..
@@dylansevitt THANK YOU.
I like the moderate position Bill Hicks took when it came to the pro-life argument.
It's a great argument. I wouldn't call it moderate. I would call it ethical and morally consistent
@@leonscott543 But it is moderate. Rather than picking one extreme side that considers these pro-life people annoying idiots or the other extreme side which thinks these pro-life people are evil fucks, Bill Hicks wisely stood in the middle, deciding that they're evil annoying idiot fucks. If that's not the picture of moderation, I don't know what is.
It’s extremely fascinating and maybe relieving, that such aged and academically productive individuals can retain such a childish personality and lack of rigor
Agreed, but I wouldn't call Ben academically productive
TIL that this is the MR “hey hey hey hey” guy
Great debate. I'm here because I'm a libertarian who likes Walter but I also like Ben. He's a fair, good faith man. Keep it up, my friend. Maybe you could come on my podcast.
Okay... All I have to do is make sure the descendents of my ancestors' slaves never find out their history.
So that's what all the fuss about Critical Race Theory being taught is actually about.
I want to live in the universe with Walter Block's version of Clinton, Biden, and Harris.
All I can hear is "HEY HEY HEY, SHUT UP" 😂
Such a classic. Walter Block's "if I were the King of the black people..." dude, please... just no...
I wouldn't mind if Walter Block was king of the black people.
Mainly because, in a libertarian society, the title of "king" would be meaningless anyway. 😛
So someone needs to point out that Block's example of Wilt Chamberlin getting $20 to dunk a basketball does not even remotely resemble the actual structure of capitalism that he supports. You see, Wilt never...EVER...will get the full $20 for his labor.
Nozick is the pinnacle, which is why I can't take any Libertarians seriously. I like to counter the Wilt Chamberlain argument with what I call my Don King argument. (If you know who Don King is, the argument pretty much makes itself, and it _really is_ that easy.)
Also, there are virtually no externalities or perverse incentives in paying someone to do something entertaining. The problem making the same transaction by paying an oil company to drill more oil for you is that the town's water supply gets poisoned. Block's argument is basically "certain people are tall and others aren't, therefore there can be no equality, therefore let's not even try to help anyone." One has nothing to do with the other.
I think Walter Block's evictionist position is very strange. His explanation as he put it forward here doesn't seem to suggest why early abortions might be acceptable. It seems to me as he set it up that early abortions would be akin to killing rather than eviction, so why would that be acceptable? I am a fairly standard pro-choice advocate. I see there gets to be a problem with late term abortion because of pain and/or viability for the fetus.
I'm out....
my wallet is gone. c'mon, walter. really?
You bring up interesting objections to my flimsy premises, HOWEVER *gestures vaguely to dire consequences*
I wish you'd debate an anarcho-communist as ideologically zealous as Block. Block cites three fundamental principles of his anarcho-capitalism, non-aggression, individual property rights and free association. In my way of thinking, anarcho-communism only eliminates the second principle as a general proposition. Free association subsumes the rights that Block associates with fundamental property rights. Only a group of individuals may monopolize resources like land and chattel, and the group may agree on any rules (even Rothbardian rules) governing individual use of the resources they monopolize.
These people and their resources constitute a voluntary community or commune, and communes are limited in size. Communes respect individual liberty, specifically an inalienable right to exit one community and enter another on its terms, and no community invades another. Interaction among communities is otherwise strictly voluntary involving contractual agreements from which a community may withdraw at will.
What are the logical consequences of this anarchic organization unconstrained by a system of individual property rights but permitting free individuals to use jointly owned resources however they like, as a married couple uses jointly owned property?
Walter is extremely affable but I think also extremely wrong as was pretty well demonstrated in various ways by Ben.
Just speculation, but I think maybe his main issue of ideological consideration comes from the compartmentalization of these abstract conceptions solely from an individual level and in doing so completely disregards a systemic analysis and consequently obviously lacks a material grounding of how capitalism functions as a process. I mean, kind of obvious I guess, but it's hard to get what he's missing here to come to the conclusions he does, but I guess my thinking here is he needs a more full picture painted to maybe understand the larger scope of things, especially as it maps onto history, to then zoom back into those compartmentalized abstractions and more clearly see how they fall apart, if that makes sense.
I mean it's unlikely he's going to change his mind at this point but...yeah, I don't know, I used to be a dipshit "libertarian" and I can't for the life of me put myself back in that headspace without seeing the now consciously transparent flaws anymore...or I guess in other words, "cannot unsee".
Also, this was pretty cool: 47:15
Anyways, good stuff. He really wants that shirt!
Also the Bernie story induced a chuckle.
Coming from an mmt supporter ...
Exactly: as Ben and you pointed out, Block's argument is premised on a very inaccurate model of how property was and is acquired and exchanged under capitalism. It is usually done with the threat of force (even if no force is actually used). And there is also "soft" power. I would push back hard against the idea that the burden of proof is always on individual plaintiffs against individual defendants. As Ben pointed out, there is also a difference in values: poverty, suffering and inequality bother me morally even if the transactions that led to them were fair. I also don't think that anyone is entitled to more than others due to being gifted in any way.
If you used to be a libertarian, you should be well positioned to explain the root of the disagreement.
@@philipganchev2306 meritocracy is gone, so is the incentive to act in the economy.
Libertarianism sounds like a very theoretical ideology. On that theoretical level, it's founded on premises that sound feasible. But the assumption is that people are reasonable, fair-minded, on equal footing, and so on. All in all, it requires a very ideal set of circumstances. When trying to apply it in practice, it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to ignore real phenomena, such as poor people having a harder time to increase their living standards (ie. get an education or an insurance) or civil engagement (ie. vote). Libertarianism doesn't seem to propose solutions or even an incentives, other than faith, to any problem. "The free market will fix it" sounds very much like religion for atheists.
Did it?? "Bernie never runs away from Socialism, but he ran away from me because he literally ran faster than I did?" That's a horrible joke. Affable, but super cringey.
please debate walter block again
if you follow Block's logistics about reparations, he leaves quite a bit out. what about the capital gains and growth accessed through decades of business ownership made possible by stolen property +yrs of inflation? that would be ....alot dude. in fact i don't think it would be possible to calculate the total effect. it would be like trying to predict a future that never had a chance to start. these reparations have not happened and show the how the piller of property rights in america is diseased and rotten at the core. If the system can not offer justice it should not have real authority. property rights are now a vehicle of coercion to force workers to work for property owners. kinda like it used to be. huh, same old thing. coercion of the powerless by the powerful. pretty old story....i think libertarianism will only make that worse. thanks prof....Ben i really appreciated how you brought history into this debate. if you ever speak with prof again could you talk about coercion of workers in today's day n age. thanks!!!
I wonder, at this point, if continuing the libertarianism/utilitarianism debate is worthwhile at all. Both sides, when presented properly, can make cogent arguments to support their respective philosophies. I think a more interesting discussion would be whether these two groups can co-exist in a common society and in a mutually agreeable fashion?
As libertarians have said on numerous occasions, whatever system Burgis wants can exist in a libertarian/an-cap society as long as there are people who want to live in such a system. However, Burgis would have no tolerance for a libertarian sub-society within his preferred worker-coop society. Moreover, Burgis himself conceded on numerous occasions that private firms out-compete worker coops in the free market, so the logical conclusion is that absent war, the capitalist society will win out over the socialist one (this is essentially what happened in the cold war).
@@yevgeniygrechka6431 Interesting perspective. I think we have to be careful when using the term "capitalist" as I take it to mean libertarian style free markets; but, today's cronyism is also called capitalism. That said, if it's truly been conceded that capitalists would out-compete socialists; then, I would ask the socialists what exactly they are competing for. If it's the ability to have comraderie and rewarding social interaction within their co-op while producing just enough to eat, drink and be merry they could certainly attain this within an ancap society. But, if their goal is to dominate society and its resources, which it must be as the former scenario is available to them today without argument or debate, then the only way to achieve this would be by forcibly removing the more capable capitalists from the society. The paradoxical thing I see is that these gentle, thoughtful, selfless collectivists can morally justify the use of coercion upon those individualists who would prefer to opt out of their collective
@@CBBnCO You can watch Burgis address this point here: watch?v=wgO7eWMMMC4 although Burgis compares businesses to slavery, he concedes that the capitalists would out-compete the socialists at around 14:00.
I basically agree with everything that you wrote, the devil's advocate response from the (Burgis-type) socialists would be that they are competing for democracy, not just in the political arena, but in the workplace as well. They have a general thesis that capitalism and democracy have fundamental contradictions. I actually do agree with them on this point, and this was something that was reiterated by several founding fathers of the US who said that (paraphrasing) once people start voting themselves money, the American experiment is over. As such, one has to decide for themselves if democracy or economic freedom is more important. The people who would choose democracy over economic freedom would lean left, the people who would take economic freedom over democracy would lean more right.
How pathetically naive... capitalism has taken complete control of society and has no interest in giving up that control.
Libertarian "Philosophy" is NOT at all "cogent" (How?)...it is self-contradictory nonsense, because personal freedom and capitalism cannot possibly coexist no matter how much they delude themselves into thinking that they can.
@@yevgeniygrechka6431 No they cannot co-exist, because the now deeply entrenched capitalists have skewed everything in their favor and would crush any rival system like they always have done.
Just a point: Ripping a shirt off someone can still an act of aggression even if you own the shirt. It's called assault. Telling as to the libertarian mindset though....
If I was king of the blacks 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
big yes to this...
Hey hey hey shuddup!
Where is thie king of the black people bit?
Block's position on reparations is incredible. If one knowingly buys stolen goods, he is complicit in the theft, so imposing the cost of reparations exclusively on people with slave-holding ancestors neither compensates the victims nor punishes the guilty adequately. Slaveholders bought slaves on credit or otherwise used slaves as collateral for credit. Jefferson famously did so. The creditors knowingly benefitted from the exploitation of slave labor, and so did anyone buying the produce of the slaves. If like Jefferson a slaveholder was bankrupt, these secondary beneficiaries arguably benefitted more than the slaveholder himself, but Block's "solution" holds them blameless, and the slaves and their descendants are entitled to no compensation.
This idea that a "voluntary" exchange washes away all sins is a fundamental flaw in Block's system. His "solution" is actually an argument against reparations, through which capitalism effectively erases entitlement to reparations, not an argument for it.
Weren't a lot of slaves bought from African slave traders? Would you seek reparations from those Africans too?
I think libertarians and socialists can both agree that they don't want corruption, I think that's important in order to find common ground
You mean against the many other political bents that are openly "pro-corruption"?
@@fede2 yeah this was 10 months ago I am no longer an idiot
The only possible "common ground" would be with a set of personal freedoms, after that they diverge into opposite directions.
Bernies evil twin
i cant hit like on this video.
i was raised properly.
in my family with dont humiliate old people, specially if they have clearly some sort of psychological condition.
it was difficult for me not to laugh when he said "eminent libertarian philosophers".....
please do it again
Walter Block is the biggest reason I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I was already a libertarian but he helped convince me the rest of the way.
Oh no that’s so sad
You must be very easily convinced about any dumb idea.
The flimsiness of Prof. Block's arguments is astounding.
He has made a long and successful career as a scholar apparently by immersing himself in a bubble of like-minded associations that have allowed him to hold values and opinions that are constantly being affirmed rather than critically examined, neither by others nor himself.
Another example of meritocracy being more subjectivism than objectivism.
I'm actually starting to like Block. He's kind of like a wacky but lovable '70's sitcom character.
...who is actively indoctrinating students with a "philosophy" that is destroying society. But hey...it's all just entertainment to vapid little you.
Debate Styx.
Private cops? Jeez. Whose law would they be enforcing? The libertarian principles? If they're all enforcing the same principles, why the need different police corporations? And how would their salaries be paid? What's the business model?
If this is a serious question then David Friedman lays all of this out in great detail in this talk: watch?v=IcxGXcmr4ig
@@yevgeniygrechka6431 I'll admit, he seems smarter than most libertarians I've seen. That said, I must say it still sounds like religion for atheists; he assumes, without evidence, that people are essentially benevolent. But at its core, the system he describes sounds like a protection racket: if you can't pay, you're screwed. And trust me, there are people who can't afford it. There are already people who can't pay medicine, and as long as the demand meets the supply, the pharmaceutical industry won't lower its prices even if they didn't have to pay taxes.
At the end of the day, the guy just seems naive. He thinks that anti-customer business-practices won't creep into law enforcement, even though that has happened to many other industries. Look at microtransactions in gaming. They didn't use to be a thing. Now they are, and they're more profitable than ever. And they have trickle-down effects, such as bullying of people who can't afford Fortnite skins.
There's a lot that these people ignore, so in a nutshell... To me, libertarianism looks like a superficially logical, but naive faith-based ideology that favors the rich.
@@GuerillaBunny You already pay for protection through taxes. The only difference is that the private rights enforcement agency can be replaced by another while government can’t.
@@ASingh21112 For the record, I'm not a big fan of how governments do politics. But the people voted them in, so they reflect, at least to a degree, what people want. So the way to fix things should be education.
But with that caveat out of the way (I'll repeat, I'm not a fan of most politicians), I don't think you've thought about this quite enough. Without a government, there is also no universal legislation. Sure, one could be negotiated by corporations, but looking at the one country where corporations have the most freedom to build a system they'd like, the US, things are absolutely terrible. An ineffective healthcare system that's so expensive most people risk bankruptcy using it, so they'd rather go to work sick and with a broken limb than use it. And they STILL pay for the system, even if they don't use it, because a portion of their salary goes to maintaining the insurance industry. In short, corporations don't give two hoots about people, or the sustainability of their activities (ie. climate change).
Now imagine what kind of a legal system they could produce.
Libertarianism sounds cool on paper, but at the end, it'd just give corporations free reign to do what they're already *trying* to do. They're not trying to lobby and bribe governments to do good. Governments, as bad as they are, are still a hurdle they must overcome before they can drive their own interests at our expense.
This guy is a complete crank. Jfc.
hold on, is that guy 80 years old!? He looks like in his fifties. what is going on there. is libertarianism the formula to avoid death?
Turning 80 in a few weeks
More likely it's his delusional child-like reliance on magical thinking.
Block couldn’t hope to refute any of Burgis’s points, all the old man can do is just deflect and distract with tired old rhetoric that doesn’t actually address the questions.
Oh come on, his rhetoric wasn't old. I mean, he spent all that time talking about a basketball player who retired 48 years ago. That's not....umm....that old.
EDIT: Tried to make this joke without showing that it was sarcasm and couldn't. So /s.
Ben, I admire your equanimity... @15:00 when Walter brought up property rights, and legitimate transfer thereof, I had to stop myself from muttering "appropriation of surplus" for the rest of the video. :)
Everything that libertarians say about "voluntary association" is inherently self-contradictory... it implies that I should be able to form a monopoly, with the voluntary participation of all involved, which then imposes an involuntary association, because I'm the only game in town.
@25:25 Re; "Negative rights:" So... do I have a right to *not* be gouged by health insurance and relentless medical billing?
even in a libertarian framework monopolies can get resolved... when a "self-contradiction" occurs it is highly likely that within the framework of libertarianism the people will find ways to break up the monopoly... theoretically even monetary value we use today is given value by the people alone.. unless we were to reach a truly unthinkable situation where one man phiscally held all the tangible resources, the market is always open to adaptation...
now that's not saying that I agree with the libertarian framework (personally I find it ridiculous that we have functioning societies without affordable health care)...
I just think the Marxist framework tends to make wild assertions that tend to not bear any resemblance to reality, economic models that are outdated, and extreme motivated reasoning toward proposed policy..
@@dylansevitt So somehow the vague notion that "people will find ways to break up the monopoly" is the best you can come up with?
You didn't elaborate with any actual "ways" because in a libertarian society there wouldn't be any...they would have been all removed to allow monopolies to form in the first place.
You haven't thought this through at all, have you? So who is making the "wild assertions" here?
@@ivandafoe5451 honestly my dude I have no idea what is being referred to i haven't watched the video or read the comment in over a year.
I wouldn't be able to tell you what the time stamps the op is referring to..
I think your framing is dishonest. I don't believe any libertarian (which I'm not) would claim that a society would be monopolyless (I would argue that even in a socialist society we would see monopolies) but only that they would would likely switch hands and flip and flop as they become more self destructive. We can point to the fact that leading monopolies today are less than 20 years old how is that possible if monopolies remain stagnant? I think as of now Google is not seen in the libertarian eyes as overstepping any coercive boundaries but when they do they will most likely to fall.
Good to here the theoretical ideas of a sane libertarian (that have no relation to the material effects of their political activity).
"Either we all die or just the poor people die! I've made my choice!"
David Ellerman who is a left libertarian (yes they exist) uses Lockean negative rights to defend a labor theory of property istead of a Marxian labor theory of value. That is, the current capitalist property rights make the capitalist entitled to a part of property produced by the employee. He defends instead a free market socialism in which a market exists only between personal (not capitalist-private) properties, hence a kind of market structure with universal self-employment and cooperatives (instead of corporations).
If the end result looks like any familiar picture of socialism, why invoke markets at all? It's not like any socialist has ever been against exchange.
When he said "Private police!" I was like "comrade please"
Public cops are way worse. They should get rid of the Detroit PD and wall off Detroit. Total failure.
@@firstlast9916 i don't think we can have a productive conversation on this before you read Batman: No Man's Land
@@erencansinecan775 I was kidding. No need to wall them off. Just stop throwing money into Detroit. It’s an endless pit of failure. Every dollar spent on Detroit is a waste. It goes nowhere and does nothing. If people from Detroit want to leave, then more power to them. The ones that stay should be cutoff of social services.
@Andre Catenani "blackwater but for cops" is not a position i can take seriously. comic book reference is appropriate here.
@@firstlast9916 Rudy is an idiot. Where are going to go with no money?
I cringed when master of arguments brings up “morals” and “fairness”
You should get that fixed, something's broken.
I'm probably an "AnCap " but the "trespasser" evictionism thing is the stupidest thing i've ever heard