@@66SixxyOMG I remember having my coffee and watching the news that day.. it was hilarious.. I laughed so hard and called my husband and told him about it.. he didn’t see the humor of the non aggression principle politician getting his ass beat by his neighbor while on his riding mower 😂 so much for the “we all agree not to be violent to each other” ideology.. the entire thing falls apart even between neighbors.. some people just need to get their smarmy asses knocked off their tractor.. a truth that was around before Rands infinitely deep philosophy
@@madreese69 it's all shades of "I should get what I personally need" type of philosophy which explains why there are countless types of them and they all disagree with each other. They tend to be young because at that age they still consider the environment they grew up in as natural, almost god given, as if the things it provided to them are provided automatically in every system. And they rebel against that environment and want freedom to do whatever they want while still implicitly relying on getting everything they were always relying upon
I like the slow turn and dead eyed stare Sam does to compliment Emma's glee, the perfect duality of man "Teeheehee!" and "I am so done with this conversation and it's just started."
The only thing I find interesting about Libertarians is trying to guess how long it will take before they completely contradict themselves. The over/under is usually 5 minutes.
libertarianism is a perfectly good thing, like conservatism, however the Murican rightwing maligns both of them continuously. they are neither, they need therapy.
@@Gee-xb7rt They aren't talking about lowercase "l" libertarianism, in general. They're talking about far right wing US Libertarianism/Objectivism (Any Rand), sometimes drifting into batshit crazy ancap land. Many on the Murican right, many Republicans, actually pretend to have Libertarian beliefs, and promote those beliefs, but are fascists, when push comes to shove.
The Libertarian spent the whole time trying to say facts dont care about your feelings, all for Sam to say "so whats your point?". Its insane that he didnt have a point to make from there.
I once went to a sherrod Brown Town Hall the affordable Care act. There were tea party demonstrators yelling at us against Obamacare. As we Departed, I had to rest because my neuropathy in my feet and ankles what is the tea party or this was walking by😅 and I told him that we need the ACA so that diabetics with pre-existing conditions can get healthcare. He then churches head and said," not my problem."
@@CallofDutykemStrikes The problem you have is a lot of people take the simple premise of 'government shouldn't be all-encompassing' and take it to mean 'every part of government except the parts I personally approve of on a shallow level are bad, no I do not understand how any of the parts I want to abolish uphold the parts I like'
@@ComradeCatpurrnicus No, that's a smear. I have a video on my channel about it. It's titled, "Correcting smears of Ayn Rand: Social Security and welfare."
@@DanNorton1 I don't have to watch another video trying to launder and justify her hypocrisy with the argument that literally everyone has for using social programs. Look at it however the F you want, "it was stolen from me, I want it back" or "my tax dollars helping me and not just the ultra wealthy is nice", the outcome is the same, a society where the elderly (just like Rand) don't have to fall into poverty in old age. It is cute that you Rand fans, and presumably her, think that had the government not taken that small amount out of her earnings to give back later, that she, and all other elderly people, would be in a better situation. There's a reason why as much as many old people dislike the 'thought' of social programs that help people, they sure do love and fight for the ones that help them when they need it...
I actually found this depressing to watch, and I'm not even libertarian. They were just gratuitously being scumbags to this caller and taking a lot of pleasure in doing so.
@@No_co_OK Bro, libertarians ARE scum They won't directly admit it, but what they believe in would hurt and kill millions of pooor people. And they are not only content with that, but would consider it a "objective truth" that if their perfect system cannot support those humans they deserve to die. So sorry i don't have patience or sympathy for people who are only 2 steps removed from being nazis who advocate for euthanasia based on genetics rather than economic standing. I know, they don't SAY it, cause they are cowards or not smart enough to actually thibk those premises through to the end.
@@HammerStudioGames I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that I am more progressive than you are. I just don't understand this idea that I need to like someone just because they happen to share the same politics as me. Someone having the same politics as me doesn't change the fact that they can be a bully and someone with absolutely no emotional intelligence.
@@EvilGreens Lots of things were understood intuitively without being formalized concepts. You can't function in the world without presuming the law of identity. Maybe there is some profundity to that, but it's not some special or unique aspect to any system of thought unless you're contrasting with certain Eastern philosophies. We do have Aristotle to thank for formalizing logic so that we can talk about things precisely. What Aristotle did was essentially the equivalent of inventing math. He is probably the most important thinker to ever live.
@@EvilGreens it's not profound, it's a simplistic stopgap based on incomplete data. We don't actually know if our will or wishing or praying can affect the world or not because we don't fully know the nature of consciousness and reality. We don't see consciousness or free will anywhere, we see atoms interacting with each other and we see ourselves as dumb automatons and we don't see any external influence on this dumb world of atoms that would constitute free will or consciousness. And yet we exist and we don't feel like our life is watching a movie, like atoms playing your life for you, something that you identify with is seemingly in control Until we fully understand who are we and what is our life, these rules of logic will remain our own made up coping and trying to construct illusion of certainty out of thin air to make ourselves feel better
@@Returnality It's like, everybody knows if you have 1 stick and gather 1 additional stick that you now have 2 sticks. 1+1=2 This concept is sth even babies understand. But have you ever seen the mathematical proof on that? Bonkers. It's like this meme about "The missile knows where it is by substracting 'where it is not' from the entire map" Tens of thousands of years humans knew and understood this concept of addition, but only in the 18th century or so the proof got discovered.
People like you call it "basic" only out of ignorance. Clearly your small brain cannot comprehend that there was a time, before Ayn Rand invented this concept, when reality actually DID bend to your wishes and you really COULD make things true just by wanting them to be. No one talks about this
Exactly, they are like "reality is real I'm so smart" when in actual philosophy it's pretty much consensus that's not necessarily true and you could be a brain in a jar.
@@Jorge-np3tq The first step in understanding the value of empiricism is knowing that our perceptions of reality can be flawed, or even completely false. "Reality", such as it is, is just what a majority agrees is real... objectively measurable things, like mass and energy. We build up from that. But the further we go, or the more abstract, the less it's possible for "A is A" to have any meaning at all. I mean, speaking of abstract, what even is "A"? If we take Rand literally, it's a letter. At best, it's a variable. Either way, it has absolutely no meaning except for what we arbitrarily assigned to it. And this is her fundamental principle of objectivity? What a joke.
Ayn Rand died sad, impoverished, and alone, having accomplished none of what she truly wanted to accomplish in her life, which was to become a beloved novelist and screenwriter. In fact she achieved *just enough* success at it to get people to realize how utterly out of her depth she is. No wonder she invented a "philosophy" to make herself seem so much more important and profound than she actually is - and no wonder so many mediocre navel-gazing men are drawn to it.
But she did become a beloved novelist. Decades after she died, hundreds of thousands of people read her work and respect it, whether they’re libertarian or not. There are many who hate her, but that’s true for just about any major figure.
@@BlueSpawn No. The only people who think her work is worth note are her followers. I've read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." They read like c-tier fan fiction complete with self inserts for Rand. Her ego truly knew no bounds in life yet she was an abject failure. She has more in common with L. Ron Hubbard than any serious author or even a low bar like a philosopher.
One of her short stories, I enjoyed well enough - in high school. But it was a short story, so she didn't have a chance to ramble on and on and on and on. To my recollection it didn't contain a self-insert. @@sypherthe297th2
@@Nick-o-time Terrific. Now I have the lowest form of human, a tankie, responding to me. At least with people like you around I know there's at least two flavors of people, brown and red fascists, thinking they're going to seize power and put a bullet in the back of my head. I do like options. You're welcome to try at any time.
Libertarians really _love_ hypotheticals and theocraticals. Strange that the person who only wants to speak in hypotheticals is the person who claims to be an "objectivist."
Thank god. I thought they had got lost on coconut island or got shot by sam(who has the biggest gun) trespassing on his property while practicing nonagression
Libertarians, flat earthers, christian and muslim apologists, 3rd positionists, sovcits, climate deniars, moon landing hoaxers, redpillers and so many more groups of ideological morons make our days more interesting.
*I'm Australian and do you guys know that people like Charles Koch have been exporting this across the planet?* RIGHT NOW here in Australia we have a referendum to change out constitution to formally recognize that the country had an existing people with their own culture BEFORE British Colonization. It would set up a "Voice to Parliament" that's based on the systems the Nordic countries set up for the Sami people of Northern Scandinavia. It has taken years to set-up and get organised and was (at first) widely supported across the country. It now looks like failing due to a vicious misinformation campaign running on straight up fear. The public front of the "No Campaign" is lead by 2 well known Aboriginal with links to *American Libertarianism.* Both have worked with or for Australian Libertarian think tanks (yes we have them too). The most notable among those think tanks is the *The Institute of Public Affairs* (IPA). Not only does the IPA have links to a string of Australian billionaires including the Murdoch's (and yes Rupert & Lachlan are both radical libertarians) but it openly admits its links to America's Libertarian think tanks including the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute. *Go and look at its home page here on RUclips and scroll down to its links.*
Once the dust settles almost all voting libertarians will become fachsist. They realize eventually that rugged individualism is garbage and they resort to bundle of pencil ïñbrèdnēkcs. Which is literally a bundle of wood sticks
So, the foundational statement of his philosophy is, "I'm rational." That's not an argument. It's a framing device that allows him to think that all his subjective opinions are unquestionable fact. But anyone can do that. Think of the MLs who've made the word "materialist" meaningless through overuse. Or the youtube atheists who fetishised "reason" while veering to the far right.
"Ayn Rand was justified in taking welfare because she was reclaiming what was stolen from her!" Now, do you think libertarians would apply the same logic to workers reclaiming their stolen wealth from capitalists? I have my doubts, personally.
@@LinkRocksI think he was trying to place some kind of logic trap. Try to convince Sam to commit to agreeing to some vague nonsense idea without context, thinking he could then force Sam into conceding some other point, else be a hypocrite or wrong. And I think Sam was trying to cut to the point of asking what is his end argument that he wants to make with this idea, but caller didn't know how to handle Sam not falling for this. It was 10 minutes of him basically saying, "no no Sam, you are doing it wrong. Come step into my trap so I can win! You aren't stepping into my trap!"
@@claffert yeah, it's a very typical tactic of religious folks and any people with abnormal beliefs. They focus obvious things that others can agree with, and then automatically assume that as proof of their beliefs. "So you do agree that we don't actually know what that thing was on that video? Hence it must be aliens!"
@@claffert the question is what was that other point? my gut was telling me it was an anti-trans thing... but idk, it could have been something about black people or a lot of things
@@Praha175I had the same gut feeling. That he wanted to make a claim regarding what he perceived as an objective reality, while ignoring that a cultural construct can be a lot more nuanced and can't so easily be broken down into an oversimplified model of "A is A".
This was so brutal. Damn, I’m dumb af and even I knew where this was going. How could that caller not realise if he just thought a little bit more he ‘argument’ falls apart. 😂
Sam's "who cares?" just ruins so many of these deep philosophical ideas. It must be so upsetting to people who believe they've grasped some universal truth.
They never have anything new to say, they're just sure everyone else "just don't get it" so they try to explain it over and over and over and over.. They never tire... They literally think the rest of us are just too dumb to understand the most BASIC system EVER... And when we try to explain to them that they're essentially just going to drag us back to feudalism with rich lords dictating our lives, they really can't see it... It's completely impossible for them to understand the A to B to C of that whole thing.. Completely oblivious to how rich people will exploit the poor... They literally think we "just don't get it" cause we're too stupid... It's like having a child try to explain how cows can sleep standing upright by telling us about the strings that connect all cows to the sky... A kid constantly trying to convince us of the strings, that's what Libertarianism is.. "but seriously though, let me tell you about the strings again, I'm sure I can make you understand this time."
I was very hyped when he said he would reveal us the secrets behind one of Ayn Rand's philosophy's main axiom, and kind of disappointed by the tautologistic platitudes that followed 😢
Also, it's kind of weird for him to credit Ayn Rand specifically with the law of identity. It dates back almost 2000 years. On top of that, the caller never goes anywhere with it.
I've always thought the idea that private militias and courts could maintain society, and that an actual free market will invent jetpacks so we won't need roads were silly ideas....But that was because I've never considered that A=A.
Sam is like the final World of Warcraft 40-man raid boss to these libertarians, nobody has found a way to beat him yet because he’s just too powerful… We might need the moderators to step in because at this point it’s just unfair how effortlessly he dominates them every single time
It's fucking wild to hear Objectivists credit the idea that "independent reality exists" to Rand like that's some revolutionary idea nobody had come up with before her.
The ease with which objectivism crumbles: it's popularity lies in its ability to purr at gullible narcissists that *_their_* subjective is *_reality's_* objective. 🤦♂️
Telling a group of Materialists that "things are as they are and that change can't be 'wished' away". Is some kinda fucking insight. I, for one will be struggling with this profundity for the next few seconds.
@@Vincent-fo7xp Surviver Social Security because his father died. Most people in his position would have developed a respect for the program since it aided him.
Wow. I wanted to understand what the hell the caller was trying to say, because he sure wasn't correctly expressing the law of identity. So, I looked up what Rand said about the law of identity. It literally sounded like Deepak Chopra. The law of identity is axiomatic and tautological. It's only value is that it allows for logical coherence in reasoning. If I say a cat is not a dog, the law of identity allows us to determine if that statement is logically sound and valid. Since cats and dogs have discrete identity (because of the law of identity) we can apply logical reasoning to the statement. That is literally all the law of identity is doing. It has nothing to do with facts and feelings.
Is it me, or do libertarians have an excessively desperate need to tell people they think they are smart?? They must be permanently dizzy with all their circular reasoning..lol
I had a Twitter chat with a Libertarian. After going back and forth a bit, I asked, "Give me an example of a Libertarian society or culture that has worked."
Sam makes this point often, and I agree with the conclusion, but it's not logically sound. At some point, no gay marriages were legally recognized so you could make the same argument and claim they fail because "no gay marriage has happened yet" but clearly this previously untried thing of gay marriage works.
@@NotAUtubeCeleb I see what you're saying. The comparison of individual relationship type to a complex set of cultural structures (or no structure at all/anarchy) isn't exactly apples to apples. In all fairness, every form of government, society, or culture has an expiration date.
@ww7883 Let me re-state my argument more directly in case others don't see what Im saying. There's a difference between "no country has tried a system" and "every country has agreed that this system would be bad so they don't try it". The former doesn't prove anything while the latter would but it's impossible to prove.
Why does one need a philosophy in order to understand obvious concepts? Yes. You can't just wish things away. Thank you for sharing your superior knowledge. I wish that I, myself, would've thought of this, if only wishing worked, but alas... I'm merely an intellectual peasant. Praise to Ayn.
This guy! I loved the "what someone who's never encountered a philosophy imagines a philosophy to look like" and "how do I know you're not all a dream". 😂
These people call in only to leach viewers off the show and Sam doesn’t mind them plugging their stuff because he knows no one who watches Sam is ever going to go over to your channel after you look so bad in these calls.
A is A is a tautological statement. The caller doesn't realise that you can derive all sorts of contradictions from that. It is amazing people think Ayan Rand came up with this.
No, you can't derive anything from a tautology, that's why founding a system of political economy on it is ridiculous. Hume's guillotine - we have to make a jump over the is-ought gap by using something subjective, like preferences, beliefs and values.
Ayn Rand say A=A, but on the other hand ASOFAI says "Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie."
Put that Ayn Rand book in a trash and try to read actual philosophers and their ontological views. I guarantee you will stop throwing the word "fact" so carelessly.
@@vincesmith2499 Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter not only refused Social Security (and she applied for Medicare six years after the program started, so even if she reached the cap, she paid less than $2000 in taxes), so apparently principles didn't matter to Rand when those medical bills came in and she found out the hard way that she was wrong about smoking and lung cancer.
@@horacesheffield7367 Were you trying to make a point there? LOL. There should not be mandatory Social Security. But since there is, it's not wrong to want it back after you retire.
Well they think they are anarchists in the sense that they want to abolish govt and power structures but then also are willfully blind to the power structures inherent to capitalism.
@@NJ-wb1cz Didn't say we wanted to ban them. Please show where we say we wanted to ban them. Also, banning them would require a state, which is a thing we oppose the formation of. So, we'll wait. Go ahead. Show where we said we wanted to ban something. Or, if you can't, go ahead and show where we said we think there will be an anarchist future. We'll accept either.
@@KitaBFawkes Nah, I completely agree. I also don't think that there will be any anarchist or libertarian future, and that both are magical fantasies. I guess that makes me anarchist and libertarian
The reason why libertarians are so awful at debates is because they don't understand what circular reasoning is. This guy seems to be arguing, "Objectivism/Libertarianism is correct by definition because it is a fact. Facts are correct because they are facts. Therefore, objectivism/libertarianism is correct." One could apply the same logic to literally any belief system at all and would come to the conclusion that they're also correct by definition.
Poor dan. You can see Sam's patience for the ridiculous ideas driving these calls diminishing😂 he used to have fun with them and be very patient, now his tolerance for bullshit seems basically gone.
A is A is so trivial it isn’t even a mathematical axiom. The axiom of extensionality is For all of X and all of Y, if for all z, z is in X if and only if z is in Y, then X equals Y Meaning two sets are equivalent if they contain the same elements.
A = A is an axiom. Axiom of identity (Law of Identity). Im pretty sure. Though who cares? You think that libertarian has ever taken a discrete logic course? 😂😂😂
@@ProtossHyrdaliskthe law of identity isn’t in ZFC, which is the axiomatic basis for higher order mathematics. You got extensionality, regularity, schema of specification, pairing, union, schema of replacement, infinity, power set, and well-ordering (choice). Even Robinson Arithmetic, which are axioms for first order math, don’t have an explicit axiom of identity. Its equality axiom is For all X and Y, if the successor of X equals the successor of Y, then X equals Y. The axioms of identity for Peano arithmetic, slightly more versatile than Robinson, are about the additive and multiplicative identities, not equality. The closest I can find is For all X, X is not less than X Which means “less than” or “greater than” are not reflexive
@@52flyingbicyclesI literally have no clue what you’re talking about. And as someone who’s in a graduate level discrete math course, im a little concerned. No need for set theory. The argument being made by the caller is A is equivalent to A which is certainly an axiom for proofs. It’s really not all that important.
@@ProtossHyrdaliskfinally! Someone in my native field is challenging me in my native field! Either way, we can agree the axiom of identity isn’t exactly groundbreaking philosophy lmao. At least Descartes included thinking and being in his axiomatic basis of reality
Unproductive!?
Sam got a libertarian to yell "Ayn Rand DESERVED her welfare!"
AND it was a short call!! Best libertarian caller ever!
😂😂😂😂
This comment deserves more likes lmao
@@JacksonMurphyhaha You deserve more compliments for your dashing moustache
Tbf, everywhere I look they all believe she deserved her welfare.
Funny! 😁
I'm not a libertarian, I'm an objectivist, anyway let me take twenty minutes to tell you why every other libertarian is wrong
So many libertarians object to being called libertarian because it appeals to contrarian personalities.
@@sophiophile They are the epitome of being contrarian though.
No critical thought, just "guberment bad! Taxes theft! >:("
@@sophiophileThis may be part of the reason it was so satisfying when Rand Paul's neighbor beat the crap out of him.
@@66SixxyOMG I remember having my coffee and watching the news that day.. it was hilarious.. I laughed so hard and called my husband and told him about it.. he didn’t see the humor of the non aggression principle politician getting his ass beat by his neighbor while on his riding mower 😂 so much for the “we all agree not to be violent to each other” ideology.. the entire thing falls apart even between neighbors.. some people just need to get their smarmy asses knocked off their tractor.. a truth that was around before Rands infinitely deep philosophy
The delicious irony of all this is that the original concept of Libertarianism was developed by socialists.
Libertarians: We want all the protections of society and none of the responsibilites ...
See also SovCits.
They heard "having your cake and eating it too" and missed the fact that it was a criticism.
Correct!
Privatise the profits and socialise the costs, but if it was social theory not economic
@@madreese69 it's all shades of "I should get what I personally need" type of philosophy which explains why there are countless types of them and they all disagree with each other. They tend to be young because at that age they still consider the environment they grew up in as natural, almost god given, as if the things it provided to them are provided automatically in every system. And they rebel against that environment and want freedom to do whatever they want while still implicitly relying on getting everything they were always relying upon
The smile on Emma's face as soon as she hears "I'm an Ayn Rand fan" is priceless
I made the same face.
I like the slow turn and dead eyed stare Sam does to compliment Emma's glee, the perfect duality of man "Teeheehee!" and "I am so done with this conversation and it's just started."
It’s like face of a lion who has spotted an Outback Steakhouse
Yah. Totally the same look we all had.
Sam made the exact same sound that I did when he said that too haha
The only thing I find interesting about Libertarians is trying to guess how long it will take before they completely contradict themselves. The over/under is usually 5 minutes.
Can confirm!!! I have a friend who is libertarian and on food stamps 🤪
libertarianism is a perfectly good thing, like conservatism, however the Murican rightwing maligns both of them continuously. they are neither, they need therapy.
@@Gee-xb7rt Yes, libertarianism is perfectly fine until you turn 8 years old. Then you need to grow up.
@@Gee-xb7rt They aren't talking about lowercase "l" libertarianism, in general. They're talking about far right wing US Libertarianism/Objectivism (Any Rand), sometimes drifting into batshit crazy ancap land. Many on the Murican right, many Republicans, actually pretend to have Libertarian beliefs, and promote those beliefs, but are fascists, when push comes to shove.
@@Gee-xb7rt And, there is nothing "perfectly good" about Libertarianism/Objectivism.
Ayn Rand: "True things are true." (tautology)
Libertarians: "So profound!"
SAM: So what?
The Libertarian spent the whole time trying to say facts dont care about your feelings, all for Sam to say "so whats your point?". Its insane that he didnt have a point to make from there.
I’ve never had many life goals. I’m just really happy I’m not a Libertarian.
I once went to a sherrod Brown Town Hall the affordable Care act. There were tea party demonstrators yelling at us against Obamacare.
As we Departed, I had to rest because my neuropathy in my feet and ankles what is the tea party or this was walking by😅 and I told him that we need the ACA so that diabetics with pre-existing conditions can get healthcare. He then churches head and said," not my problem."
You're absolutely killing it at life then
@@CallofDutykemStrikes The problem you have is a lot of people take the simple premise of 'government shouldn't be all-encompassing' and take it to mean 'every part of government except the parts I personally approve of on a shallow level are bad, no I do not understand how any of the parts I want to abolish uphold the parts I like'
@@GymMusic-xq4nu"Not my problem" is a constant in the libertarian philosophy.
@@MustbeTheBassestit’s really the entirety of their belief system. infantile, selfish ignorance.
"I'm an Ayn Rand fan" *immediately loses debate*
@@horacesheffield7367They leave out that she's a complete hypocrite too, she loved government assistance with taxpayer money... for herself.
@@ComradeCatpurrnicus No, that's a smear. I have a video on my channel about it. It's titled, "Correcting smears of Ayn Rand: Social Security and welfare."
"Theft is bad but taking native American land and genocide them was fine because they were lazy" is a bigger contradiction of hers in my opinion.
And Emma smiles right when he says that. She knows exactly what's about to happen.
@@DanNorton1 I don't have to watch another video trying to launder and justify her hypocrisy with the argument that literally everyone has for using social programs. Look at it however the F you want, "it was stolen from me, I want it back" or "my tax dollars helping me and not just the ultra wealthy is nice", the outcome is the same, a society where the elderly (just like Rand) don't have to fall into poverty in old age. It is cute that you Rand fans, and presumably her, think that had the government not taken that small amount out of her earnings to give back later, that she, and all other elderly people, would be in a better situation. There's a reason why as much as many old people dislike the 'thought' of social programs that help people, they sure do love and fight for the ones that help them when they need it...
Truly one the the libertarians of all time
Everytime a Libertarian calls in Sam gets another Jetpack and Non-Aggression Principle wallet insert for his wall of political trophies.
i will never get sick of listening to these people willingly come on the show just to get absolutely dunked on by the entire team
I actually found this depressing to watch, and I'm not even libertarian. They were just gratuitously being scumbags to this caller and taking a lot of pleasure in doing so.
@@No_co_OKsuuuuuure, you're not a libertarian, JUST like the caller!
@@No_co_OK Bro, libertarians ARE scum
They won't directly admit it, but what they believe in would hurt and kill millions of pooor people.
And they are not only content with that, but would consider it a "objective truth" that if their perfect system cannot support those humans they deserve to die.
So sorry i don't have patience or sympathy for people who are only 2 steps removed from being nazis who advocate for euthanasia based on genetics rather than economic standing.
I know, they don't SAY it, cause they are cowards or not smart enough to actually thibk those premises through to the end.
@@HammerStudioGames I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that I am more progressive than you are. I just don't understand this idea that I need to like someone just because they happen to share the same politics as me. Someone having the same politics as me doesn't change the fact that they can be a bully and someone with absolutely no emotional intelligence.
@@No_co_OKscary how these platforms are all about agreeing and no debating.
Libertarian: "Matt argued by saying it doesn't have any content or meaning"
Plankton: "CORRECT!"
Plankton: “AND YOU’RE ALSO WRONG!”
Imagine citing one of the most basic (maybe even the most basic) rules of logic and thinking it's something profound.
It kind of is profound. There was a time when this was not a formalized concept. We stand on the shoulder of giants.
@@EvilGreens Lots of things were understood intuitively without being formalized concepts. You can't function in the world without presuming the law of identity. Maybe there is some profundity to that, but it's not some special or unique aspect to any system of thought unless you're contrasting with certain Eastern philosophies.
We do have Aristotle to thank for formalizing logic so that we can talk about things precisely. What Aristotle did was essentially the equivalent of inventing math. He is probably the most important thinker to ever live.
@@EvilGreens it's not profound, it's a simplistic stopgap based on incomplete data. We don't actually know if our will or wishing or praying can affect the world or not because we don't fully know the nature of consciousness and reality. We don't see consciousness or free will anywhere, we see atoms interacting with each other and we see ourselves as dumb automatons and we don't see any external influence on this dumb world of atoms that would constitute free will or consciousness. And yet we exist and we don't feel like our life is watching a movie, like atoms playing your life for you, something that you identify with is seemingly in control
Until we fully understand who are we and what is our life, these rules of logic will remain our own made up coping and trying to construct illusion of certainty out of thin air to make ourselves feel better
@@Returnality It's like, everybody knows if you have 1 stick and gather 1 additional stick that you now have 2 sticks.
1+1=2
This concept is sth even babies understand.
But have you ever seen the mathematical proof on that?
Bonkers.
It's like this meme about "The missile knows where it is by substracting 'where it is not' from the entire map"
Tens of thousands of years humans knew and understood this concept of addition, but only in the 18th century or so the proof got discovered.
People like you call it "basic" only out of ignorance. Clearly your small brain cannot comprehend that there was a time, before Ayn Rand invented this concept, when reality actually DID bend to your wishes and you really COULD make things true just by wanting them to be. No one talks about this
Unironically, the 101-level "But like, what if this is all a dream, man?" is significantly more advanced Philosophy than Objectivism.
If objectivism were a philosophy, then dudeism would be too. With greater right.
Exactly, they are like "reality is real I'm so smart" when in actual philosophy it's pretty much consensus that's not necessarily true and you could be a brain in a jar.
@@Jorge-np3tq The first step in understanding the value of empiricism is knowing that our perceptions of reality can be flawed, or even completely false. "Reality", such as it is, is just what a majority agrees is real... objectively measurable things, like mass and energy. We build up from that. But the further we go, or the more abstract, the less it's possible for "A is A" to have any meaning at all.
I mean, speaking of abstract, what even is "A"? If we take Rand literally, it's a letter. At best, it's a variable. Either way, it has absolutely no meaning except for what we arbitrarily assigned to it. And this is her fundamental principle of objectivity? What a joke.
Sam's attempt of miming that he was hitting a bong and everyone's reactions after this bizarre caller sent me over 😂
Matt saying "WOW" made me laugh so hard
Can't wait to see that clip on @MajorityReportOutOfContext
@@Ethan-gb3zh is that on Twitter?
@amberwilliams8240 yeah, I had the @ wrong tho. Its @NocontextMR
@@Ethan-gb3zh thanks. I'll look it up. Sounds hilarious
Ayn Rand died sad, impoverished, and alone, having accomplished none of what she truly wanted to accomplish in her life, which was to become a beloved novelist and screenwriter. In fact she achieved *just enough* success at it to get people to realize how utterly out of her depth she is. No wonder she invented a "philosophy" to make herself seem so much more important and profound than she actually is - and no wonder so many mediocre navel-gazing men are drawn to it.
Well you know the old saying. . . "Those who can't do. . . start a religion."
But she did become a beloved novelist. Decades after she died, hundreds of thousands of people read her work and respect it, whether they’re libertarian or not. There are many who hate her, but that’s true for just about any major figure.
@@BlueSpawn No. The only people who think her work is worth note are her followers. I've read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." They read like c-tier fan fiction complete with self inserts for Rand. Her ego truly knew no bounds in life yet she was an abject failure. She has more in common with L. Ron Hubbard than any serious author or even a low bar like a philosopher.
One of her short stories, I enjoyed well enough - in high school. But it was a short story, so she didn't have a chance to ramble on and on and on and on. To my recollection it didn't contain a self-insert. @@sypherthe297th2
@@Nick-o-time Terrific. Now I have the lowest form of human, a tankie, responding to me. At least with people like you around I know there's at least two flavors of people, brown and red fascists, thinking they're going to seize power and put a bullet in the back of my head. I do like options. You're welcome to try at any time.
Oh thank god. My Tuesdays are so long because of graduate school. Sam and gang, thank you. Insane libertarian caller, also thank you.
The look on Emma's face when the caller said he was an Ayn Rand fan. Priceless.
Libertarians really _love_ hypotheticals and theocraticals. Strange that the person who only wants to speak in hypotheticals is the person who claims to be an "objectivist."
He lost the debate as soon as he said he was an Ayn Rand fan
Thank god. I thought they had got lost on coconut island or got shot by sam(who has the biggest gun) trespassing on his property while practicing nonagression
I'm surprised he didn't check to see if Same updated his chat room policies
I’ve heard that if you’ve lived a bad life, you’re reborn as a libertarian. Sure hope that’s wrong.
Either that or a slug; it’s a coin toss.
Re-incarceration
@powbobs Slugs are cool.
Why, are you saying you've lived a bad life and are going to have to come and debate Sam in your next life?
@@imnotmikeonly the really masochistic ones
That’s just basic logic. No wonder a libertarian didn’t understand them.
I’m so glad I get to live on this planet with libertarians. Honestly, what a show!
People talk about climate crises and stuff but I would argue that a world without libertarians would be a total catastrophe 😂😂😂
I really thought it was a bong hit.
Next to creationists they have to be the next most dense humans on the planet.
Libertarians, flat earthers, christian and muslim apologists, 3rd positionists, sovcits, climate deniars, moon landing hoaxers, redpillers and so many more groups of ideological morons make our days more interesting.
*I'm Australian and do you guys know that people like Charles Koch have been exporting this across the planet?*
RIGHT NOW here in Australia we have a referendum to change out constitution to formally recognize that the country had an existing people with their own culture BEFORE British Colonization. It would set up a "Voice to Parliament" that's based on the systems the Nordic countries set up for the Sami people of Northern Scandinavia. It has taken years to set-up and get organised and was (at first) widely supported across the country.
It now looks like failing due to a vicious misinformation campaign running on straight up fear. The public front of the "No Campaign" is lead by 2 well known Aboriginal with links to *American Libertarianism.* Both have worked with or for Australian Libertarian think tanks (yes we have them too).
The most notable among those think tanks is the *The Institute of Public Affairs* (IPA). Not only does the IPA have links to a string of Australian billionaires including the Murdoch's (and yes Rupert & Lachlan are both radical libertarians) but it openly admits its links to America's Libertarian think tanks including the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute. *Go and look at its home page here on RUclips and scroll down to its links.*
Sam was like, "This shit again? OK, I'll school this libertarian again."
Sam debating some random libertarian always takes me to a happy place. 😊
Once the dust settles almost all voting libertarians will become fachsist. They realize eventually that rugged individualism is garbage and they resort to bundle of pencil ïñbrèdnēkcs. Which is literally a bundle of wood sticks
Imagine being a weeb for capitalism, but you didn't read the manga and skipped half the anime...
"I'm an Ayn Rand fan."
"Ew."
The failed bong bit at the end was the hardest I’ve laughed in a while
Same! 😂
Libertarians make me feel smart
Ahhh, nothing like a good libertarian (/ridiculous) debate to wash out the taste of a weird news week
So, the foundational statement of his philosophy is, "I'm rational." That's not an argument. It's a framing device that allows him to think that all his subjective opinions are unquestionable fact.
But anyone can do that. Think of the MLs who've made the word "materialist" meaningless through overuse. Or the youtube atheists who fetishised "reason" while veering to the far right.
"Ayn Rand was justified in taking welfare because she was reclaiming what was stolen from her!"
Now, do you think libertarians would apply the same logic to workers reclaiming their stolen wealth from capitalists? I have my doubts, personally.
Sam raises a good point. What's the point of this phone call? I was hoping for a juicy debate but this shit was so boring I had to pause half way
The guy just wanted to promote his crappy channel.
@@LinkRocksI think he was trying to place some kind of logic trap. Try to convince Sam to commit to agreeing to some vague nonsense idea without context, thinking he could then force Sam into conceding some other point, else be a hypocrite or wrong. And I think Sam was trying to cut to the point of asking what is his end argument that he wants to make with this idea, but caller didn't know how to handle Sam not falling for this. It was 10 minutes of him basically saying, "no no Sam, you are doing it wrong. Come step into my trap so I can win! You aren't stepping into my trap!"
@@claffert yeah, it's a very typical tactic of religious folks and any people with abnormal beliefs. They focus obvious things that others can agree with, and then automatically assume that as proof of their beliefs. "So you do agree that we don't actually know what that thing was on that video? Hence it must be aliens!"
@@claffert the question is what was that other point? my gut was telling me it was an anti-trans thing... but idk, it could have been something about black people or a lot of things
@@Praha175I had the same gut feeling. That he wanted to make a claim regarding what he perceived as an objective reality, while ignoring that a cultural construct can be a lot more nuanced and can't so easily be broken down into an oversimplified model of "A is A".
This was so brutal. Damn, I’m dumb af and even I knew where this was going. How could that caller not realise if he just thought a little bit more he ‘argument’ falls apart. 😂
Same, I'm also really stupid
This caller has spent too much time breathing his own flatulence.
Sam's "who cares?" just ruins so many of these deep philosophical ideas. It must be so upsetting to people who believe they've grasped some universal truth.
Indeed. If A=A, what is the B that leads people to this goofy philosophy?
Emma’s response to the bong rip was great
Oh god hes a ayn rand fan this is gonna be hilarous😂😂😂😂
I'm not sure that I've ever learned anything from these libertarian callers but they sure are entertaining.
They never have anything new to say, they're just sure everyone else "just don't get it" so they try to explain it over and over and over and over.. They never tire... They literally think the rest of us are just too dumb to understand the most BASIC system EVER... And when we try to explain to them that they're essentially just going to drag us back to feudalism with rich lords dictating our lives, they really can't see it... It's completely impossible for them to understand the A to B to C of that whole thing.. Completely oblivious to how rich people will exploit the poor...
They literally think we "just don't get it" cause we're too stupid... It's like having a child try to explain how cows can sleep standing upright by telling us about the strings that connect all cows to the sky... A kid constantly trying to convince us of the strings, that's what Libertarianism is.. "but seriously though, let me tell you about the strings again, I'm sure I can make you understand this time."
I've learned one thing from them, there are a whole lot of adults out there who never grew up.
@@menotyou8369 lol, you got that right!
I was very hyped when he said he would reveal us the secrets behind one of Ayn Rand's philosophy's main axiom, and kind of disappointed by the tautologistic platitudes that followed 😢
Also, it's kind of weird for him to credit Ayn Rand specifically with the law of identity. It dates back almost 2000 years. On top of that, the caller never goes anywhere with it.
him defending Ayn Rand for taking welfare is the funniest way of avoiding facts I’ve ever heard
This clip reminded me of a refrigerator magnet I once saw.
"I hate being bipolar, it's awesome !!!"
I've always thought the idea that private militias and courts could maintain society, and that an actual free market will invent jetpacks so we won't need roads were silly ideas....But that was because I've never considered that A=A.
😂😂😂😂 perfect way to wind down a day. Thanks Sam and crew!😂❤
Sam is like the final World of Warcraft 40-man raid boss to these libertarians, nobody has found a way to beat him yet because he’s just too powerful… We might need the moderators to step in because at this point it’s just unfair how effortlessly he dominates them every single time
Libertarian Forum post: Nerf Sam Seder pls
gotta beat that enrage timer with Sam Seder, he'll wipe you if you're taking too long!
I really thought that this caller would cry by the end.
"I am Sam Seder, blade of Social Security, and I have never known defeat"
Immediately clicked on the video after seeing the title. Of course it was Dan Norton. The king of Employer Island.
It's fucking wild to hear Objectivists credit the idea that "independent reality exists" to Rand like that's some revolutionary idea nobody had come up with before her.
A = A isn't just a tautology, it's like the most basic form of a tautology you can possibly make.
This was truly one of the debates ever.
I literally lost it entirely at Sam's ever so subtle "oooh" when the caller mentions he is an Ayn Rand fan lol
It could've been "ew"
@@NJ-wb1cz I interpreted it as 'ew' too... seems the most natural reaction to hearing Rand's name.
This WAS entertaining, actually. I laughed so much. The title you gave this clip was so on point.
The ease with which objectivism crumbles: it's popularity lies in its ability to purr at gullible narcissists that *_their_* subjective is *_reality's_* objective. 🤦♂️
Telling a group of Materialists that "things are as they are and that change can't be 'wished' away".
Is some kinda fucking insight.
I, for one will be struggling with this profundity for the next few seconds.
Ayan Rand drawing Social Security has always been a sore spot for the libertarian cause. I don't know why - Paul Ryan drew Social Security in college.
Paul Ryan I believe used Social Security money from his parents to pay for tuition I think
@@Vincent-fo7xp Which also makes him a hypocrite.
@@Vincent-fo7xp Surviver Social Security because his father died. Most people in his position would have developed a respect for the program since it aided him.
Emma laughing "what the fuck" is the best part of this vid
Wow. I wanted to understand what the hell the caller was trying to say, because he sure wasn't correctly expressing the law of identity.
So, I looked up what Rand said about the law of identity. It literally sounded like Deepak Chopra.
The law of identity is axiomatic and tautological. It's only value is that it allows for logical coherence in reasoning. If I say a cat is not a dog, the law of identity allows us to determine if that statement is logically sound and valid.
Since cats and dogs have discrete identity (because of the law of identity) we can apply logical reasoning to the statement. That is literally all the law of identity is doing. It has nothing to do with facts and feelings.
“Oh is this about objectivism?”
“No… it’s about a specific part of objectivism.” 🤦
"I'm not arguing for objectivism"
2 minutes later
"I'm not a libertarian, I'm an objectivist"
Libertarianism because regular Americans weren't selfish enough.
Is it me, or do libertarians have an excessively desperate need to tell people they think they are smart?? They must be permanently dizzy with all their circular reasoning..lol
Total word salad of a caller.
Need some Ayn Ranch with that word salad.
Watching Emma just barely try to hold back her laughter is probably my favorite part of every libertarian caller video.
Emma’s growing smirk through the first few minutes is my favorite
I had a Twitter chat with a Libertarian. After going back and forth a bit, I asked, "Give me an example of a Libertarian society or culture that has worked."
Look up Mexico
Sam makes this point often, and I agree with the conclusion, but it's not logically sound. At some point, no gay marriages were legally recognized so you could make the same argument and claim they fail because "no gay marriage has happened yet" but clearly this previously untried thing of gay marriage works.
@@NotAUtubeCeleb I see what you're saying. The comparison of individual relationship type to a complex set of cultural structures (or no structure at all/anarchy) isn't exactly apples to apples. In all fairness, every form of government, society, or culture has an expiration date.
@@jum90 mexico is not libertarian in the slightest
@ww7883 Let me re-state my argument more directly in case others don't see what Im saying. There's a difference between "no country has tried a system" and "every country has agreed that this system would be bad so they don't try it". The former doesn't prove anything while the latter would but it's impossible to prove.
Dude came in as an Ayn Rand fan and started debating metaphysics.
Why does one need a philosophy in order to understand obvious concepts? Yes. You can't just wish things away. Thank you for sharing your superior knowledge. I wish that I, myself, would've thought of this, if only wishing worked, but alas... I'm merely an intellectual peasant. Praise to Ayn.
That looooooong schlorp at the end is honestly the best part of this video lol 😂😂
If you make it quick... Sam can't help himself huh
Bro really called in to convince you that real things are indeed real.
"I'm an Ayn Rand fan."
"oooh"
Best response ever.
I think this caller also tried to pull this same kind of thing on the David Pakman show a little while back. He was equally dispatched as he was here.
This guy! I loved the "what someone who's never encountered a philosophy imagines a philosophy to look like" and "how do I know you're not all a dream". 😂
Caller : I’m an Ayn Rand fan
Sam : eeew
😂😂😂😂
These people call in only to leach viewers off the show and Sam doesn’t mind them plugging their stuff because he knows no one who watches Sam is ever going to go over to your channel after you look so bad in these calls.
Obvious man wants his common sense "philosophy" to wow others around him.
“Emma invited me” = Emma’s fault for staying overtime 😅😅😅 and thank uuu 😊
A: I'm an Ayn Rand fan.
B: Eugh.
A is A is a tautological statement. The caller doesn't realise that you can derive all sorts of contradictions from that. It is amazing people think Ayan Rand came up with this.
These people have no idea what axioms are. They call them "self-evident truths." Literally everyone outside their bubble calls them "assumptions."
No, you can't derive anything from a tautology, that's why founding a system of political economy on it is ridiculous. Hume's guillotine - we have to make a jump over the is-ought gap by using something subjective, like preferences, beliefs and values.
Ayn Rand say A=A, but on the other hand ASOFAI says "Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie."
Put that Ayn Rand book in a trash and try to read actual philosophers and their ontological views. I guarantee you will stop throwing the word "fact" so carelessly.
You can't change the fact that Ayn Rand applied for and accepted Social Welfare...
You mean Social Security she had been forced to pay into all her adult life?
And as such she was influential and started a lasting tradition amidst libertarian thinkers of do as I say not as I do.
@@vincesmith2499Yes. Just like taxes we are forced to pay into our entire lives. Peak Libertarian cope
@@vincesmith2499 Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter not only refused Social Security (and she applied for Medicare six years after the program started, so even if she reached the cap, she paid less than $2000 in taxes), so apparently principles didn't matter to Rand when those medical bills came in and she found out the hard way that she was wrong about smoking and lung cancer.
@@horacesheffield7367 Were you trying to make a point there? LOL. There should not be mandatory Social Security. But since there is, it's not wrong to want it back after you retire.
a=a? If we don't agree on what a is then that statement is useless.
i was hoping he'd just do his intro for 7 minutes like a hedeicker skit and then hang up
This 1000th comment has more meaning than that call.
"Most libertarians are anarchist." Um... no? Most American "libertarians" are capitalists and statists.
Signed, an actual anarchist
Well they think they are anarchists in the sense that they want to abolish govt and power structures but then also are willfully blind to the power structures inherent to capitalism.
So in your anarchist future you want to ban capitalism and state? Who exactly would enforce this ban and why?
@@NJ-wb1cz Didn't say we wanted to ban them. Please show where we say we wanted to ban them. Also, banning them would require a state, which is a thing we oppose the formation of. So, we'll wait. Go ahead. Show where we said we wanted to ban something. Or, if you can't, go ahead and show where we said we think there will be an anarchist future. We'll accept either.
@@KitaBFawkes Nah, I completely agree. I also don't think that there will be any anarchist or libertarian future, and that both are magical fantasies. I guess that makes me anarchist and libertarian
@@NJ-wb1czme. Cause they hurt me and my friends. Simple as.
Thanks, I needed that laugh. The "bong hit" was amazing.😂
I've heard Christians trot that "Aristotelian law of non-contradiction" line out before to justify their absolutism.
That's because it can be equally used to "prove" literally anything. Facts are facts so my facts (whatever they are) must be true
@@NJ-wb1cz Facts are demonstrable, and these leptons have ZERO demonstrable evidence.
Jesus Matt, you wrecked him with that quote
I was lost from the beginning, and it only got worse as the "debate" went on.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one!!
"Ayn Rand created Facts and Logic"
- Man who has never studied philosophy
Sam is wrong. That call was very entertaining.
The reason why libertarians are so awful at debates is because they don't understand what circular reasoning is. This guy seems to be arguing, "Objectivism/Libertarianism is correct by definition because it is a fact. Facts are correct because they are facts. Therefore, objectivism/libertarianism is correct." One could apply the same logic to literally any belief system at all and would come to the conclusion that they're also correct by definition.
Poor dan. You can see Sam's patience for the ridiculous ideas driving these calls diminishing😂 he used to have fun with them and be very patient, now his tolerance for bullshit seems basically gone.
Oh, Dan. Bless your heart.
Ayn Rand was not a philosopher. She was a science fiction writer who started her own religion called Scientology.
Ummm, that was L. Ron Hubbard.
@@danielzimmerman5837 I can't tell the difference.
@@wgjung1
Ok, that was good.
@@wgjung1 FINISH HIM
I do not understand why one of the basic laws of logic (the law of identity) has anything to do with Ayn Rand or Objectivism.
They confuse it for some kind of deep statement about reality. So they don't either.
A is A is so trivial it isn’t even a mathematical axiom. The axiom of extensionality is
For all of X and all of Y, if for all z, z is in X if and only if z is in Y, then X equals Y
Meaning two sets are equivalent if they contain the same elements.
A = A is an axiom. Axiom of identity (Law of Identity). Im pretty sure. Though who cares? You think that libertarian has ever taken a discrete logic course? 😂😂😂
@@ProtossHyrdaliskthe law of identity isn’t in ZFC, which is the axiomatic basis for higher order mathematics. You got extensionality, regularity, schema of specification, pairing, union, schema of replacement, infinity, power set, and well-ordering (choice).
Even Robinson Arithmetic, which are axioms for first order math, don’t have an explicit axiom of identity. Its equality axiom is
For all X and Y, if the successor of X equals the successor of Y, then X equals Y.
The axioms of identity for Peano arithmetic, slightly more versatile than Robinson, are about the additive and multiplicative identities, not equality. The closest I can find is
For all X, X is not less than X
Which means “less than” or “greater than” are not reflexive
@@52flyingbicyclesI literally have no clue what you’re talking about. And as someone who’s in a graduate level discrete math course, im a little concerned.
No need for set theory. The argument being made by the caller is A is equivalent to A which is certainly an axiom for proofs.
It’s really not all that important.
@@ProtossHyrdaliskfinally! Someone in my native field is challenging me in my native field!
Either way, we can agree the axiom of identity isn’t exactly groundbreaking philosophy lmao. At least Descartes included thinking and being in his axiomatic basis of reality
I’m reading atlas shrugged. It’s pretty embarrassing as political argument.