One of Destiny's favorite debates in a long time. No pivoting, no bad faith or debate tactics. They bite the bullet on some extreme hypothetical analogies to test the limits of their positions. Enjoy.
Listening to your debates with vaush has given me another take on why leftists, hippies etc turn away from socialism as they get older. Apart from the obvious facts that socialism offers simple solutions for example defund the police to end police brutality or tax the rich to eliminate wealth inequality. As we get older and get real world experience we realise that most societal problems are complicated with no simple solutions. Your discussions with vaush have pointed out another dilemma, as we get older we start to make more money even if we have political neutral careers. Where can you put your money? Leave it in a bank and they could lend it out to unethical businesses. Put it in the stockmarket or 41k and extract profits from workers?
@@K1ngsd1 Cicero, Marx, Lenin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robespierre, etc. A lot of important statesmen and theoreticians in history and even currently are lawyers
I really like the canvassing and political action stuff tbh. Thought experiments start to feel pretty worn out at this point (or I am just exhausted from that worthless yelling match Destiny and Vaush had.)
@@shanedsouza189 No. He believes in rights, but is willing to accept infringements on those rights if the consequences are bad enough.. The other guy is willing to invalidate any right so long as it increases what makes him happy...
Your Honor... Destiny is a mainly feminine name meaning "destiny, fate", from the Latin word "destinare," meaning "to determine." It has been a popular name in the United States, where it is ranked in the top 50 names given to baby *GIRLS*
@@WarrenRhea Hey Bastiat. You killed it here. I disagree with the premise that-between two options-the better option is the "good" option. I think they were conflating the colloquial term for 'good' with the moral implications of the word 'good'. It felt like semantics on their part, as the saying something is "good" doesn't necessarily mean it is morally good. The two are entirely exclusive to seperate meanings.
@@illestvillain1971 late, but yeah, imo maybe "beneficial" would be a better term for the colloquial use. Then again you'd need to define for whom/how beneficial would apply, just internally or world-wide (e.g. the Yemen example).
"If my hamburger shoots someone every time I eat it am I responsible for that death?" Ah yes.... this entirely reasonable hypothetical I will now engage with. *Also dont hate me I just like this hypothetically a lot*
"Taxation is literally theft but is also necessary and we need more of it" is not an argument I've ever heard before, and thinking about it I'm I'm kinda surprised I don't hear it! I think it's basically wrong for the some of the reasons these guys get into (the vagueness of what constitutes property etc) but I admire following through on the premises
It's a secondary theft to offset the primary theft, because the essence of capitalism is monetary exploitation. The fact that we have to use taxation as a sort of bandaid to prevent society from degenerating into pure dog eat dog cancer where one cancer cell could theoretically own the entire earth, is proof that capitalism is based on faulty premises from the start. Being a socialist capitalist like the modern left is is simply admitting you don't like capitalism, but you're too much of a coward for real changes
@@nielss5945 Taxation isnt some bandaid to capitalism, its present in almost any government structure, sometimes more than how it is now. Unless you're some anarchist, im not sure what you mean.
@@nielss5945 what a great straw man. Your argument only works against anarcho capitalism. You do realize that it's ok for a an economic system to rely on a government right? Litteraly every economic system does this that isn't a denomination of anarchy, I fail to see how this is a good faith criticism.
1:57:00 Here is the fundamental difference between bastiat and the other guy. Bastiat: i want what i want, and to get it, im willing to do bad things, so long as it results in the outcomes i want.. Other guy: i want what i want, and anything i do to get it is good, so long as it gets me what i want.. I think they are both wrong. But bastiat is far closer to the correct answer. Which is. I want what i want, and will try to convince you, but i will not infringe on your rights to get it, even if that means i dont get it at all..
This is probably the only long format debate I've liked on this channel. Bastiat n lawyer bro are debating how I'd imagine two old greek scholars without close mindedness
the intellectual property example is flawed. Ideas like characters, stories, jokes, coding solutions aren't simple things. They are simple to copy, but the reasoning and work done to hone them down, even if its as simple as drawing blueprints or a formula or thinking about how a character interacts within their world, or as simple as coming up with a punchline takes mental effort and time. The thief has taken your labour, and in most cases, destroys any market you can have while simultaneusly being able to claim you are a copycat or damaging 'their' property if they can spread it faster than you (normally thieves like this have bigger platforms because they dont waste time crafting, only performing/selling finished products). Intellectual theft is more akin to wage theft
To shift the focus from physical theft of the USB drive, you could replace it with the idea that he uses her laptop to email himself the PDF. Or he memorises it and is going to reproduce it from memory, because then physically nothing is being removed. It's the concept of her work that is being stolen.
Hey, I remember Pisco from the "pack the court" debate! Probably one of the most reasonable voices I've heard via Destiny, although this panel is great all around.
I love that they genuinely want help each other understand the others positions. This is how I feel the founding fathers actually discussed the bill of rights.
Amazing discussion holy shit the analogy about if eating a hamburger caused an assassin to kill 1 million people and if that would be moral or not had me grinning like an idiot hahaha
@@Ivan-qf4mt I would start worshipping those burgers. Especially in the case of rocks randomly crushing a million people each time you eat one. Those are some scary scary burgers.
12:00 this hypothetical breaks down when you account for historical determinism. its not a fact that that book makes 10 million dollars it could have made nothing.
These are the types of conversations that I desire when listening to debates. I truly want to hear smart people present their arguments in a charitable way that I feel like has actually increased my understanding of the topic. I really love that Destiny is surrounding himself with people like Pisco so we can listen to better convos. Pisco has definetly lawyerpilled me.
"What's the difference between taxation and petty theft?" I assume it's A) the fact that I can at least vote for my favorite thief and B) no matter who wins, a politician is still bound by laws, regulations, and oversight. I don't know if I can have A and the closest I can get to B is maybe the police or lethal force but that leads to the vet conversation we're having.
Not too far of "death penalty is murder". Just a matter of if "unlawful" is part of your definition, which you shouldn't pick and chose (and I think Bastiat wouldn't).
Would the arguments Destiny takes here, not change his opinion on the moral responsability of Trump on the Riots. He says that there is no moral agency if between a bad outcome is another person with agency. There were certain intermediate agents between the things Trump did and the riot.
I just watched the vod last night. It was an excellent discussion that gave me a lot to think about. I wish I had people in my life that I could have discussions like this with.
I would love for someone to justify the concept of ownership. We really haven't defined property, at all. It bothers me when people hide behind the presumption that "it goes without saying".
This was a great debate but I’m suprized how unimportant individual sovereignty is to these guys. Even going as far as to call it “anarchist” at one point. I want my decisions to come from me, not my society or government. But sure they can set the bounds of autonomy. But those bounds should be as wide as possible, right?
One very important study to bring up for all this is the UK study of pirated media. From what I've been able to find it is the largest study done on pirated media, it had the conclusion that pirated music and movies had a negative effect on sales while video games had a neutral effect on sales (leaning more towards positive than negative but from what I read it was still within the standard deviation so it's not clear-cut). Not saying sales are the deciding factor but they are important to this discussion and it's always good to have factual data (where it matters) to back your stances.
Intellectual property in physical forms, or at least in a purchasable form, can obviously be as vulnerable to stealing as any other physical property. It's not he idea so much as it is the use of the idea and what people gain out of it - ability to profit, stealing credit of having the idea, which could both result in a similar situation that stealing something would.
The self defense argument isn't death for the action. It is stating that the infringer is knowingly entering into a death match with their victim. The aggressor is accepting that they must flee or kill the victim in order to survive after attacking a victim that provides notice of self defence by lethal force. The Victim isn't prescribing death. Rather a voluntary struggle that may result in the aggressors death if they are not aggressive enough. The whole moral actors thing. The person responsible for the death is in part the aggressor, and if anything, they are more responsible for their own death if it happens than the victim would be.
I feel like they ignored the patent side of IP law. Because ideas like that used to be company secrets protected with physical force. And you could very well still make the argument in the modern-day for potential patent ideas being stolen.
Great convo. I have to say though, whats the point of dying on the hill that certain acctions are immoral no matter what but that youd do them every single time. The distinctions feels pretty meaningless at that point and it just feels like a virtue signal to remain at the position that all these actions are immoral objectively.
My moral principle would be to seek what the other person considers a "polite greeting" and decide whether I want to engage or abstain, rather than impose my customs onto them.
This "tax is theft" argument is so cringe. Without tax, laws don't provide protection against theft to begin with and laws don't get enforced. It's like saying that the security guard you hired to protect your money is stealing his wages from you. But in fact if you don't pay for the security guard the money you are trying to protect wouldn't exist either. So if you just "fall out of society" and return to nature, you would be at the absolute self reliance stage where you can only have what you personally work for. I think you can still do this without failure, there are millions of people living like this. But since most people want to live in society, their interests trump yours, so you will have to move to a deserted area. By living in society, you automatically agree to paying for the society to exist. Also, you can still choose which country you wish to live in, so it's not like it's a one or nothing market.
@@thornspitfire3977 not everyone wants the services of government. It is a huge error to assume a person automatically agrees to pay for a society by living in it This logic is equivalent to "she was wet so she must have wanted it" No. ask the person if you want to know their desire. Then understand that taxes are taken from some people by threat of force
@@Fakery if they stay in society (even buy anything on the market with money) they agree with their actions to pay taxes. The only instance your reasoning stands is if you are offgrid somewhere in Siberia or North Canada and don't even meet the government, nor take any service from them at all. Then you can say that you want to have nothing to do with society. Until you walk the roads and surf the internet it's your duty to pay for it because all goods and services are made possible by everyone cashing in.
@@thornspitfire3977 "if she laughed it was acceptable" "if she came she wanted it" "if she doesn't murder she is christian" "if she bought from the market she agrees with taxes" It is silly to divine intention and desires and beliefs when you can directly ask. Especially when the stated intention from the source directly contradict your imagined intentions from the outside. Not everyone wants to be in society or pay taxes, and they tell you this directly. It may be helpful to develop an ear to listen
57:00 If you want vigilante justice, the quickest way to get it is by abandoning retributive justice. I agree to allow the state to handle punishing criminals, because it leads to the best results for everybody. However, tell me you will let the guy who killed my (insert family member here) walk free because he isnt a threat to anybody, I will no longer allow the state to act on my behalf, and will go get my own justice. And, i'd refuse to say guilty in response to anybody getting their own justice in such a situation...
The wage theft example here is super weird. I can’t imagine a scenario where a boss is stealing your wages, and you are able to stop them from doing so with the use of lethal force. Wage theft generally happens by a boss writing your paycheck for a lower amount than you are owed. There’s no point where the boss is taking of some funds you already possess. The fact that you didn’t take possession of those funds is the theft. I guess you could rob your boss at gunpoint? And then maybe if you knew he had the cash he owed you on his person, and he fought to keep it to the point you could not retrieve it without lethal force you could kill him? The point of property defense is supposed to be to stop a theft in progress though. a restorative thing to forcefully get the property back after it’s been stolen is something different.
I wish bastiat wouldn't launch into an entire speech every time it's his turn to talk. YOU ARE BUT CLAY TO BE MOLDED BY THE GOVERNMENT like ok dude maybe just have a normal conversation.
How does this always end up at determinism? Even if quantum mechanics gets you "just" randomness, there's no evidence that free will can't affect that randomness. As unlikely as it may seem that free will may not exist, you're basically saying you believe in God (or not) with certainty if you pretend to "know" that the universe is deterministic. Is it just not possible to avoid the question of determinism altogether?
Because who exactly is exerting the free will? Every decision a human makes is nothing more than neurons firing in your brain. That precedes consciousness, self-awareness, everything. And the way those neurons fire is wholly based on genetics and life experiences. You can consciously choose to make a certain decision, but what you end up choosing, and the fact that you even had that thought to begin with is just because some neurons in your brain fired completely subconsciously.
@@hnielsen123 I explained this somewhere else, but to summarize, at the quantum level, when a particle or waveform collapses, it collapses (usually) into one form. How is that form chosen? Know there are probabilities, but what is the mechanism that leads to one and not the other? People like Sean Carroll would say that every possibility IS chosen and we're living in a multiverse, but that still leaves us with the fact that theoretically, anything is possible, even in our universe, as unlikely as some events are. A neuron firing is an incredibly complicated matter. They're typically considered all-or-nothing and instantaneous, but that's not technically physically, true. There's also the matter of the brain having higher-dimension and multi-dimensional structure, which means that the connections neurons make seem to have an ordered structure as you add axes/parameters; far more structure than you should have for your average structure that exists in three-dimensions. To be clear, dimensions here are in the structural sense (like a tesseract being a 4D cube), not the spacetime sense. There's simply not enough evidence one way or the other. Detractors say that there's too much heat and noise for quantum mechanical effects to show up on a macroscopic level in the human mind, but that's not necessarily true, either, as because of the various connections and delays in signal relay, you potentially could get variances that percolate up from ion channels opening up at different rates because they were wobbling a certain way or because ions had varying momenta resulting in thousands of race conditions that lead to wildly differing orders of synapses firing. Sorry, I tried to be as concise as possible lol. The point is, as metaphysical as it sounds, the mechanism of the collapsing of a wave function is not something we understand and leaves room for basically anything.
I don't agree with the point that profiting from intellectual property is rivalrous, as that could apply to any monopoly. In fact, the ideas and skills that we view as the most commonplace and non-rival (playing a musical instrument, using language, breathing air) could then also be argued to be the most rivalrous, since anyone holding a "monopoly" to use those skills would hold incredible economic power. It would be more interesting to discuss the rivalness of property right systems themselves, and how different systems (e.g. common vs private ownership of ideas, land, etc) could benefit people differently.
One of Destiny's favorite debates in a long time. No pivoting, no bad faith or debate tactics. They bite the bullet on some extreme hypothetical analogies to test the limits of their positions.
Enjoy.
ok i will!
Vaush could never
PHOENIX WRIGHT: You're lying, damnit! I can prove it!
Listening to your debates with vaush has given me another take on why leftists, hippies etc turn away from socialism as they get older. Apart from the obvious facts that socialism offers simple solutions for example defund the police to end police brutality or tax the rich to eliminate wealth inequality. As we get older and get real world experience we realise that most societal problems are complicated with no simple solutions.
Your discussions with vaush have pointed out another dilemma, as we get older we start to make more money even if we have political neutral careers. Where can you put your money? Leave it in a bank and they could lend it out to unethical businesses. Put it in the stockmarket or 41k and extract profits from workers?
I do enjoy good debates
This was actually a really cool and calm debate. Unsubbed.
Based as fuck, gave you the 69th up vote, thank me later.
OMEGALUL
Imagine being understanding and willing to change your position on anything, smh..
Showed him who's boss.
Same
Destiny finally got the open, charitable, and honest conversation that he always wanted, and it's with fucking lawyers.
our preconceived notions have been incorrect this whole time
pretty ironic huh
Lawyers are OG intellectuals. Some of the most influential thinkers were lawyers
@@nemomeimpunelacessit8121 can you give us a few of examples, curious
@@K1ngsd1 Cicero, Marx, Lenin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robespierre, etc.
A lot of important statesmen and theoreticians in history and even currently are lawyers
this is the level of pure nerdy debate I crave.
@@jilsk3153 How dare you.
Same
The court rules destiny is a girls name.
AMAZIN
Has there been a evidentiary hearing to establish if Destiny luvs black people?
@@faust8218 hey I don’t make the rules buddy...
@@faust8218 Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Jessie Lee Peterson should have been the moderator for this one. He would have been a based judge.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaow Amazin'
BAYYYDAA MALE!
ITZ A MESS
If we're being honest JLP should moderate every debate ever
The Honorable Judge Peterson has ruled that all parties are BEEYTAAA MALES
imagine not talking to people who can actually hold a conversation regularly
Breaking news: grass-related deaths skyrockets
I love debates that have hypotheticals that can end with someone saying, "Yea, than its basically a hamburger Gun"
Good faith arguments??? That’s not what I’m here for 😡 I want blood!
Good faith arguments? That's a girl's debate!
The funny thing is, you're not kidding.
I really hope this is the direction Destiny's content goes. This is way more interesting than the debates they do.
I really like the canvassing and political action stuff tbh. Thought experiments start to feel pretty worn out at this point (or I am just exhausted from that worthless yelling match Destiny and Vaush had.)
I hope there's more content like this then there is currently, but i love the blood sports and political action stuff too
I love when Bastiat get riled up cuz he gets all poetic and shit.
It’s the lawyer poking through 😂
Bastiat is the one bridge I would never forgive Destiny for burning. And maybe Dpak
@@kingghidra1032 as long as destiny doesnt start simping for China he's probably safe
@@busbee247 China do be kinda hot though 😳
23:39 He really starts to turn up; I love it lol
Now I understand why Bastiat says he's a liberal and not a socdem.
He's too inconsistent to be a socdem
@@Bolizen it's not necessarily inconsistent, it seems like he believes in certain systems and rights that serve his personal happiness the best.
@@shanedsouza189
No. He believes in rights, but is willing to accept infringements on those rights if the consequences are bad enough..
The other guy is willing to invalidate any right so long as it increases what makes him happy...
Editor, the title should be 4 lawyers. Destiny's LSAT performance is all the proof we need
What score?
@@ostdog9385
I am also curious
I don’t think it was good, but the man literally studied 0 minutes with no schooling
@@hendog5396
What did he get?
May as well since they included a law student as a lawyer
Your Honor... Destiny is a mainly feminine name meaning "destiny, fate", from the Latin word "destinare," meaning "to determine." It has been a popular name in the United States, where it is ranked in the top 50 names given to baby *GIRLS*
I must say my brain is still in recovery mode after taking so many high level important ideas....
Lmao good one
@Alli Brown doing my best chief
Destiny? That's a lawyer's name!
Not with that lsat score
🎶u were raised by your daaddy and mommaa, that makes u half wooman and half maaaan🎵
Bastiat Talking About Taxes: Alright, but Im going to complain the whole time.
True
Kicking and screaming, please.
Good point!
@@WarrenRhea Hey Bastiat. You killed it here.
I disagree with the premise that-between two options-the better option is the "good" option.
I think they were conflating the colloquial term for 'good' with the moral implications of the word 'good'.
It felt like semantics on their part, as the saying something is "good" doesn't necessarily mean it is morally good. The two are entirely exclusive to seperate meanings.
@@illestvillain1971 late, but yeah, imo maybe "beneficial" would be a better term for the colloquial use. Then again you'd need to define for whom/how beneficial would apply, just internally or world-wide (e.g. the Yemen example).
Oh man 4 intelligent men debating is amazing, no screaming no backtracking no bullshit >
Normally it would be fairly boring but it's a nice change imo ngl
The only person missing *is* No Bullshit, the last true bastion of truth
"If my hamburger shoots someone every time I eat it am I responsible for that death?"
Ah yes.... this entirely reasonable hypothetical I will now engage with.
*Also dont hate me I just like this hypothetically a lot*
Editor carrying Destiny with those thumbnails
ye every single thumbnail is a work of art in itself
This conversation was based as fuck, steel teeth ftw. Crush the bullets.
This was such a fun debate. I felt like I was forced to answer to some moral foundations myself and participate in the debate. Loved it.
I clicked cause Phoenix Wright.
OBJECTION!
Same
"Taxation is literally theft but is also necessary and we need more of it" is not an argument I've ever heard before, and thinking about it I'm I'm kinda surprised I don't hear it! I think it's basically wrong for the some of the reasons these guys get into (the vagueness of what constitutes property etc) but I admire following through on the premises
It's a secondary theft to offset the primary theft, because the essence of capitalism is monetary exploitation. The fact that we have to use taxation as a sort of bandaid to prevent society from degenerating into pure dog eat dog cancer where one cancer cell could theoretically own the entire earth, is proof that capitalism is based on faulty premises from the start. Being a socialist capitalist like the modern left is is simply admitting you don't like capitalism, but you're too much of a coward for real changes
Was it really your money in the first place when you literally owed that money to having a society with a currency?
@@royvanvu9715 Or a society which built the infrastructure and the publicly funded research which enables you to earn money in the first place?
@@nielss5945 Taxation isnt some bandaid to capitalism, its present in almost any government structure, sometimes more than how it is now. Unless you're some anarchist, im not sure what you mean.
@@nielss5945 what a great straw man. Your argument only works against anarcho capitalism. You do realize that it's ok for a an economic system to rely on a government right? Litteraly every economic system does this that isn't a denomination of anarchy, I fail to see how this is a good faith criticism.
They sure are saying a lot of words
I don't know if this comment has some kind of implication attached to it but I laughed regardless.
1:57:00
Here is the fundamental difference between bastiat and the other guy.
Bastiat: i want what i want, and to get it, im willing to do bad things, so long as it results in the outcomes i want..
Other guy: i want what i want, and anything i do to get it is good, so long as it gets me what i want..
I think they are both wrong. But bastiat is far closer to the correct answer. Which is.
I want what i want, and will try to convince you, but i will not infringe on your rights to get it, even if that means i dont get it at all..
This is probably the only long format debate I've liked on this channel. Bastiat n lawyer bro are debating how I'd imagine two old greek scholars without close mindedness
greek scholars would pluck a chicken and throw it into the other ones classroom
You should check out the perspective philosophy, rem, Marty and destiny conversation. It gets meta-physical.
this is the best conversation ive heard in a while
Game he is playing in the background is Dyson Sphere Program, available on steam
Lawyer? That’s a girl’s profession
Bruh?
the intellectual property example is flawed. Ideas like characters, stories, jokes, coding solutions aren't simple things. They are simple to copy, but the reasoning and work done to hone them down, even if its as simple as drawing blueprints or a formula or thinking about how a character interacts within their world, or as simple as coming up with a punchline takes mental effort and time. The thief has taken your labour, and in most cases, destroys any market you can have while simultaneusly being able to claim you are a copycat or damaging 'their' property if they can spread it faster than you (normally thieves like this have bigger platforms because they dont waste time crafting, only performing/selling finished products). Intellectual theft is more akin to wage theft
To shift the focus from physical theft of the USB drive, you could replace it with the idea that he uses her laptop to email himself the PDF. Or he memorises it and is going to reproduce it from memory, because then physically nothing is being removed. It's the concept of her work that is being stolen.
I was so excited. Only caught the second half of this live
Hey, I remember Pisco from the "pack the court" debate! Probably one of the most reasonable voices I've heard via Destiny, although this panel is great all around.
"Fuck that shit." Gotta admit... I did not see that coming. I think I have to give you a Like for that...it's one of my principles.
Logic lords liked this.
I love that they genuinely want help each other understand the others positions. This is how I feel the founding fathers actually discussed the bill of rights.
Humanity's total knowledge may have increased, but I feel like the average person has gotten dumber.
@@WanderTheNomadthe average IQ has definitley been increasing, we are smarter but perhaps not wiser
@@brandonwickstead9159 agreed
Lol, imagine if it really sounded like a killstream.
@@WanderTheNomad Clearly not.
They should become the “Good Faith Podcast”
Amazing discussion holy shit the analogy about if eating a hamburger caused an assassin to kill 1 million people and if that would be moral or not had me grinning like an idiot hahaha
That should be one tasty fucking burger.
@@Ivan-qf4mt I would start worshipping those burgers.
Especially in the case of rocks randomly crushing a million people each time you eat one. Those are some scary scary burgers.
Cant thank you enough editor, ya the real MVP
12:00 this hypothetical breaks down when you account for historical determinism. its not a fact that that book makes 10 million dollars it could have made nothing.
These are the types of conversations that I desire when listening to debates. I truly want to hear smart people present their arguments in a charitable way that I feel like has actually increased my understanding of the topic. I really love that Destiny is surrounding himself with people like Pisco so we can listen to better convos. Pisco has definetly lawyerpilled me.
Nobody will ever buddy rationally and calmly talk hypothetically and this was so refreshing
You should try re-reading your comments before you post them.
Awesome!! I was just about to scour the Twitch VODs for this!! Thank you!!
"hamburger gun"
but for real, this was a very interesting conversation. I almost learned something.
1:04:36
Amazing debate, really hurt my brain just keeping up
"What's the difference between taxation and petty theft?" I assume it's A) the fact that I can at least vote for my favorite thief and B) no matter who wins, a politician is still bound by laws, regulations, and oversight.
I don't know if I can have A and the closest I can get to B is maybe the police or lethal force but that leads to the vet conversation we're having.
"taxation is theft" guy is a gunner.
Not too far of "death penalty is murder". Just a matter of if "unlawful" is part of your definition, which you shouldn't pick and chose (and I think Bastiat wouldn't).
Was this even a debate? People got to speak there positions and the other side got to speak opposition with no interruptions. That's a conversation!
I wish I had the audacity to argue with a fucking lawyer
What game is that? Looks like factorio but as a robot in the future
was wondering the same. Did you ever find out?
This is the Bestiny content. We need more of these
Timestamp 1:32:00
Editor messed up. There was another person who was part of the discussion. Peter Coffin jumps in at 2:05:00
please Destiny have more of these debates theyre actually having a conversation not just tryna gotcha and being right
Would the arguments Destiny takes here, not change his opinion on the moral responsability of Trump on the Riots. He says that there is no moral agency if between a bad outcome is another person with agency. There were certain intermediate agents between the things Trump did and the riot.
I just watched the vod last night. It was an excellent discussion that gave me a lot to think about. I wish I had people in my life that I could have discussions like this with.
Bastiat is an assassin
Pisco95 is a templar
I would love for someone to justify the concept of ownership. We really haven't defined property, at all. It bothers me when people hide behind the presumption that "it goes without saying".
Absolutely loved this debate. One of the first that I've watched which had me genuinely question the foundation of my moral structure.
What game is this?
Dyson Sphere Programme
@@Aqoric Thank you!
Is this what debate heaven looks like?
This was a great debate but I’m suprized how unimportant individual sovereignty is to these guys. Even going as far as to call it “anarchist” at one point. I want my decisions to come from me, not my society or government. But sure they can set the bounds of autonomy. But those bounds should be as wide as possible, right?
One very important study to bring up for all this is the UK study of pirated media. From what I've been able to find it is the largest study done on pirated media, it had the conclusion that pirated music and movies had a negative effect on sales while video games had a neutral effect on sales (leaning more towards positive than negative but from what I read it was still within the standard deviation so it's not clear-cut). Not saying sales are the deciding factor but they are important to this discussion and it's always good to have factual data (where it matters) to back your stances.
My debate tactics brings all the lawyers to the yard...
This was a crazy debate and honestly super fun to listen too.
damn this video showed up in my feeeeed
What game is Destiny playing? (in case he changes games at some point I haven't heard yet, I mean in the beginning.)
Dyson Sphere Programme
whats the game?
Did you find out?
The more law degrees there are, the calmer the debate is.
i kind of wish we'd get a link to an unlisted version with the swearing still in, the quick silencing is so jarring :'(. stupid youtube
Now this is a pleasant convo to hear. More of this, it was a lot of fun to listen to.
For these debate style videos where the listening is sufficient it would be cool if Destiny uploaded them to Spotify
Intellectual property in physical forms, or at least in a purchasable form, can obviously be as vulnerable to stealing as any other physical property.
It's not he idea so much as it is the use of the idea and what people gain out of it - ability to profit, stealing credit of having the idea, which could both result in a similar situation that stealing something would.
Think Pisco would be a public defender or one of those ‘state’ attorneys? Can’t tell
"We don't hold society at-large accountable for its failures to individuals." FINALLY HE GETS IT!
The self defense argument isn't death for the action. It is stating that the infringer is knowingly entering into a death match with their victim. The aggressor is accepting that they must flee or kill the victim in order to survive after attacking a victim that provides notice of self defence by lethal force.
The Victim isn't prescribing death. Rather a voluntary struggle that may result in the aggressors death if they are not aggressive enough. The whole moral actors thing. The person responsible for the death is in part the aggressor, and if anything, they are more responsible for their own death if it happens than the victim would be.
I WANT TO HEAR YOU SAY IT!
amazing thumbnail
I feel like they ignored the patent side of IP law. Because ideas like that used to be company secrets protected with physical force. And you could very well still make the argument in the modern-day for potential patent ideas being stolen.
Great convo. I have to say though, whats the point of dying on the hill that certain acctions are immoral no matter what but that youd do them every single time. The distinctions feels pretty meaningless at that point and it just feels like a virtue signal to remain at the position that all these actions are immoral objectively.
Bastiat has earned the title of goated
"I GOT ALL I NEED"
My moral principle would be to seek what the other person considers a "polite greeting" and decide whether I want to engage or abstain, rather than impose my customs onto them.
Can someone please tell me what game that is
Dyson Sphere Programme
@@zacke6 Thank you
@@HowManyToasters np was wondering the same thing but scrolled way down and found someone commented it ^^
34:51
51:20
1:12:00
This "tax is theft" argument is so cringe. Without tax, laws don't provide protection against theft to begin with and laws don't get enforced. It's like saying that the security guard you hired to protect your money is stealing his wages from you. But in fact if you don't pay for the security guard the money you are trying to protect wouldn't exist either. So if you just "fall out of society" and return to nature, you would be at the absolute self reliance stage where you can only have what you personally work for. I think you can still do this without failure, there are millions of people living like this. But since most people want to live in society, their interests trump yours, so you will have to move to a deserted area. By living in society, you automatically agree to paying for the society to exist. Also, you can still choose which country you wish to live in, so it's not like it's a one or nothing market.
Yeahh taxation clearly is not theft. Taxation is extortion
@@Fakery Why? You get all the services of society for it. Or do you perhaps think you should get all social goods for free?
@@thornspitfire3977 not everyone wants the services of government. It is a huge error to assume a person automatically agrees to pay for a society by living in it
This logic is equivalent to "she was wet so she must have wanted it"
No. ask the person if you want to know their desire. Then understand that taxes are taken from some people by threat of force
@@Fakery if they stay in society (even buy anything on the market with money) they agree with their actions to pay taxes. The only instance your reasoning stands is if you are offgrid somewhere in Siberia or North Canada and don't even meet the government, nor take any service from them at all. Then you can say that you want to have nothing to do with society. Until you walk the roads and surf the internet it's your duty to pay for it because all goods and services are made possible by everyone cashing in.
@@thornspitfire3977 "if she laughed it was acceptable"
"if she came she wanted it"
"if she doesn't murder she is christian"
"if she bought from the market she agrees with taxes"
It is silly to divine intention and desires and beliefs when you can directly ask. Especially when the stated intention from the source directly contradict your imagined intentions from the outside.
Not everyone wants to be in society or pay taxes, and they tell you this directly. It may be helpful to develop an ear to listen
Wait, appolez and taybor are the same person? im confused why taybor’s twitter is in the description
it's an inside joke because they sound similar. Taybor is an NFL player and Appolez is a corporate lawyer or something.
57:00
If you want vigilante justice, the quickest way to get it is by abandoning retributive justice. I agree to allow the state to handle punishing criminals, because it leads to the best results for everybody.
However, tell me you will let the guy who killed my (insert family member here) walk free because he isnt a threat to anybody, I will no longer allow the state to act on my behalf, and will go get my own justice. And, i'd refuse to say guilty in response to anybody getting their own justice in such a situation...
Oh boy, I’m looking forward to this
Im kinda disappointed in Bastiat.
"I think you should be able to defend yourself against a robber.... but not with a nuclear weapon". Someone should make a t-shirt of this
The wage theft example here is super weird. I can’t imagine a scenario where a boss is stealing your wages, and you are able to stop them from doing so with the use of lethal force. Wage theft generally happens by a boss writing your paycheck for a lower amount than you are owed. There’s no point where the boss is taking of some funds you already possess. The fact that you didn’t take possession of those funds is the theft.
I guess you could rob your boss at gunpoint? And then maybe if you knew he had the cash he owed you on his person, and he fought to keep it to the point you could not retrieve it without lethal force you could kill him? The point of property defense is supposed to be to stop a theft in progress though. a restorative thing to forcefully get the property back after it’s been stolen is something different.
I wish bastiat wouldn't launch into an entire speech every time it's his turn to talk. YOU ARE BUT CLAY TO BE MOLDED BY THE GOVERNMENT like ok dude maybe just have a normal conversation.
How does this always end up at determinism? Even if quantum mechanics gets you "just" randomness, there's no evidence that free will can't affect that randomness. As unlikely as it may seem that free will may not exist, you're basically saying you believe in God (or not) with certainty if you pretend to "know" that the universe is deterministic. Is it just not possible to avoid the question of determinism altogether?
Because who exactly is exerting the free will? Every decision a human makes is nothing more than neurons firing in your brain. That precedes consciousness, self-awareness, everything. And the way those neurons fire is wholly based on genetics and life experiences. You can consciously choose to make a certain decision, but what you end up choosing, and the fact that you even had that thought to begin with is just because some neurons in your brain fired completely subconsciously.
@@hnielsen123 I explained this somewhere else, but to summarize, at the quantum level, when a particle or waveform collapses, it collapses (usually) into one form. How is that form chosen? Know there are probabilities, but what is the mechanism that leads to one and not the other? People like Sean Carroll would say that every possibility IS chosen and we're living in a multiverse, but that still leaves us with the fact that theoretically, anything is possible, even in our universe, as unlikely as some events are. A neuron firing is an incredibly complicated matter. They're typically considered all-or-nothing and instantaneous, but that's not technically physically, true. There's also the matter of the brain having higher-dimension and multi-dimensional structure, which means that the connections neurons make seem to have an ordered structure as you add axes/parameters; far more structure than you should have for your average structure that exists in three-dimensions. To be clear, dimensions here are in the structural sense (like a tesseract being a 4D cube), not the spacetime sense.
There's simply not enough evidence one way or the other. Detractors say that there's too much heat and noise for quantum mechanical effects to show up on a macroscopic level in the human mind, but that's not necessarily true, either, as because of the various connections and delays in signal relay, you potentially could get variances that percolate up from ion channels opening up at different rates because they were wobbling a certain way or because ions had varying momenta resulting in thousands of race conditions that lead to wildly differing orders of synapses firing.
Sorry, I tried to be as concise as possible lol.
The point is, as metaphysical as it sounds, the mechanism of the collapsing of a wave function is not something we understand and leaves room for basically anything.
I don't agree with the point that profiting from intellectual property is rivalrous, as that could apply to any monopoly. In fact, the ideas and skills that we view as the most commonplace and non-rival (playing a musical instrument, using language, breathing air) could then also be argued to be the most rivalrous, since anyone holding a "monopoly" to use those skills would hold incredible economic power. It would be more interesting to discuss the rivalness of property right systems themselves, and how different systems (e.g. common vs private ownership of ideas, land, etc) could benefit people differently.
Bastiat is mistaken about his morality. He is clearly a consequentialist who assigns a lot of utility to personal freedom.
Dude good faith convo Wowie
GREAT discussion. More of this style, please.