Ouço há muito tempo, mas é a primeira vez que comento. Embora possa não se refletir nas visualizações por várias razões, este foi um dos melhores podcasts até agora! A discussão de ideias, quando bem feita, é ainda mais importante entre pessoas com perspectivas diferentes sobre a vida :) Força nisso!
With regards to existence being axiomatic. This is a quote from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged: “You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved. When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence-when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness-he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both-he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero. When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn’t choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut one’s mouth, expound no theories and die.
Este debate foi fascinante, e a explicação de ideias que nem sempre são o que pensamos. Muito interessante também ver o contraste enrome entre a perspectiva dos dois. Já li as novelas de Ayn Rand e conhecia a filosofia por alto, mas o Yaron explicou tudo com tanta clareza. Obrigado!
A tese segundo a qual a emoção ainda é uma resposta racional podia ser testada com o exemplo dos ataques de pânico, já que não é sequer claro se primeiro surge a resposta emocional ou puramente fisiológica nem o que está na sua origem. Excelente podcast! Parabéns!
Muito interessante. Afinal existem mais utopias e é importante contactarmos com todas. Quanto mais alargado for o espectro mais conscientes estaremos das nossas posições. O mais importante é estabelecer à partida uma separação clara entre o pensamento filosófico e o politico. Esta distinção clara, deixa cair por terra, logo à partida, a tentação de colocar em prática um ou outro especto que achemos viável. "Isto era capaz de funcionar." Existe uma distancia imensa. Quaisquer que sejam os princípios filosóficos com os quais concordemos serão "apenas" princípios orientadores cuja realidade da sua implicação tem sempre imperfeições e maior complexidade. A casualidade da aplicação tem consequências que desafiam a lógica, o tal racional abordado. Desde logo porque era necessário um consenso sobre o mesmo; fazer uma análise da atual situação de um determinado país, que não partem todos do mesmo ponto; programas educacionais sobre a ética do egoísmo racional, influencia gradual sobre os partidos; uma vez consolidado não haveria politicas de bem estar ou redistribuição de riqueza visto que cada individuo é responsável pelo seu próprio sucesso e bem estar. Obviamente que teríamos resistência interna e externa nesta implementação e isso não significaria uma simples aversão à mudança ou desresponsabilização. Significa que filosoficamente as pessoas pensam de forma diferente. Porquê? Porque são livres de teorizarem e seguirem determinada filosofia de pensamento que é tão válida como qualquer outra que esteja alinhada com os pilares básicos dos direitos humanos.
Episodio muito interessante. Vejo sempre algo positivo trazer pessoas polarizadas para o debate. Acho que os exemplos colocados foram excelentes deixando o Yaron um pouco em apuros. Pessoalmente acho que este ativista politico tem uma visão muito cor de rosa do conceito de liberdade e propriedade. Concordo que pontualmente o estado tem um peso excessivo na nossa liberdade no entanto vejo com melhor olhos esta realidade do que a realidade que seria se vivêssemos no mundo ideal do Sr. Yaron.
Concerning the issue of food and famine, Yaron ought to have said, “why is there famine in the first place?” And The answer is, because capitalism and free markets haven’t been implemented in that part of the world. There hasn’t been a famine in a western country (where semi free markets and the price system reign) for well over a 150 years. It’s only in parts of Africa and Asia, where there are no property rights, rights of contract and association where famine still exists. In the west agricultural businesses are free to produce in the quantity that they are able, and price signals enable them to produce in order to meet demand, whatever it is, so that supply is regulated is real-time. As soon as demand increases price signals change informing existing businesses to increase their supply, and other businesses who want to make higher returns to come into the agricultural market and start producing goods of their own. Regarding the moral aspect of the question, no businessmen owes me or you anything. The fact that I may be starving as a result of a famine has no bearing over your life, and it is completely irrelevant to the successful running of a business. Does the fact that I’m starving change the law of gravity? No. People still have to work within the law of gravity regardless of other peoples suffering. Does the fact that I’m starving change any economic laws? like the law of supply and demand? Or the economic principle that a business cannot exist if it takes financial losses long term? No. But the more fundamental moral point here is that my life is not a mortgage on you, or on a business. The fact that someone needs something is not a moral claim against other people, it doesn’t impose an unchosen duty to fulfil. We are not our brothers keeper. Life doesn’t require sacrifice, it requires the gaining and achievement of values, not their loss. In a free society If you want to help people nobody can stop you, but don’t try to claim moral credit for helping others, that is not moral, that’s 1) virtue signalling which is immoral and 2) What is moral is your ability to survive, live, flourish successfully. It’s your ability to produce, create, live that determines how moral you are not how much you sacrifice.
The section about dopamine is baffling. Dopamine and the release of dopamine that is associated with a behaviour or action is intrinsically linked with how addictive something can be. Behaviours or substances CAN be psychologically addicting. Nonetheless it simultaneously serves an ultimate purpose and it is what guides us to usually continue to do behaviours that are important for us. Even eating is linked to dopamine. Yaron has completely missed the mark with this one. Just because it isn’t physically addictive it does not mean that it isn’t addictive. Nice episode though. Obrigado!
The part where Yaron chooses to disregard (or ignore, maybe?) every other part of the definition of liberty and make it a 1 dimension measurement, really sets it apart and makes his philosophy thrive. Somewhat valid, but it just strikes me as a cynical move to fit the narrative. Ofc you don't want to change people's lives/situations if you don't see them as less free than you/others just because they are in stark contrasting ways of living. Anyhow, amazing episode, Tomás and the rest of the team. Thank you for so much food for our brains.
Let’s say Liberty means: (1) political freedom (absence of coercion and no taxation), and (2) helping the poor to give them more opportunities. Let’s increase freedom 1 and 2 at the same time. Is it possible? No. Let’s separate concepts? Yes. This is not difficult.
So if you're forced to give up part of your life for the sake of others, how is this freedom? There's only one type of freedom, and that's freedom from coercion.
@@rafaelcconceicao number 1 does mean freedom, number 2, however, does not. Yes, you can do it, but freedom per se doesn't mean giving to the poor. It's just one of many options. Just get any dictionary and look for freedom. (Maybe in Portuguese the results may vary). There are a couple of meanings of which I need to bring this one up: "right of any citizen of acting without coercion or impediment, by their will, as long as it is inside law's limits". This is where I find hard to understand how can be sick (as the example given in the podcast) not affect one's liberty/freedom (I'm using them interchangeably because I'm Portuguese, but I think even if you make them separate concepts, it would work anyway). Also, I totally disagree with you. You can very well have both. You just have to get enough people to willingly give to the poor. You may not be forced to give if you don't want to. Acknowledging all of these concepts doesn't have to reduce the importance or our ability to deal with any of them. In my point of view, outright saying one's limitations aren't leading to a lack of liberty does hurt the solving of those same limitations.
@@Biologist19681 I'm not forcing no one... I'm just saying liberty/freedom do have a lot more meanings than "freedom from coercion". Yes, freedom from coercion is one sort of freedom, but so is freedom of choice, freedom of thinking, freedom of speech. And if anything caps any of those, in my mind, the individual has its Liberty conditioned. Even if it is by their own mistakes, or others, or whatever in the world happened to them. We can go case by case, I think it's important to do so so we can better try to help. But we cannot say their freedom is not at stake just because they have freedom of coercion. I mean, we can. It just doesn't tick right, to me. Have a nice one :)
In so many of these, Yaron says something and the interviewer just does not get it. Also, Yaron says a thing that is true and serious and the interviewer laughs as if it was a ridiculous thing and it was spot on, true and not at all funny.
Freedom means the absence of coercion. The concept arises in reality because there are situations in which some men use physical force against other men which prevents the victims from acting according to their own personal judgement for their own lives. The classic example is slavery. Are slaves unfree? Yes Why? because they are being coerced and are unable to act according to their own judgement, they are being physically restrained by the force, or threat of force from other men and this was legalised by government. If government then abolishes slavery and release the slaves from their chains are they now free even though they have no wealth, no homes, no education, no healthcare, not playstation? Has their condition fundamentally changed from what it was previously? Yes. They are now able to take independent permissionless action where they were previously unable to. This is what the concept freedom denotes. Now image that the slaves lived with their slave holders on a small island and travel off of the Island by sea was impossible because the technology hadn't been invented by someone on the Island yet, so now we have freed slaves living with their former slave holders on the island, peacefully, building things, trading with one another, respecting each others rights. Are the former slaves still unfree because they don't have access to the internet? And cannot take a vacation to Europe? Does the fact that their options are fewer in reality to what can be imagined in your mind, or fewer than the options of someone else living in the world make them less free on island ? No. They are still able to take independent, uncoerced action toward some goal that they set for themselves. A person's freedom doesn't change relative to what options other people have, that would be bizzare, because it would mean that every time someone invents something new, like the electric lightbulb, the car, the television, the iPhone etc, everyone becomes less free until they have the newly invented item. What kind of concept is that? Freedom changes from being "the absence of force" to "the gain of every material good that i want and can image" and unless it i them i'm unfree. This new definition then justifies to the Marxists that they can legitimately use government force to distribute people's wealth to others to make people more free, but what they are actually doing is using force against the productive class, stealing their wealth and giving it away, thereby reducing their freedom and their "choices". A poor person living in the USA is free, he can take independent action to get a job and earn a living so that he can provide for himself. The defintion of freedom that the host of the podcast is using is an arbitrary one and it's an egalitarian one. Someone has achieved freedom only when every individual have the same wealth and the same options/choices as everyone else. But this is an attack against reality, because they is a metaphysical impossibility. Is a man unfree because he cannot get pregnant? Is a blonde women unfree because the man that she's attracted to prefers brunettes and doesn't find her attractive? Is a man who can only speak one language unfree because there are men who can speak multiple languages and therefore may have more opportunities as a result? Is a man less free because he didn't pay attention at school and got bad grades and therefore has a low paying job, versus the man who studied hard at school and is now a high paying doctor? You cannot equalise opportunities, because our opportunities are based on a combination of our genetics, time and place of birth, nurture, AND most importantly our own character and values. You cannot equalise this unique set of circumstances. Consider a young person today who has the opportunity to go into the video game industry and be part of the next team who makes Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4. Does the fact that he has the opportunity to do that, but an old man in his 80s does not, or did not when he was growing up make him less free? No, that would be bizarre and ridiculous. Freedom is not "whatever you want, whenever you desire it" it's not based on whims or emotion, or need, it's a factual condition of reality between how human beings are acting toward each other, are they using force or not?
It's not that clear that dogs don't have abstract thoughts. They can have negative experiences, such as being bitten by a larger dog, they can then generalize that situation, and avoid being around large dogs in the future. I don't think they’re reacting instinctively, but instead taking action based on their negative experiences.
Este senhor não se deve importar que haja individualismo no Ocidente, aliás, assim o prefere que o seja. Mas no seu querido país Israel, certamente que nacionalismo, militarismo etc em suma colectivismo é algo que deve defender fervorosamente.
The million dollar question. That’s why some libertarians entertain the idea of one being able to “escape” the social contract which they did not sign at birth. Theoretically it’s interesting and understandable, but in practice it’s a bit more complicated, especially in a scenario where you can’t escape to another country and therefore become a free rider.
@@Despolariza lets be real, it is impossible unless one wants to live isolated on an island. If one wants to live in society with minimal safety, there is allways a social contract one has to abide by
@Despolariza I don't want to be a free rider. I want to not be sacrificed nor demand other people's sacrifices. The social contract is a contract imposed on the able for the sake of the needy. It is the fundamental principle of authoritarian collectivism.
In your "What is Freedom" section, you say that people who are poor are not free because their capacity to do what they really want has been throttled. But in reality, individuals have to be productive in order to survive. Those rare few who can not be productive must rely on voluntary charity. Being free of coercion from other men is what freedom means in a political context. Being "free" from the very nature of what it means to be a human being and removing productive action as necessary to or survival is an anti-reality view and amounts to the belief that the Garden of Eden can actually exist in reality. It's impossible. All that's actually accomplished here is the shackling of the productive to his/her non-productive counterpart by law, which is political force (coercion). Egalitarianism is not freedom. Property rights would cease to exist altogether. Rights are a right to action absent of physical force. They're not entitlements. My right to life means I have the right to pursue, however I deem necessary, my own happiness as long as I don't violate the rights of other individuals. You guys are discussing politics but I think that you might think you're discussing ethics. Politics is how man coexists alongside other men and ethics is how to best live your own life. Politics branches from ethics. So, for example, rights are a political concept and you wouldn't need rights if your were trapped alone on a deserted island. However you would still need ethics because you would still have to organize a hierarchy of values that would help you navigate and achieve your own survival. Political freedom is what you are discussing when trying to decide how a society should deal with its poor. We're conceptual beings, we survive by means of using concepts as tools and definitions are the essence of concepts. It's very important to define your concepts correctly like Yaron does in this talk or they'll steer you wrong. "A man is only as good as his definitions." -Ayn Rand
Super interessante! Espero que tenhas pago o jantar, o homem levou-te à escola em todos os problemas “bicudos” que lhe meteste há frente. A tua abordagem foi propositadamente provocadora, é o teu papel e fizeste-o bem, mas ele manteve-se fiel à lógica que uma ideologia se mede contra a média e não contra o unicórnio estatístico. Concordando-de ou não com as ideais podemos ficar ao menos com isso em mente, qualquer ideia ou ideal que consiga melhor a sociedade e o mundo em 1% deve ser levada a sério.
Fui a uma palestra deste gajo: aquilo é um culto. Sente-se isso de longe, mas tive que estar perto para percebe-lo. Ele é autoritário e não calmo. Qualquer gajo que rejeite o senso comum e vá contra tudo e todos é uma red flag.
@@vicente-tx5jr Num culto não se expõem ideias onde a audiência tem na sua maioria opiniões contrárias. Se conhecesse o yaron saberia que ele está constantemente envolvido em debates (os cultos fogem ao debate), e na grande parte a audiência é de opinião contrária, como é o caso da audiência do despolariza, como se prova por esta caixa de comentários.
@@vicente-tx5jr É irónico definir uma pessoa que defende acima de tudo o direito á propriedade privada como um autoritário, tendo em conta que o homem é o expoente máximo desse direito.
Surpreende-me ainda haver quem leve a sério esta filosofia/ideologia indefensável e insustentável em 2025. Tomás:" but me and my wife died, and we rather not" Yaron:"yes, that's very sad"
His point is that limiting your freedoms leads to all kinds of perversion. Trying to prevent all suffering will lead to way more suffering. The example of the man curfew to avoid rape is the perfect example. If your car is actually a risk to others then the state should sue you, and make you accountable, serving as an incentive for people to maintain their cars. The current system is just a bureaucracy to make you pay for very little benefit.
Heis uma pessoa extremamente inteligente a quem seria difícil defender se atacado, doente ou outra coisa do género. Porque isso iria estragar completamente a sua filosofia. Só por isso. Nada de pessoal senhor Yaron.
@@knwoledgeispower what is absurd? You want evidence that restricting individual freedoms in favor of the greater good leads to perversion? Just open an history book, how many lives were taken under socialism regimes.
@@thedasilvaify O objectivismo não rejeita a generosidade, apenas refere que simplesmente não temos obrigação moral de estender a mão a quem precise, daí que um objetivista que dispense ajuda ao próximo o faça de forma genuína. No socialismo é-nos imposto que cuidemos dos outros, mesmo contra a nossa vontade, quer esse outro o mereça ou não, e muitas vezes em detrimento de ajudarmos quem nos é próximo e importante nas nossas vidas.
O Yaron está tão traumatizado do contexto opressor do governo de Israel onde cresceu, que rejeita toda e qualquer intervenção de um governo na sua vida
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Global Capitalism: The U.S. Election and Trump 2.0 in Historical Perspective [November 2024]](/img/1.gif)
This was a great show! Yaron's so good at explaining the philosophy and he's not even a philosopher. This was great, thank you!
Ouço há muito tempo, mas é a primeira vez que comento. Embora possa não se refletir nas visualizações por várias razões, este foi um dos melhores podcasts até agora! A discussão de ideias, quando bem feita, é ainda mais importante entre pessoas com perspectivas diferentes sobre a vida :)
Força nisso!
Obrigado João! O espírito do projecto é mesmo esse: discórdia construtiva! ✌🏼
Conversa excelente! Muito prazerosa e provocante. Parabéns pelo episódio 🫶
This one was really really good! Thank you, Tomás!
Yaron’s thoughts are gold.
@@micchaelsanders6286 Hey Michael!
Surpreso por teres trazido Yaron brook, parabéns!!
Pessoalmente, também achei um dos melhores, senão o melhor, Despolariza até à data. Excelente debate 👏🏽
Obrigado Teresa!!
With regards to existence being axiomatic. This is a quote from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged:
“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.
When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence-when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness-he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both-he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.
When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn’t choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut one’s mouth, expound no theories and die.
Fixe! Obrigado pela partilha. Os meus comentadores são os melhores 🤓
Excelente podcast
Este debate foi fascinante, e a explicação de ideias que nem sempre são o que pensamos. Muito interessante também ver o contraste enrome entre a perspectiva dos dois.
Já li as novelas de Ayn Rand e conhecia a filosofia por alto, mas o Yaron explicou tudo com tanta clareza. Obrigado!
Adorei o debate!
Muito bom. Parabéns pelo podcast.
A tese segundo a qual a emoção ainda é uma resposta racional podia ser testada com o exemplo dos ataques de pânico, já que não é sequer claro se primeiro surge a resposta emocional ou puramente fisiológica nem o que está na sua origem.
Excelente podcast! Parabéns!
Muito bom! 👏
Muito interessante. Afinal existem mais utopias e é importante contactarmos com todas. Quanto mais alargado for o espectro mais conscientes estaremos das nossas posições. O mais importante é estabelecer à partida uma separação clara entre o pensamento filosófico e o politico. Esta distinção clara, deixa cair por terra, logo à partida, a tentação de colocar em prática um ou outro especto que achemos viável. "Isto era capaz de funcionar." Existe uma distancia imensa. Quaisquer que sejam os princípios filosóficos com os quais concordemos serão "apenas" princípios orientadores cuja realidade da sua implicação tem sempre imperfeições e maior complexidade. A casualidade da aplicação tem consequências que desafiam a lógica, o tal racional abordado. Desde logo porque era necessário um consenso sobre o mesmo; fazer uma análise da atual situação de um determinado país, que não partem todos do mesmo ponto; programas educacionais sobre a ética do egoísmo racional, influencia gradual sobre os partidos; uma vez consolidado não haveria politicas de bem estar ou redistribuição de riqueza visto que cada individuo é responsável pelo seu próprio sucesso e bem estar. Obviamente que teríamos resistência interna e externa nesta implementação e isso não significaria uma simples aversão à mudança ou desresponsabilização. Significa que filosoficamente as pessoas pensam de forma diferente. Porquê? Porque são livres de teorizarem e seguirem determinada filosofia de pensamento que é tão válida como qualquer outra que esteja alinhada com os pilares básicos dos direitos humanos.
Bom 2025 para os protagonistas deste episódio e para todos que passarem por aqui 🫶🏽🍾🥂
Episodio muito interessante. Vejo sempre algo positivo trazer pessoas polarizadas para o debate. Acho que os exemplos colocados foram excelentes deixando o Yaron um pouco em apuros. Pessoalmente acho que este ativista politico tem uma visão muito cor de rosa do conceito de liberdade e propriedade. Concordo que pontualmente o estado tem um peso excessivo na nossa liberdade no entanto vejo com melhor olhos esta realidade do que a realidade que seria se vivêssemos no mundo ideal do Sr. Yaron.
Obrigado!
Concerning the issue of food and famine, Yaron ought to have said, “why is there famine in the first place?” And The answer is, because capitalism and free markets haven’t been implemented in that part of the world. There hasn’t been a famine in a western country (where semi free markets and the price system reign) for well over a 150 years. It’s only in parts of Africa and Asia, where there are no property rights, rights of contract and association where famine still exists. In the west agricultural businesses are free to produce in the quantity that they are able, and price signals enable them to produce in order to meet demand, whatever it is, so that supply is regulated is real-time. As soon as demand increases price signals change informing existing businesses to increase their supply, and other businesses who want to make higher returns to come into the agricultural market and start producing goods of their own.
Regarding the moral aspect of the question, no businessmen owes me or you anything. The fact that I may be starving as a result of a famine has no bearing over your life, and it is completely irrelevant to the successful running of a business. Does the fact that I’m starving change the law of gravity? No. People still have to work within the law of gravity regardless of other peoples suffering. Does the fact that I’m starving change any economic laws? like the law of supply and demand? Or the economic principle that a business cannot exist if it takes financial losses long term? No. But the more fundamental moral point here is that my life is not a mortgage on you, or on a business. The fact that someone needs something is not a moral claim against other people, it doesn’t impose an unchosen duty to fulfil. We are not our brothers keeper. Life doesn’t require sacrifice, it requires the gaining and achievement of values, not their loss. In a free society If you want to help people nobody can stop you, but don’t try to claim moral credit for helping others, that is not moral, that’s 1) virtue signalling which is immoral and 2) What is moral is your ability to survive, live, flourish successfully. It’s your ability to produce, create, live that determines how moral you are not how much you sacrifice.
Tomás aka "Lex Fridman" Portugês. Simplesmente Enorme ! Continua o bom trabalho.
O Lex não fez contraditório, mas é um grande elogio na mesma 😍 Obrigado!!
A parte da história do rio mostra como isto é tudo uma utopia que só é boa para vender livros e palestras, não há qualquer adesão à realidade.
The section about dopamine is baffling. Dopamine and the release of dopamine that is associated with a behaviour or action is intrinsically linked with how addictive something can be. Behaviours or substances CAN be psychologically addicting. Nonetheless it simultaneously serves an ultimate purpose and it is what guides us to usually continue to do behaviours that are important for us. Even eating is linked to dopamine. Yaron has completely missed the mark with this one. Just because it isn’t physically addictive it does not mean that it isn’t addictive. Nice episode though. Obrigado!
The part where Yaron chooses to disregard (or ignore, maybe?) every other part of the definition of liberty and make it a 1 dimension measurement, really sets it apart and makes his philosophy thrive. Somewhat valid, but it just strikes me as a cynical move to fit the narrative. Ofc you don't want to change people's lives/situations if you don't see them as less free than you/others just because they are in stark contrasting ways of living.
Anyhow, amazing episode, Tomás and the rest of the team. Thank you for so much food for our brains.
Let’s say Liberty means: (1) political freedom (absence of coercion and no taxation), and (2) helping the poor to give them more opportunities.
Let’s increase freedom 1 and 2 at the same time. Is it possible? No. Let’s separate concepts? Yes. This is not difficult.
So if you're forced to give up part of your life for the sake of others, how is this freedom?
There's only one type of freedom, and that's freedom from coercion.
@@rafaelcconceicao number 1 does mean freedom, number 2, however, does not. Yes, you can do it, but freedom per se doesn't mean giving to the poor. It's just one of many options. Just get any dictionary and look for freedom. (Maybe in Portuguese the results may vary). There are a couple of meanings of which I need to bring this one up: "right of any citizen of acting without coercion or impediment, by their will, as long as it is inside law's limits". This is where I find hard to understand how can be sick (as the example given in the podcast) not affect one's liberty/freedom (I'm using them interchangeably because I'm Portuguese, but I think even if you make them separate concepts, it would work anyway).
Also, I totally disagree with you. You can very well have both. You just have to get enough people to willingly give to the poor. You may not be forced to give if you don't want to.
Acknowledging all of these concepts doesn't have to reduce the importance or our ability to deal with any of them. In my point of view, outright saying one's limitations aren't leading to a lack of liberty does hurt the solving of those same limitations.
@@Biologist19681 I'm not forcing no one... I'm just saying liberty/freedom do have a lot more meanings than "freedom from coercion". Yes, freedom from coercion is one sort of freedom, but so is freedom of choice, freedom of thinking, freedom of speech. And if anything caps any of those, in my mind, the individual has its Liberty conditioned. Even if it is by their own mistakes, or others, or whatever in the world happened to them. We can go case by case, I think it's important to do so so we can better try to help. But we cannot say their freedom is not at stake just because they have freedom of coercion.
I mean, we can. It just doesn't tick right, to me.
Have a nice one :)
@@TheGabrielSilva to think to speak to act accordingly to your choices you need absence from coercion. The opposite of freedom is coercion.
In so many of these, Yaron says something and the interviewer just does not get it. Also, Yaron says a thing that is true and serious and the interviewer laughs as if it was a ridiculous thing and it was spot on, true and not at all funny.
Freedom means the absence of coercion. The concept arises in reality because there are situations in which some men use physical force against other men which prevents the victims from acting according to their own personal judgement for their own lives. The classic example is slavery. Are slaves unfree? Yes Why? because they are being coerced and are unable to act according to their own judgement, they are being physically restrained by the force, or threat of force from other men and this was legalised by government. If government then abolishes slavery and release the slaves from their chains are they now free even though they have no wealth, no homes, no education, no healthcare, not playstation? Has their condition fundamentally changed from what it was previously? Yes. They are now able to take independent permissionless action where they were previously unable to. This is what the concept freedom denotes.
Now image that the slaves lived with their slave holders on a small island and travel off of the Island by sea was impossible because the technology hadn't been invented by someone on the Island yet, so now we have freed slaves living with their former slave holders on the island, peacefully, building things, trading with one another, respecting each others rights. Are the former slaves still unfree because they don't have access to the internet? And cannot take a vacation to Europe? Does the fact that their options are fewer in reality to what can be imagined in your mind, or fewer than the options of someone else living in the world make them less free on island ? No. They are still able to take independent, uncoerced action toward some goal that they set for themselves.
A person's freedom doesn't change relative to what options other people have, that would be bizzare, because it would mean that every time someone invents something new, like the electric lightbulb, the car, the television, the iPhone etc, everyone becomes less free until they have the newly invented item. What kind of concept is that? Freedom changes from being "the absence of force" to "the gain of every material good that i want and can image" and unless it i them i'm unfree. This new definition then justifies to the Marxists that they can legitimately use government force to distribute people's wealth to others to make people more free, but what they are actually doing is using force against the productive class, stealing their wealth and giving it away, thereby reducing their freedom and their "choices". A poor person living in the USA is free, he can take independent action to get a job and earn a living so that he can provide for himself.
The defintion of freedom that the host of the podcast is using is an arbitrary one and it's an egalitarian one. Someone has achieved freedom only when every individual have the same wealth and the same options/choices as everyone else. But this is an attack against reality, because they is a metaphysical impossibility. Is a man unfree because he cannot get pregnant? Is a blonde women unfree because the man that she's attracted to prefers brunettes and doesn't find her attractive? Is a man who can only speak one language unfree because there are men who can speak multiple languages and therefore may have more opportunities as a result? Is a man less free because he didn't pay attention at school and got bad grades and therefore has a low paying job, versus the man who studied hard at school and is now a high paying doctor? You cannot equalise opportunities, because our opportunities are based on a combination of our genetics, time and place of birth, nurture, AND most importantly our own character and values. You cannot equalise this unique set of circumstances. Consider a young person today who has the opportunity to go into the video game industry and be part of the next team who makes Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4. Does the fact that he has the opportunity to do that, but an old man in his 80s does not, or did not when he was growing up make him less free? No, that would be bizarre and ridiculous. Freedom is not "whatever you want, whenever you desire it" it's not based on whims or emotion, or need, it's a factual condition of reality between how human beings are acting toward each other, are they using force or not?
Não é possível por legendas?
Pode traduzir as legendas automáticas para português e aparecem por cima do vídeo!
🫣 "carregue" no símbolo á direita/superior e escolha 🤷
It's not that clear that dogs don't have abstract thoughts. They can have negative experiences, such as being bitten by a larger dog, they can then generalize that situation, and avoid being around large dogs in the future. I don't think they’re reacting instinctively, but instead taking action based on their negative experiences.
Este senhor não se deve importar que haja individualismo no Ocidente, aliás, assim o prefere que o seja. Mas no seu querido país Israel, certamente que nacionalismo, militarismo etc em suma colectivismo é algo que deve defender fervorosamente.
let me interject here Yaron, Portugal isbowned by the Portuguese people! and that will be made very clear soon!
Are the people you force to live for others by taking their earnings to subsidize other people's lives free?
The million dollar question. That’s why some libertarians entertain the idea of one being able to “escape” the social contract which they did not sign at birth. Theoretically it’s interesting and understandable, but in practice it’s a bit more complicated, especially in a scenario where you can’t escape to another country and therefore become a free rider.
@@Despolariza lets be real, it is impossible unless one wants to live isolated on an island. If one wants to live in society with minimal safety, there is allways a social contract one has to abide by
@Despolariza I don't want to be a free rider. I want to not be sacrificed nor demand other people's sacrifices.
The social contract is a contract imposed on the able for the sake of the needy. It is the fundamental principle of authoritarian collectivism.
@@rockchartrand5993 you can always live by yourself isolated on a desert island if you dont want to abide by the social contract.
@knwoledgeispower or I can just live as a civilized human being who deals with others by means of trade instead of as a thieving parasite.
You seen to misunderstand on a fundamental level how the profit motive is a great thing.
In your "What is Freedom" section, you say that people who are poor are not free because their capacity to do what they really want has been throttled. But in reality, individuals have to be productive in order to survive. Those rare few who can not be productive must rely on voluntary charity.
Being free of coercion from other men is what freedom means in a political context. Being "free" from the very nature of what it means to be a human being and removing productive action as necessary to or survival is an anti-reality view and amounts to the belief that the Garden of Eden can actually exist in reality. It's impossible. All that's actually accomplished here is the shackling of the productive to his/her non-productive counterpart by law, which is political force (coercion). Egalitarianism is not freedom. Property rights would cease to exist altogether.
Rights are a right to action absent of physical force. They're not entitlements. My right to life means I have the right to pursue, however I deem necessary, my own happiness as long as I don't violate the rights of other individuals.
You guys are discussing politics but I think that you might think you're discussing ethics. Politics is how man coexists alongside other men and ethics is how to best live your own life. Politics branches from ethics. So, for example, rights are a political concept and you wouldn't need rights if your were trapped alone on a deserted island. However you would still need ethics because you would still have to organize a hierarchy of values that would help you navigate and achieve your own survival.
Political freedom is what you are discussing when trying to decide how a society should deal with its poor. We're conceptual beings, we survive by means of using concepts as tools and definitions are the essence of concepts. It's very important to define your concepts correctly like Yaron does in this talk or they'll steer you wrong.
"A man is only as good as his definitions." -Ayn Rand
Que grande chalupa!! Este gajo é o suprasumo do liberalismo, chega quase a parecer um anarquista adorador de Nietzche 😂
Only he's not an anarchist nor does he like Neitzsche.
Super interessante! Espero que tenhas pago o jantar, o homem levou-te à escola em todos os problemas “bicudos” que lhe meteste há frente.
A tua abordagem foi propositadamente provocadora, é o teu papel e fizeste-o bem, mas ele manteve-se fiel à lógica que uma ideologia se mede contra a média e não contra o unicórnio estatístico.
Concordando-de ou não com as ideais podemos ficar ao menos com isso em mente, qualquer ideia ou ideal que consiga melhor a sociedade e o mundo em 1% deve ser levada a sério.
Fui a uma palestra deste gajo: aquilo é um culto. Sente-se isso de longe, mas tive que estar perto para percebe-lo. Ele é autoritário e não calmo. Qualquer gajo que rejeite o senso comum e vá contra tudo e todos é uma red flag.
@@vicente-tx5jr Num culto não se expõem ideias onde a audiência tem na sua maioria opiniões contrárias. Se conhecesse o yaron saberia que ele está constantemente envolvido em debates (os cultos fogem ao debate), e na grande parte a audiência é de opinião contrária, como é o caso da audiência do despolariza, como se prova por esta caixa de comentários.
@@vicente-tx5jr É irónico definir uma pessoa que defende acima de tudo o direito á propriedade privada como um autoritário, tendo em conta que o homem é o expoente máximo desse direito.
Surpreende-me ainda haver quem leve a sério esta filosofia/ideologia indefensável e insustentável em 2025. Tomás:" but me and my wife died, and we rather not" Yaron:"yes, that's very sad"
His point is that limiting your freedoms leads to all kinds of perversion. Trying to prevent all suffering will lead to way more suffering. The example of the man curfew to avoid rape is the perfect example. If your car is actually a risk to others then the state should sue you, and make you accountable, serving as an incentive for people to maintain their cars. The current system is just a bureaucracy to make you pay for very little benefit.
@ab452 that is absurd, do you have any evidence to support that?
Heis uma pessoa extremamente inteligente a quem seria difícil defender se atacado, doente ou outra coisa do género. Porque isso iria estragar completamente a sua filosofia. Só por isso. Nada de pessoal senhor Yaron.
@@knwoledgeispower what is absurd? You want evidence that restricting individual freedoms in favor of the greater good leads to perversion? Just open an history book, how many lives were taken under socialism regimes.
@@thedasilvaify O objectivismo não rejeita a generosidade, apenas refere que simplesmente não temos obrigação moral de estender a mão a quem precise, daí que um objetivista que dispense ajuda ao próximo o faça de forma genuína. No socialismo é-nos imposto que cuidemos dos outros, mesmo contra a nossa vontade, quer esse outro o mereça ou não, e muitas vezes em detrimento de ajudarmos quem nos é próximo e importante nas nossas vidas.
O Yaron está tão traumatizado do contexto opressor do governo de Israel onde cresceu, que rejeita toda e qualquer intervenção de um governo na sua vida
Porque deveria aceitar alguma opressão de um governo?
@@rafaelcconceicao não falei em opressão, essa eu tambem não aceito. falei em "intervenção" e a isso referia-me a proteção de direitos
@@lourencopinheiro2630 mas ele aceita “intervenção” na proteção de direitos. Talvez tenhas uma definição diferente do que direitos significa.
@@rafaelcconceicao a definição que eu tenho de direitos são os que estão na constituição portuguesa
@@lourencopinheiro2630 exato, acho que a discordância começa por aí, a constituição portuguesa está completamente desfasada da realidade