because conservatives lost the culture war, now academia are filled with marxists and marxist students from universities go straight into politics, without knowing how the real world works...
People think it's new but every few generations socialism/Marxism rears it's ugly stupid head. Marx was just the first to write down what the weak and stupid were thinking for millennia but also finally gave reasons (stupid reasons but reasons regardless) to justify it. Societies forget easily that the will of the masses is usually a stupid will, that drives them right off a cliff. We'll likely need to go through this many more times, unfortunately, but people like Dr. Friedman can make those times fewers and longer between, thank goodness.
@@ishitrealbad3039 That's what happens when you have governments allow you to avoid the draft by pursing higher level degrees. It changes the culture of universities. (Vietnam war)
If it has no personal cost, it has no personal value. It has been my contention for years that the people making all the choices in the government are never really affected by what they force others to do. They are therefore the least invested in the action. Why would they care about how it affects the peons.
@tim walsh don’t worry about it, there is a 70 to 80 percent chance they will not retain it. If they look down their nose at you they are not your friends, De-foo and you will be much happier.
There is more than one problem with socialism. Corruption may be the worst, except in China where low level corruption is executed, leaving only high ranking corruption. Castro and Hugo Chavez were billionaires from what they plundered from peasants.
Division of labor, you may not have realized it, is a well oiled collective. It is self auditing, decentralized, and eliminates hypocrisy. Eliminate hypocrisy? Yea. No one can swagger and say he is contributing to the collective if no one like the product of his labor.
Eventually machine learning model could produce an optional economic activity plan, but that would give the same result as a free market system anyway.
No. It would have to account for your actions and the actions of billions of people on the planet. You can't predict what will be popular 10 years from now, especially if it isn't invented or innovated yet.
Free markets are NP-complete and thus not computationally feasible. Neither a classic algorithm nor an ANN can thus create such a thing for all we know right now
@@MGTOWPsyche I have a B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science from a NYC University, and I was never taught Marxist Socialism yet alone replacing our current system with it. You are just fear mongering, or you have been fear mongered.
I am not an expert on marxism, but to my understanding marxism is the idea that doing physical labor or menial jobs is not fit for human beings therefore someone else should do the work. Who exactly that is needs to be worked out at some point I guess, but obviously the work needs to be done by sub humans, so that people are not forced to do that themselves.
Useful heuristic: Is you compare two theories, the more boring one is probably closer to the truth. Marxism makes the most extraordinary and interresting claims - thats the rason why it is popular amongst so many "intellectuals".
It has a ‘beginning’ ‘conflict(theory)’ middle and a undecided end that says it’ll all be better no matter what... never says how, so it’s up to the viewer to imagine Also Marx is more memorable because he has the simplest of names. 1 syllable per name; Karl Marx. Eng-els (two syllables, less popular) Also notice he attacked a man for his name being Levi. Levi with a I instead of a Y; Marx went on a rant about how ‘he’s the first Levi’ and hated the man for it lol
Hierarchy doesn't scale well for *complicated or dynamic* problems. It scales perfectly well for things that are simple and never change but nonetheless require one coordinating value reference, not even a dictator. For example the world would be better off if one measurement system were chosen for every nation. Even the a consistent decimal system would be better than a dozenal system. The same could be said for a universal *second* language. Also, being in charge of a larger military, ceteris paribus, is an advantage over adversaries because destruction is so simple especially compared to productive endeavors. Socialism works even without a hierarchy for simple things that don't require a single human's judgement. Schelling points develop a single standard from multiple people and are somewhat self enforcing as well as somewhat yielding to environmental pressures. To the extent that these values relate to slowly changing realities socialism scales. Not every aspect of society needs the effective scale/reach of markets and religions. Not every value can best be expressed in monetary units, including the remunerative value of a contract that fails to be fulfilled. Having said that, clearly markets are important for a thriving civilization, and none of this suggests that politics is essential let alone useful.
no the rebuttal was basically "that was not real socialism, socialism changed over time. capitalism is bad"Pretty much most people who defend socialism.
One thing I’m confused by; he calls the school system and the military socialist because the government owns the means to production - Isn’t socialism predicated exclusively on the idea that the means of production is owned by the workforce (not the government.) This a very popular/basic concept, so I don’t understand his use of it here. Hoping someone can enlighten me...
a good Capitalist will pay workers less money so they can Make more Money ....but if worker have less money then they cant buy sooo much stuff ...so producers will drop Prices ...so they can sell their stuff to pool people ... im Told... but if workers make a lot of Money they Can buy a lot of stuff ...so a good Capitalist will Raise prices so they can make a lot of Money and all is Balanced again ....the same .. Im told ..........WTF
How is this even an argument anymore?
because conservatives lost the culture war, now academia are filled with marxists and marxist students from universities go straight into politics, without knowing how the real world works...
People think it's new but every few generations socialism/Marxism rears it's ugly stupid head. Marx was just the first to write down what the weak and stupid were thinking for millennia but also finally gave reasons (stupid reasons but reasons regardless) to justify it. Societies forget easily that the will of the masses is usually a stupid will, that drives them right off a cliff. We'll likely need to go through this many more times, unfortunately, but people like Dr. Friedman can make those times fewers and longer between, thank goodness.
@@ishitrealbad3039 That's what happens when you have governments allow you to avoid the draft by pursing higher level degrees. It changes the culture of universities. (Vietnam war)
If we ancaps knew it all we would be in charge of an ancap society. Clearly we are missing something.
Capitalist destroys socialist with a pencil. Works every time.
Because he will always have as many pencils he will need while socialism only works until the money of "others" are exhausted.
If it has no personal cost, it has no personal value.
It has been my contention for years that the people making all the choices in the government are never really affected by what they force others to do.
They are therefore the least invested in the action.
Why would they care about how it affects the peons.
@tim walsh don’t worry about it, there is a 70 to 80 percent chance they will not retain it.
If they look down their nose at you they are not your friends, De-foo and you will be much happier.
@tim walsh What does that have to do with the OP's argument? Your friends aren't making decisions for your property.
I love how this isn't just people yelling at each other and people can actually make their cases
David Friedman is awesome 👌🏻✨
There is more than one problem with socialism. Corruption may be the worst, except in China where low level corruption is executed, leaving only high ranking corruption. Castro and Hugo Chavez were billionaires from what they plundered from peasants.
Division of labor, you may not have realized it, is a well oiled collective. It is self auditing, decentralized, and eliminates hypocrisy. Eliminate hypocrisy? Yea. No one can swagger and say he is contributing to the collective if no one like the product of his labor.
Eventually machine learning model could produce an optional economic activity plan, but that would give the same result as a free market system anyway.
No. It would have to account for your actions and the actions of billions of people on the planet. You can't predict what will be popular 10 years from now, especially if it isn't invented or innovated yet.
Free markets are NP-complete and thus not computationally feasible. Neither a classic algorithm nor an ANN can thus create such a thing for all we know right now
even if it could simulate a 100% accurate model which is impossible free will exists. the halting problem.
To be a Marxist you need 2 key components.
- Lack of understanding in economics
- Lack of knowledge on history
seems the school system is making sure students know little of both!
I would add that you should be: ignorant and resentful
@@MGTOWPsyche I have a B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science from a NYC University, and I was never taught Marxist Socialism yet alone replacing our current system with it.
You are just fear mongering, or you have been fear mongered.
@@andyc3012 I spoke of economics and history NOT taught in high school (General public)...Universities are a whole different problem.
You forgot critical thinking skills as well.
I am not an expert on marxism, but to my understanding marxism is the idea that doing physical labor or menial jobs is not fit for human beings therefore someone else should do the work. Who exactly that is needs to be worked out at some point I guess, but obviously the work needs to be done by sub humans, so that people are not forced to do that themselves.
Why isn’t there a link to the original video?
@Blog of The W3st - I think this is the full debate:
ua-cam.com/video/29qDJHoDStA/v-deo.html
@@anng.4542 thank ya :)
Every single government ran entity is incredibly mismanaged. Let that sink in all those who want full socialized society.
I'm not sure things sink in with socialists.
Exactly
Useful heuristic: Is you compare two theories, the more boring one is probably closer to the truth. Marxism makes the most extraordinary and interresting claims - thats the rason why it is popular amongst so many "intellectuals".
It has a ‘beginning’ ‘conflict(theory)’ middle and a undecided end that says it’ll all be better no matter what... never says how, so it’s up to the viewer to imagine
Also Marx is more memorable because he has the simplest of names.
1 syllable per name; Karl Marx.
Eng-els (two syllables, less popular)
Also notice he attacked a man for his name being Levi.
Levi with a I instead of a Y; Marx went on a rant about how ‘he’s the first Levi’ and hated the man for it lol
@@silent_stalker3687 Yeah, it entertains immagination greatly :)
Let the Commies live like this FOREVER!!!
Agreed. Earth is big enough to have both systems. Commies should all get together and live 'happily ever after'.
Hierarchy doesn't scale well for *complicated or dynamic* problems. It scales perfectly well for things that are simple and never change but nonetheless require one coordinating value reference, not even a dictator. For example the world would be better off if one measurement system were chosen for every nation. Even the a consistent decimal system would be better than a dozenal system. The same could be said for a universal *second* language. Also, being in charge of a larger military, ceteris paribus, is an advantage over adversaries because destruction is so simple especially compared to productive endeavors.
Socialism works even without a hierarchy for simple things that don't require a single human's judgement. Schelling points develop a single standard from multiple people and are somewhat self enforcing as well as somewhat yielding to environmental pressures. To the extent that these values relate to slowly changing realities socialism scales. Not every aspect of society needs the effective scale/reach of markets and religions. Not every value can best be expressed in monetary units, including the remunerative value of a contract that fails to be fulfilled.
Having said that, clearly markets are important for a thriving civilization, and none of this suggests that politics is essential let alone useful.
I wanna hear the rebuttal
I'm expecting the rebuttal to be "you just want people to die".
no the rebuttal was basically "that was not real socialism, socialism changed over time. capitalism is bad"Pretty much most people who defend socialism.
@@Paul-sj5db They always go to the extreme ludicrous assertions.
One thing I’m confused by; he calls the school system and the military socialist because the government owns the means to production - Isn’t socialism predicated exclusively on the idea that the means of production is owned by the workforce (not the government.) This a very popular/basic concept, so I don’t understand his use of it here. Hoping someone can enlighten me...
Marxism = the state owns and controls everything
David Friedman looks like David Ben Gurion
very interesting
Full debate:
ua-cam.com/video/29qDJHoDStA/v-deo.html
I thought that was Danny Devito..😭😂
2:37
a good Capitalist will pay workers less money so they can Make more Money ....but if worker have less money then they cant buy sooo much stuff ...so producers will drop Prices ...so they can sell their stuff to pool people ... im Told... but if workers make a lot of Money they Can buy a lot of stuff ...so a good Capitalist will Raise prices so they can make a lot of Money and all is Balanced again ....the same .. Im told ..........WTF
Dr Wolff looks mad as shit lmao
Dr Wolff is not impressed.
Wolff is lost.