Dave Smith on Libertarianism and Why He Says Economic Inequality is Not Necessarily a Bad Thing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble. You can watch the full episode for FREE here: rumble.com/v52...
Follow Dave Smith's comedy here: comicdavesmith...
Now available as a podcast! Find full episodes here: linktr.ee/syst...
Join us LIVE on Rumble, weeknights at 7pm ET: rumble.com/c/G...
Become part of our Locals community: greenwald.loca...
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: / ggreenwald
Instagram: / glenn.11.greenwald
Follow System Update:
Twitter: / systemupdate_
Instagram: / systemupdate__
TikTok: / systemupdate__
Facebook: / systemupdate.tv
LinkedIn: / systemupdate
I wasn't aware Glenn lost his husband. My sympathies, Glenn . Hope you are doing alright. From a deplorable libratarian, I wish you the best.
In August it will be a year, I think. He was in ICU for almost a year with sepsis. Very sad
wow I had no idea either - I wonder what's keeping him in Brazil at this point, is it just the 22 pups he has? Seems like an unsafe choice to remain there
@@AJ-HawksToxicFinger he has two young sons who are Brazilian heritage plus Glenn has been there for 20 years. He has a gorgeous home and life there. Used to be perfect till he lost his soul mate.
😊
@@AJ-HawksToxicFinger he's got kids.
The global move away from sound money is at the core of every issue we have today. Enables government tyranny. Wealth inequality. Name an economic problem we have today and fiat is at the root of it.
an example that best illustrates your point?
@@hairywhodini3429The United States today
The gold standard is even better for bankers, they like to spread the idea it'll be good for us. Wasn't that way in America. Look up the bimetalists eg
@@hairywhodini3429 Fiat enables the gov't to maintain huge deficits and debt levels. Were they not able to do this, both the level of militarization (foreign bases, military spending, etc.) and the number of "wars of choice" (meaning wars that are not absolutely necessary) would be impossible. This same reasoning holds for many other gov't programs, including heavy regulation, corporate welfare, and market manipulation/rigging. Put simply, it makes gov't far more powerful than it otherwise would be.
Fiat currency enables fractional reserve banking. A simplistic summary is that this enables banks and other entities to spend money that they don't have (in a way that is different from simply being in debt). This results in many awful behaviours and consequences, including greatly amplified inflation, perversion of incentive structures (e.g. "financial services" being 'more valuable' that tangibly productive endeavours because fractional reserve greatly amplifies the earning potential of financial endeavors), and a need for market interventions from the gov't of ever-increasing intensity (because fractional reserve is a ponzi scheme, which appears to "work" so long as the consequences are kept swept under the rug; the thing is that the magnitude of the consequences, and as a result the size of the rug needed to hide them, gets substantially larger the longer the scheme continues).
Government tyranny people, rich tyranny poor what the difference there?
This pairing gives me the warm fuzzies
I'm a Libertarian, and I like Glenn Greenwald! :)
you don't even know that you're an anarchist then; libertarians in general are just monetarists that think they are something else (or they are actual anarchists)
Same. He's one of my heroes.
The government is basically the Genie in the bottle. Whoever wields it has the power.
It's neither good nor evil.
It does what it is told to do by those who controll it.
That's why it's so important for the 99% to gain control over it and not to simply give it away to people who constantly lie ,break the trust and eventually oppresse the people.
*Corruption is a grassroots movement.* Thus an elected government (and often also what comes after) reflects the true virtue level of the masses.
And who controls the government?
You might like Distributism. It's main ideas are that assets in society should be owned as widely as possible and that people should be able to provide for themselves. So it trys to favor small businesses and minimizes rent seeking behavior. GK Chesterton and Belloc are good sources for more info.
5:00
forget about inflation there dave???
libertarians usually won't shut up about that...
How is that relevant to the point?
Thank God for Ron Paul.
He is a good man.
@@ThisHandleIsNotAvailable.Great man but wholly ineffective
@@freshdonkey1760
In a democratic republic, education of the constituency is paramount.
@@freshdonkey1760 You mean he's principled?
@@freshdonkey1760 yeah his son is doing nothing at all huh?
Lol I'm the bush-Biden slip at the end
While income inequality is inevitable, the issue people have is how unequal it is in modern capitalist society which in many companies it is measurably up to 200x unequal. The freer the market, the more extreme the inequality. Like EA recently laid off about 600 staff for cost cutting measures, yet like usual the CEO got a big bonus for it when the renumeration this one person gets per year could continue to employ the majority of the laid off staff (ie; the people that actually perform all the necessary labour involved in getting the product made, in the market and making money)
Oh, he really is a comedian when he says income equality would be fine if the poor got 50% richer and the rich got 500% richer. It shows how little libertarians tend to understand the basic societal mechanisms, the psychology that drives the income gap. The rich getting 500% richer would be an implicit symptom of pushing many people into poverty. This also touches on the topic of inflation.
And of course he sees government only as the version spawned by an unenlightened People, not as an administrative tool or that no-government is likely even more violence-based unless you enlighten the People to a point even beyond where they could spawn a healthy government. This confusion is why libertarians have become a bit of a joke. They basically imagine capitalism but without corruption, being in denial of how capitalism embodies corruption.
We libertarians want the same things you want. We just disagree on how to get it. If you're watching Glen, we oppose the same enemy class. Washington DC.
There were plenty of things I disagreed with him on, but the easiest critique seems to be that libertarians need the same government and its threat of violence even to hold up a lasseiz-faire economic perspective.
So why not allow for government to be more involved? It isn't a coincidence that so many libertarians (Hayek, Rand, etc.) were fleeing heavily authoritarian command economy societies. It strikes me as understandably naive that one would push to the complete opposite of the political-economic pendulum like these figures. Importantly, the only way to address this issue of where the line should be for government intervention (and therefore the potential for violence) is to appeal to the *moral standards* that underpin libertarianism, and make an argument why the government should only use violence to support lasseiz-faire economies and not more mixed economies marked by more government intervention.
Which leads to a problem that verges on nihilism -- for real. If the only value we have is freedom, we don't properly value any*thing*. If anything, a traditional or paleo conservative perspective articulated by Matthew Arnold in the 17th century is more logically coherent: he said that liberty is a fine horse but one that must be ridden *somewhere*. Pure liberty without a grounding in a shared community value (for the 18th century this was a naive but helpful one: the accumulation of property as part of the "pursuit of happiness" in the American constitution) risks alienating members of a society from one another. And this is what we have seen over the last 40 years as...governments have been deregulating big business.
@@kierkegaard240Governments have not been deregulating big business. That’s just wrong, completely. What acts repealed the regulations? Where are they? Regulation has been expanded enormously with this time. It’s all rigged for megacorporations and the state to win.
How on Earth would that be a symptom of pushing people into poverty?
The industrial revolution saw a massive increase in economic inequality and the standard of living for regular people. It’s as simple as that.
Companies don’t get rich by oppressing the poor. Governments do, not companies.
@@themk4982 Tiresome fairytale.
If your opening title says "only on rumble" then why am i watching on youtube??? Sounds like a lie!!!!
The retirees are not necessarily *wealthier* than young people. That's a shocking claim to hear. I do not know how I will afford the next inevitable rent hike. I live in a senior complex and everyone here is struggling. We live in a neighborhood with very frequent intrusions of hearing the police helicopter drone on and on, going in circles overhead. There is no wealth in these walls. I personally know of neighbors who have been violently mugged. One guy I know was randomly stabbed five times, while on his mobility scooter-- headed to the bus stop to get to dialysis. Last week I tried to convince a naked neighbor to stop trying to break into my other neighbor's apartment (clearly having a mental break). I dont see wealth around me. I see struggles. I have constant exposure to what it's really like to be poor. What's inflation going to have done to me/to us in my 70s? In my 80s ?
The NYTimes reported that the growing segment of the population of homelessness is seniors. Dave Smith is a total ignoramous. There are millions of Boomers trying to survive on Soc Sec
Yeah of course not all or maybe even most old people are rich. But it will be even worse and more widespread among later generations. Sorry you are struggling.
Men are taller than women on average..."but I know this one really tall girl" fn boomer midwits
The money we all paid into the "fund" (Which Bill Clinton raided and emptied, so now it's all deficit funded) has been ravaged by inflation. Average SS payout is about 30% of the pre Clinton robbery.
On average, those who have worked their whole life are wealthier than those just starting off.
Breaking points just did a long form convo w matt taihbi, and than we get this **chef kiss** fucking magic boys great convo
Economic inequality is inevitable in a free society.
I am not a libertarian but I agree with Mr. Smith on this.
But it seems like taking monied influence out of politics is a pipedream.
what's more, the places with the most Socialistic policies also have the biggest income inequality gaps.
@@matthewmencel5978
I support social programs but do not support full-blown socialism. I value merit.
@@ThisHandleIsNotAvailable. you support flavors of Socialism.
@m1atthewmencel5978
_I support social programs._
Your comment adds nothing of value to any possible discourse we might have.
Not everything is black and white. Capitalism can coexist social programs.
@@ThisHandleIsNotAvailable. Nothing about "merit" is objective.
Talk about strategic ambiguity, self rule/"self" rule. Please stop with simplistic tirades.
Although I'm a big fan of David Smith, I think he is side stepping the question of whether there is a degree of human suffering that he thinks would warrant government intervention. I think this a instance of ideological belief blocking rational engagement with the question. If people don't have clean drinking water and are surviving on a marginal diet, and have no access to medical care and little hope for overcoming poverty, my view is "yes, of course we need government intervention. The purpose of the intervention is emergency relief and the establishment of a ground floor of subsistence and stability on which to build a self sufficient future independent of government assistance.
But in situations as dire as that, humans do step involuntarily. Why would you need Government action? In fact, often the Government will step in the way of voluntary assistance especially after disasters.
He sidestepped nothing. He answered clearly and said, "probably not." Then he explained why.
Ancient Ireland was a libertarian society? I’ve never heard this before, but if it was, it doesn’t not look good for libertarians. Ireland was invaded and colonised by neighbouring non libertarian societies such as vikings, Normans, and Anglo Saxons for centuries.
An Anarchist society, they had what were called tuaths, it's very interesting
I guess Glenn is a civil libertarian and not a Libertarian.
a lot of true leftists are civil libertarians...which is why the political strategy of refusing to work with 'alt right' Libertarians is so stupid on many leftists parts.
@@Nicole-ww4lg I agree. Leftists should be able to work with libertarians on anti war issues and liberals on social welfare issues, for example. The tribalized fracturing is keeping us all weak and vulnerable to manipulation.
He’s an old school liberal. Libertarians are idiots. Glenn isn’t stupid enough to be a Libertarian.
@@Nicole-ww4lg To me, a liberal wants civil liberties, but a "leftist" wants to expand government power in the direction of socialism, ie government monopoly ownership of the means of production and property. Bill Maher is a liberal. Liberals have a lot in common with Libertarians like me. But leftists have almost nothing in common with Libertarians. I think that Thomas Jefferson was a "classical liberal" which is even closer to the libertarianism of today.
@@freesk8socialism means the people collectively owning the means of production. It doesn't mean a monopolistic government controlling the means.
i think what david is distinguishing at 11:01 between poverty and inequality is an important one.
however there is* a threshold of wealth that the extreme rich cross which does naturally produce inflation and therefore a greater increase in poverty. so they are both functionally in tandem with eachother.
the trick is finding that threshold, and perhaps justifiably enforcing a solution like greater tax on the rich for redistribution to the other classes to inadvertently offset this phenomenon. regardless of the solution though, the issue is in fact systemic and seems to be exploiting everybody but a very clever minority, and the degradation of the majority.
but i don’t
believe “othering” is helpful. there is no one person or type of person that’s the core issue. it’s a mentality and systemic issue and conversations like this one i believe are very helpful for the world at large.
14:28 late husband?? Damn, I didn’t know that 😢
Libertarians: I prefer my government to violently enforce property rights only.
Yeah it's so ludicrous.
I don't see Libertarianism ever working. It doesn't actually benefit the majority of the population.
What an absurd take. So you think that instigating violence is the same as defending?
@@rhys5567 private property is a violent taking. Propertarians are initiating violence.
SEE: Enclosure
The most libertarian countries in the world also happen to be the poorest
And where in the flying fuck did you get such a dumbass idea?
You pulled it out of your ass is where you got it.
I’m very curious which countries you consider to be the most libertarian
@@JeThoreau_ I’m thinking Western Sahara, Somalia, western Afghanistan, Libya, Eritrea, you know, countries with little to no government and little to no tax.
Now look at the high tax, high social services countries and you will find the world’s happiest, healthiest people. Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Netherlands.
You don’t need to do much research to see that in the real world, as it exists, small government and low tax is a bad idea.
@@davepubliday6410comparing sub Saharan Africa to Scandinavia is a ridiculous comparison to make and not anything close to enough evidence to draw the conclusion you did. 😂
@@danielcoles4793 Okay then, which countries have healthy happy people that has little to no tax, and small government. Where are the Libertarian success stories?
voluntary association is better than force.
Maybe, but that really isn't the claim libertarianism makes.
It's that government is inherently the vehicle for force and apparently no force can be applied through economic means, which is facile on its face.
If libertarianism were really a critique of the application of force, it would include (or at least admit) all the different ways people are coerced.
@@quintessenceSLThat is an explicit claim that libertarianism makes. That is the primary principle of libertarianism.
Really dudes. Free markets are not a goal or inherent in Capitalism. The goal of Capitalism is profits .. power and wealth . And dominating markets is their goal. . Economic libertarianism is a dystopian concept and ideology not grounded in reality
the thing is that dominating the market can only be done in two ways. Either you provide the best service/product for the best price possible, or you use state force to impose barriers on competitions, demand subsidies and other illegitimate actions. Libertarianism is about limiting state power so it can't grant corporations any power through state coercion
As long as you have a powerful state, capitalism will turn into what the us has become
@@eduardobranco8349 first dominating a market because having the best product or service is not a reality in markets. Most markets are not free. Free markets is a propaganda term . 2nd Capitalism inherently will dominate a government because that's part of their motivation in order to dominate markets etc. Good luck limiting government in a capitalist economy. It's not a thing. Like I stated economic libertarianism is a dystopian other than for Capitalists
@@eduardobranco8349 Yet you staunchly support corporate welfare, just like any common conservative would. As long as it is a right winger doing it, most of you condone it 100%.
@@buddygrimfield7954 you both assumed im for corporate welfare and im a conservative, and neither is true. I thought assuming was a bad thing
@@Joshua-le5wb to say that state grows under capitalism, you would have to show a system where government doesnt grow. Otherwise, its not a problem with capitalism but with states
It's poverty, not material inequality, that causes suffering. The suffering would be the same if everyone were equally poor. Per Dave's point, if everyone became twice as rich, inequality would also double.
From that angle: neither. It is fear inherited. Non-loving parents causing children to try and compensate with material satisfaction. A class of rich people are an expression of this pain trauma being enacted. In a healthy society no one would feel the need to own so much, but would re-invest in society (i.e. not in a self-serving way), because hogged wealth is a fear function. Usually it serves as war budget against other wealthy people.
I cannot see how it is possible to help the poor in a sustainable way without reducing the inequality. How would, for example, the diamond business flourish without the cheep labor force in Africa? How would Elon Musk develop his electric cars wothout lithium batteries produced by exploitation of poor children's labor. The forner need the latter in order to remain filthy rich. I would like an economist to explain this in lay terms 😊
True but depression and he’l jealousy is caused by inequality.
And also one of the worse sins. Humans never learn and still suffer the same issues as they have from the beginning of time.
100%
You need to study Marxism. The reason a handful of billionaires own everything while billions of people have nothing is because of the inequities build into capitalism. Great Wealth is stolen from the poor working class. It’s not earned by the billionaires.
Dave likes to make speeches about the big bad government but he never demonstrates how his ideas would be better. It's like listening to evolution deniers. Even if you prove evolution is false, you still haven't demonstrated how creationism is true. Even if you get rid of the government, you still haven't demonstrated how the system you put in its place wouldn't be susceptible to the same greed that corrupted the government in the first place.
Libertarianism would be more susceptible lol.
It's a political philosophy for autists who thinks the rules are the problem, and not the fact that people just don't obey the ones we already have.
Huge point
Up until the mid 1800s it was all libertarian. For most of history, taxes have consisted of a single tax (that generally only the aristocracy and wealthy merchants had to pay) of around 2% or less. The state was tiny in comparison. And things worked perfectly well. Nowadays with all the change in our society, the state should be less relevant than ever. Governments are slow and inefficient and they can’t handle such rapid change. They’ve also committed almost every genocide and massacre in human history.
@@themk4982 Things worked out perfectly well for the rich, not the rest of us.
@@themk4982 Yeah, pre 19th century history isn't full of any anti libertarian governments at all. 0 Monarchy's and 0 genocides.
Libertarians sound like people who read a lot of books if you don't actually listen to the words they say. But they say things only people who have never read a day in their life could truly believe.
The government argument mostly makes sense, but my concern is how would the protection of environment be regulated in the corporate world? What entity would help make sure that waterways are protected from, e.g. the oil industry or chemical industry? I would love to hear a good solution to that
That question presupposes that government currently does a good job of protecting the environment. Many of the worst Superfund cleanup sites in America are on government owned or controlled land or were polluted by government contractors. In addition our regulators are largely owned by the big corps. A free market would not be perfect in this regard but at least people and corporations have more incentive to keep their own property clean than they do with public property.
Why would corporations care to keep their own lakes clean when the entire purpose of owning one is dumping waste into it?
@@filho4437 Destroying your expensive property lowers it's value, it's a cost. Destroying public property is nearly free if you can put a little of the savings into the pocket of a politician.
@@filho4437 That is exactly my concern. The reality of corporate practices has proven that they have no moral compass, no regard for the environment or human beings if left to their own. Maybe people should learn about some European governments which are not captured by corporations, where the people have far more power than the corporations, where people rely on the government to protect them from corporate greed, as compared to the US. These countries still have much room for improvement, but the fact is that such political environment does not attract greedy individuals into the office to the extent that the US politics does. It is often usefull to take note of all the good practices worldwide in order to offer an informed solution
@@sonictech1000 The value of the lake is that it can absorb waste.
Breh this was the most illuminating convo I’ve heard in a min
WHAT DAVE SMITH DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ......
PLUTOCRACY (consentrated wealth)
is the reason government serves the rich
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
FDR was the worst version of this up to that point in the nation
True @@bigz5262.
@@bigz5262irrelevant obfuscation
what you don't understand is that GOVERNMENS EXIST to protect the politically connected rich. . and FDR WAS A FASCIS!
I think you are trying to put down the idea that the "government serves the rich". Is this bad? Are you assuming that the rich are as self-centered and focused on increasing their own private wealth as those with less? Are you assuming that the rich and poor are equally competent at understanding how things work and what would be "best"? Perhaps the rich are more likely to be able to analyze situations with less bias that benefits themselves - after all, they don't need any more as much as the poor do. Maybe the rich got that way because they can analyze systems more accurately than the poor? A lot of assumptions in your POV, even the end goal of disparaging the government serving the rich. Maybe serving the rich results in serving the poor better than if the poor were served with what they want?
But regarding much else David says here, Bravo!
If you believe in property rights, you have to believe in enforcement, hence you have to believe in aggression, there's no way around that.
Defending ones self, and that includes your private property, may require violence. Violence and aggression are not the same thing. Violence is sometimes necessary, aggression never is.
@@skwrlz420
a whole lot of cope in those three sentences...
@@skwrlz420I regret to inform you that your answer has nothing to do with my comment...You have to read it more carefully and give every sentence it's proper interpretation. It could happen that you wouldn't be able to interpret correctly what I said. I that case I would encourage you to do you own, unbiased research on the origins of private property. For those of anglo American tradition, go and learn about the commons chapter of Magna Carta and the passing of the enclosure laws.
There is soooo much Dave says that is wrong here.
That said, he seems like a nice guy who'd be open to other viewpoints
This is the first honest discussion I've heard about how Jews lead a rather privileged life in the u.s. I can vouch for the discrimination a non-jew had, academically, in a very severe manner; my jewish friend who fought against it can tell the story. So, some of us paid a price for not being jewish.
Jews have been discriminated against too. Not all Jews are privileged. The best way to end religious, racial, gender or other inequality is to end economic inequality. Make it a right for everyone to have access to free higher education, for example.
@@colibriverde -- Nothing is "free."
I got over Libertarianism. Maybe Dave will too.
So which politician would you trust to take your money and do all the 'correct' things with it?
@@erinwys216 Is that a defence of libertarianism or reflection of pragmatism?
It’s like the tax is theft principle. It’s a bad solution to even worse alternatives propositions.
Libertarians aren’t pragmatic.
Did you even read Hans Hoppe or Rothbard, because if u didnt I hate to break it to you bro, you were never in the club. If you did whats your critique of them?
@Samsgarden it was a question you didn't answer. I'm not sure where you are going with your argument. Is there actually an ideology of pragmatism? Being a Libertarian (in the way Dave sees it) is a defense of individual sovereignty and property rights. You can apply solutions towards that goal in pragmatic ways. Outsourcing so much of our daily lives to the decisions of politicians doesn't seem, to me, to be one of them. Thomas Massie would be the only politician I'd trust. But I'd rather pay him directly (especially since he doesn't represent my district) for his voice in a representative government.
Dave’s still stuck on like.. the most basic understanding of inequality Lmao.
I fundamentally disagree that income inequality is not a bad thing
So you believe that a brian surgeon should make the same salary as a fast food worker?
I understand that income inequality has become a major issue and the ruling class is destroying the entire country as wages aren't rising with the cost of living. That said, there will always be some income equality because some people just have more valuable skills and should be rewarded for 10 years of post highschool learning. We can work to decrease the income divide between CE0s and laborers while acknowledging that some inequality makes sense.
@@acetate909 I'm talking about income inequality between the rich and the poor
@@acetate909 Income inequality is an issue but mostly a red herring. Brain surgeons and fast food workers are both valuable service providers. The rot of capitalism is ownership concentration leading to absurd WEALTH inequality and power differential. A brain surgeon might make 10 or 20 times as much a fast food worker? Which is shocking enough given they are both humans with similar capacities from the same species. But then he can buy shares and get income for doing nothing on top. And he is still utterly minor league compared to the OWNER class who do nothing helpful at all except shuffle numbers and assets and have obscene wealth and power. It's funny that whenever people want to defend the status quo, wittingly or not, they will always give some example like a doctor instead of, say, a vulture fund parasite or hier to a massive fortune to did nothing at all their whole life.
@@ScottyTooHaughty
Yes, so am I.
@@Camcolito
I actually mentioned the divide between CEOs and laborers which is increasing at an alarming rate. My point is that not every job or every person deserves to make the same amount of money. Maybe that's unfair and in a perfect world nobody would have to work as robotic AI systems performed all menial labor and the citizens were granted a UBI. But in reality income inequality is fact and in most cases it's perfectly understandable. You can argue about the .001% of trust fund babies but I'm not sure what the solution is? Tax them 99% so the government can grow the defense budget, because that money sure as hell isn't going to help the most impoverished.
Such a great conversation, thanks so much to both of you!
Libertarian or Austrian = Feudal
Wealth is power, and they use it to extract more of it from those with less.
Mainstream ideology has twisted the meaning of "free market" into the opposite of what the classical economists like Adam Smith intended. The classical economists defined a free market as free FROM economic rents (unearned income), extracted by feudal landlords. The classical role of government is to keep natural monopolies in the public domain and tax away economic rents to use it to lower the cost of production. This is done through subsidies for such things as public infrastructure, education, and health care, not raising the cost of living and therefore the cost of labor, as with neoliberal monopolistic privatization.
Mainstream Austrian and Libertarian Chicago School neoliberals have no role for the government in the economy, leaving the market free FOR economic rents, extracted by monopolies and the banks (FIRE, finance, insurance, and real estate). Because the economy does not stay out of government, the result is rule by the rentier oligarchy, otherwise called feudalism.
These two approaches, industrial capitalism and financial capitalism, are what the new cold war is all about, and it is the story of financial capitalism sucking ever more life out of once vibrant US industrial capitalism.
“It is suggested that the tipping point for being a rentier economy is when 40 per cent of income comes from rent. Even if just interest and dividends are counted as rent, the USA is already at that point.”
Standing, Guy. The Corruption of Capitalism: Why rentiers thrive and work does not pay (p. 114). 2016
“Rentiers derive income from ownership, possession or control of assets that are scarce or artificially made scarce. Most familiar is rental income from land, property, mineral exploitation or financial investments, but other sources have grown too. They include the income lenders gain from debt interest; income from ownership of ‘intellectual property’ (such as patents, copyright, brands and trademarks); capital gains on investments; ‘above normal’ company profits (when a firm has a dominant market position that allows it to charge high prices or dictate terms); income from government subsidies; and income of financial and other intermediaries derived from third-party transactions.”
Standing, Guy. The Corruption of Capitalism: Why rentiers thrive and work does not pay (p. 94).
The flaws of Libertarianism is it doesn't take into account the flaws of the human condition. Like Communism/Socialism/Marxism, it too doesnt take into account human condition. The outcome of either of those ideologies/philosopies (if they get 100% their way) is a variant form of feudalism. We saw what happened with Communism when they completely up-end one set of hierarchies and replaced it with their own hierarchy and the outcome was worse. Much worse. Under Libertarianism, by the time, the market actually corrects itself, the damage is already done. To restore equilibrium will take a long time, as the big money class and powerful political class will not let go of their positions. And we know patience is thin. Coffeezilla said it best, no system we design is immune from the individual, we can never know his true intents. America needs another FDR and Henry Wallace. 2 historical figures who, in their time, did a lot to save the "Common Man".
well then you can't call that "communism" communism, now can you?
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
Long noses 🤥
@@freshdonkey1760 Tiny hats
"Those problems" also come from environmental devastation and aggressive colonial expansion (mustache man in Ukraine, Poland, Palestine, Libya, and Ethiopia, Brits everywhere, France in Africa and the American continent).
Your college sophomore level IQ is showing.
I was a college sophomore once too.
@@pretorious700 @pretorious700 The US was never pro-free trade until it had everyone else by the balls.
@@pretorious700 The US was never pro-free trade until it had everyone else by the balls.
Gee, what if NO INCOME TAX, NO CORPORATE TAX & the Gov't lives off Duties, Imposts & Exports which is how the system in this country was originally conducted - They might be a teensy weensy bit smaller ..
That's an easy one to answer. Your people will starve and suffer with an inflation spike the likes of which you would have to go back to bankrupt Germany to see a comparison of when the German mark went from 4 to a dollar, to 20 billion to a dollar. Your nation produces f**** all my friend, what do you think happens if you make all the crap you HAVE TO import, vastly more expensive to american consumers as it is them that pay the tariffs on the price of goods not the companies on their profits. It is also a supremely IDIOTIC idea because two thirds of China's entire economy are not Chinese companies, a third of them are European, and a third of them are American corporations.
As for small government your government is small, broken, neutered made that way by 4 decades of the capitalist minority corrupting governance by buying the majority of centrist and right wing politicians so as to ensure this became the case which makes it easier for the capitalist minority to profit from the resultant death and misery without fear of regulation nor Sherman act. It is only large when it comes to blatant militarism, when it comes to things like Welfare for the people it is spending the same % of GDP on welfare today as it did in 1987, yet it has 70 million more people today...
Libertarians in general are halfwits who don't have a clue about what has gone on with their own fucking government, and don't have a clue about how global capitalism actually works, completely totally clueless. Libertarians are among the most hypocritical people on the face of this earth as they will rail against bullshit wars but never against the system that incentivised them into being for the profits of few at any externalised cost to society, nation, world.
yes, we will need to go back to the 18th century in order to do so though...
@@hairywhodini3429 ^ There's the rub.
People who think the US economy can be organised in that manner today without massive inflation and financial and material hardship for the majority of the population being the result are barking mad / don't have a clue how a globalised top down capitalist system works.
There was direct income taxes , see the constitution , but they had a shelf life of 2 years. The main problem, ironically enough, was the industrial revolution made it far easier for factories to generate revenue than farmers. The call for the 16th amendment, came from rural areas not the cities. It was difficult for rural areas to pony up their share as they have a strict production cycle, and limited distribution time …seasonal. Factories can go 24,7, 365. Dave is either ignorant of this or is lying by omission.
@@peterthegreat996 And War has always raised that percentage of an Income Tax which in 1895 was deemed ucconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it was NOT a Direct Tax - Theodore Roosevelt endorsed an Inheritance & Income Tax in 1908 basically turning his back on the Jefferson heritage - WWI once again raised the rate to 67% in 1917 & 77% in 1918 which made the hated Tax the permanent feature we have today - No matter the reasons, it needs to be repealed ...
Bush/Trump debate?
The flaw in totally free market capitalism is environmental consequences. For example, dumping waste in a river that flows away from your factory doesn't affect your business, but it really hurts surrounding communities and their businesses. Because it can take decades for environmental damage to be noticed, the consequences are hard to fix.
Clear and obvious damages in that case. Same as any other harm caused.
Also they don't really want free markets, as they need a state to enforce their precious property, including intellectual property.
Cuz governments are so great at keeping the environment clean
@@mexmexican8619 Not when they're captured by the industries they're supposed to regulate. But it would be even worse if it was just up to the market, obviously.
How's everything in the fifth grade? It's actually possible for privately owned businesses to monitor pollution, but you've been raised and taught that only government is capable. Despite corporate corruption created BY government.
“Let me answer the question specifically”
*goes on an unrelated diatribe*
Never stop forming networks of Worker Owned Cooperatives.
Workers that are fit to deploy and manage capital, are entrepeneurs. Absent those entrepeneurs, that own and deploy that capital? Those businessess do not work sustainably. They just squander it on nepotism, and start to provide electorial favours, for state funding. Waste.
@@TenebrousableHaving worked among "successful entrepreneurs" in tech, I assure you nepotism is the norm, and meritocracy is a private joke.
@@BDnevernind Good people work on their own money, pay their own, with their own money. As corrupt that is, that I am not sure it can be counted as in the 1st place? It's more fair, compared to the pos worker cooperatives working on stolen taxpayer money.
You don't even know what conversation is about. You're not contributing. You're a distraction. The more you yap, the more waste you cause.
@@Tenebrousable how libertarian of you to count me out of the conversation because you don't like what I have to say. What are you afraid of?
I have seen several worker cooperatives and never heard of one that receives any government funding at all. Can you even name one that does? Can you even define the term? Meanwhile your gurus like Musk take BILLIONS in subsidies and bloated govt contracts and call it "merit".
@@Tenebrousable how libertarian of you to count me out of the conversation because you don't like what I have to say. What are you afraid of?
I have seen several worker cooperatives and never heard of one that receives any government funding at all. Can you even name one that does? Can you even define the term? Meanwhile your gurus like Musk take BILLIONS in subsidies and bloated govt contracts and call it "merit".
Inequality directly correlates with Poverty.
In a system were you only have so much money in circulation. If one small group of people have most of it, thats going to create poverty for the people at the bottom because they have non of it.
This is just math. I dont see why he acts like they arnt related.
Because he's an idiot.
I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing with Dave's ideology, but America doesn't have a fixed amount of capital in circulation. Currency is constantly being created on a computer screen and dumped into the system. Rampant inflation is becoming unbearable for many people in America and around the world. But the government is responsible for much of this suffering and they don't care about 99% of the citizens, so giving them more power to manipulate the allocation of resources isn't going to help the average person because the government doesn't serve the average person.
@acetate909 I agree with that. I just think that trusting the people who own and tell our government what to do isn't the best idea either.
We really expect Jeff Bezos to do the right thing instead when he's shown no course of that way of thinking so far.
It's not exactly like the workers (who make up most of the citizenry) are giving our government the orders.
I think your math is flawed. Some minus Most is not equal to non (sic) I think it's Some minus Most equals a little.
This is quite naive. Money is not purchasing power, it is just power. When few individuals have almost all the disposable income, they will have all the power and those who lack money will not be free.
If you earn 1000x the amount as someone else in the same society, you do not work for your money, you leech it.
Check out Price's Law then?!?? *_ENVY KILLS!!_*
"LeBron James is leaching off of a gas station clerk."
-Morons
The only one being naive is you.
The main difference from the 1950s, 60s…corporations paid about 25 percent of all taxes …and there was no stock buy back bs.
Glenn Greenwald is the champ...Dave Smith is my favorite Jew
But the gap does matter. The gap is why houses are priced so high. Too many people have so much cash post-pandemic allowing them to buy a house as an investment, running up the price so that the median income is no longer sufficient to purchase the median house. Yes, our crony capitalism is a major problem along with the redistribution of wealth ultimately to the rich from the government through the lower classes. Dave then argued that class income increases of 50%, 50%, and 500% would be okay because everyone is making more, but then he recognizes as a bad thing the loss of purchasing power due to the wealth gap that would result from such a scenario.
You might like Distributism. It's main ideas are that assets in society should be owned as widely as possible and that people should be able to provide for themselves. So it trys to favor small businesses and minimizes rent seeking behavior.
@@rekit7351 Thanks. I'll take a look at it. Whether we are talking about our families or everyone in the world, it can be difficult to allocate justly what is available to everyone who has need given that humans are not materially equal: there are inequalities in productive capacity, productive output, and need. Some systems seem to work better than others under different circumstances with no system being perfect. Thanks, Jeff
Some people have more to lose
You mean like their trust funds and tax havens lol? And that is a bad thing how exactly??
He needs to visit Scandinavia.
We need a change to the system of governance we have, but we need to address the levels of extreme poverty, inherently brought by extreme inequality first.
I'm a right wing libertarian and I agree with you. Would you agree a lot of the income inequality comes from Washington DC corruption? Look at the money defense contractors or big pharma makes with their corrupt deals.
Is this a common enemy we can agree to?
That presumes that our system isn't a leading cause of the poverty. Otherwise you're saying "sure my drug addiction needs to be addressed but first I need to address my withdrawal symptoms so pass me that needle.
Dear Glenn,
I am sure that you ar aware of the position of Chomsky on this subject (Libertarian Socialism vs. American Libertarianism).
In his words AL will lead to violent forms of "Private Tirany" by the most powerful economically without some kind of regulation / constraints.
For Chomsky, one of the few examples of "Libertarian Socialism" were the revolutionary expert iences in #Spain (1936 - 1937), quickly crushed by the Communists Stalnists and Also by the Francoists, not to mention the British and the French with their "Neutrality" then.
Let's see what comes out of #Milei in #Argentina... Time...
👇 Chomsky - Libertarianism
ua-cam.com/video/9RD1KxHLVpY/v-deo.html
I could care less how much more money or wealth someone else has. I just concern myself within my own 4 walls - so to speak. Jeff Beazo, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or anyone else having much more than me doesn't subtract or impact my own earning ability. That is entirely up to me or the individual.
The real culprit is the government and the voters themselves.
Wealth is power, and they use it to extract more wealth out of those with less.
@@spiritofgoldfish Only when corrupt politicians get involved. The way to resolve that issue is to remove the power away from the government. Easier said than done but it starts with the voters - which are dumb as fuck.
@@fizzled95 Libertarians think that if you confiscate the puppet (the government), the ventriloquist (the ruling oligarchy) will be unable to speak, which doesn't make sense to me.
@@spiritofgoldfish If libertarians (small L) were to take majority positions in the government, it wouldn't matter what any crony businessman or lobbying association says or wants. Regulatory capture would die and companies would have no choice but to compete and serve their customers or go out of business.
@@fizzled95 The central planners aren't in the government. The transnational rentier oligarchy at the top of wall street (the deep state) does central planning for their private benefit, and they are the employers of politicians. The job of the politician is to deliver voters to the oligarchy by campaigning on whatever gets them elected with oligarchy funding, then do whatever the oligarchy wants, and they are taken care of whether they are reelected or not.
"Reagan’s election marked the ascension of deep political forces to a position of sovereignty. Practically speaking, what emerged was an exceptionist tripartite state comprised of (1) a feckless public state, (2) a sprawling security state, and (3) the anti-democratic deep state to which they are subordinated. This consolidation and institutionalization of top-down power was such that US governance could thereafter be described as a deep state system."
Good, Aaron. American Exception: Empire and the Deep State (p. 260).
“Today, the statistics are good. They reveal that 50 percent of the world’s wealth is in the hands of US-based corporations, even though the national account, GDP, is not anywhere near that.”
Chomsky, Noam; Waterstone, Marv. Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance (p. 138).
Wow very interesting conversation. My sort of political journey even though I was a Ron Paul supporter in 2012 (mainly for his antiwar stances) is that I have become very critical of the libertarian answer to economic questions in general because to me it often seems very obtuse and a certain point it became difficult for me to even take libertarians seriously as anything more than apologists for trickle-up kleptocracy.
Personally I don't think private property is actually a natural right in the same way as ownership of one's own body in that to secure it seems to necessarily requires a state--and then from there preventing said state from becoming a protection racket putatively demands eternal vigilance, (and of course the trajectory of civilization has been that the racket developed simultaneously with the institution of private property and the concept of individual rights is a relatively recent innovation within this framework).
However, that being said, I am not opposed to certain institutions of private property such as for example home ownership.
For me its not as much about taking from the rich and giving to the poor (or vice versa) as it is about learning to distinguish between institutions of private property that empower the greatest possible number of individuals (afford them greater self-determination) from those that do the opposite (empower the few at the expense of the many).
The big thing that stood out here for me that Smith said which feels like genunuine common ground and on which very much agree with him (and which I think speaks directly to what I said above) is the issue of upward wealth re-distribution which I would say is pretty much endemic at this point and I am actually incredibly impressed to hear a libertarian even acknowledge and articulate this issue so eloquently.
If more libertarians were to do so I would say as a more left-leaning philosophical anarchist, that this is something on which I could very enthusiastically join with them!
Everyone knows librarians are way better
Librarians are way better than libertarians?
Somewhat a soup of ideas here, but I hear notes of compassion and humanity, with recognition of the forces of violence and corruption. So yeah, a healthy discussion. Laissez-faire free-market is at the centre of his perspective, but that needed to be defined, in his view.
Societies form to allow specialization such that provisioning can be done more efficiently and in greater volumes for all of its members. Healthy and holistic citizens advocate nurturing policies and will not begrudge resource usage with best practices and procedures that see the nurturing done.
The assumptions are based on the idea that whatever provisions are produced will be applied to the meeting of basic needs equitably. They are also based on the idea that everyone will have more time to focus on quality of life enhancements, equitably. But, most of all, although often unspoken, it is founded on the idea that the members who do not proclaim themselves political sociopaths with their actions warrant optimal autonomy and not just to simply survive.
Consensus seeking strategies are what create the possibility of a society. Anything less creates conflicy, even within a psycholoogically healthy/hplostic society. Consensus seeking, within good faith actors, is a foundational principle for establishing and maintaing any healthy society. Democracy is a measure of the quantity of consensus, not its quality.
Political sociopath: Someone who is willing to do harm to another for the sake of opportunity, social capital, hierarchy, profit and/or pleasure. Only a reduction in our tolerance of bad faith and political sociopathy will move us forward.
All governance will descend into oligarchy, plutocracy and fascism at rates that are determined by the quality and stability of its consensus seeking strategies, the tolerance/intolerance of bad faith actors in its processes, its best practices policies and the quality of the documentation of data that goes into the making of its policy choices.
Boring......
One of the more ironic aspects of the federal income tax is the call for it came from the rural states in the late 19th century. Prior to the 16th amendment, you could live direct tax via Congress, but they had a shelflife of two years. Congress failed to act either way the income tax would lapse the way it was repaid. It was divided amongst the states and then left amongst the states, the tax people to come up with the revenue . Now for industrial concerns it’s a lot easier because you’re open you’re your able to be open seven days a week 24 hours a day 365 days a year and have all that time to saw your products. Farmers on the other hand live and die by nature cycles, they have a limited shelflife to plant their crop and then there’s no calamity in the growing season that wrecks it and then limited time to sell it. Quite simply the rural states could not keep up in the call for the 16th amendment came from the Midwest, not from the city elite. I find that ironic.
Totally not a Libertarian, but love both Greenwald and Smith- guys totally driven by honest intellectual principles!
I’ve started to believe that the total absence of left and right in politics is hurting the overwhelming majority at/in the centre - I see it as the ignorance to some hard left views, along with the overwhelming condemnation of the more harsh conservative outlooks, will eventually buckle and collapse the centre.
From the view that although the polar extremes look to be wild and inconceivable they have something invaluable to offer as a conditioner, rather stabiliser, to the centres overall prospects. The entire absence of the more moderate versions of left and right will see it that we sink into the abyss of our own superiority complex..
Why else would people have these views, at the extremes, if they were entirely unnecessary to the welfare of the community, as a whole? They must have some utility as a protection mechanism 👍
*I might add, that you could argue the details, but the West won’t budge on its obsession of corporate fiscal socialism along with conservative mainstream taxation, mixed with a culture of social virtue signalling to cover their tracks… both ends meet, and end, on a destructive trajectory. It looks.
"Dave Smith on Libertarianism and Why He Says Economic Inequality is Not Necessarily a Bad Thing "
in other words: how not to be funny in a way that is utterly laughable
The best question Glenn gave Dave was asking him if he knows any country that functions as a libertarian country and of course the answer to that is no because there has a never been a country that has and it’s only a concept that lives inside the idealistic brains of Libertarians in the U.S. almost exclusively, they are like adolescents.
Corporate'cuc-s
there was a tweet out there about how libertarianism is training wheels politics for teenagers
@@MrJekken lol
If you actually think that, you know very little about history. Almost every nation that existed before the mid 1800s was massive libertarian. A tax rate of 2% or less on only higher earners is how 99.9% of governments were funded. Everywhere. Every time. States being this large is completely ahistorical and unprecedented. Mixed economies like those we have now are weird, modern and unbelievably impoverishing.
If you want some good examples, look at Britain at the beginning of the industrial revolution and medieval Europe. The former was more corrupt but is more easily understandable. You don’t need the state to mediate every interaction and manage every issue. Things worked for almost all of human history without that.
@@themk4982 “every nation that existed before the mid 1800s was massive libertarian”
lmao if you actually believe this unless you believe countries that had actual slavery at the time (like the USA) is “libertarian” which i suppose it is, for the slave owners at least, since its pure untrammeled private property rights to outright own a person.
I'd say the social security thing is more of a boomer thing
"If i am good then inequality is fine!"
That is not what he said at all.
If you are going to falsely paraphrase, you should note it to be fair to the reader.
@@ThisHandleIsNotAvailable. I grant you the reason, it was a quote from an imaginary libertarian that I made in response only to the title of this video.
@@ThisHandleIsNotAvailable.It was implied.
@@ThisHandleIsNotAvailable. And he is certainly not the only libertarian to do so. Take Rogan himself for example. He was all for taxing the rich. As soon as he got there, he was all for puling the ladder up behind him. Which, of course, is typical of most conservatives. Including with the conservative leaning centrists which typically make up the largest voting block for corporate democrats like Clinton and Obama (and, yes, Biden).
@@buddygrimfield7954
Was it? Post a timestamp 0:00
Does income equality factor in equal effort ?
Singapore has extreme income inequality but extremely low poverty, to Dave’s point. Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela also have extreme income inequality but a ton of poverty.
Because Singapore isn't a US war target. There are complex reasons for that. I think Singapore might still have a painful downfall ahead of them.
4:28 most people do not agree with this sentiment give one kid one cookie and the other kid two cookies and that first kid is not going to enjoy his cookie.
Yes, humans are dumb, but if we want the world to be a better place, you're better off focusing on making more cookies, than cutting cookies in half trying to appease the fickle whims of irrational envy
Also, most people who got two cookies will share with the person who got only one cookie. Only a greedy asshole keeps both cookies for himself.
@@pandafox12so it's dumb and envious to dislike unequal treatment?
@@pandafox12 -- Envy is one of the worst traits.
Unfortunately many people cannot understand that by stealing the other guys cookie today there will be no cookies for anyone tomorrow.
The gap matters - political power. You can buy power, so economic inequality means political inequality. American "libertarians" can't get that for some reason.
In a libertarian society, the government would be much smaller (or non-existent), hence less (or no) political power to buy. American "liberals" can´t get that for some reason.
There’s definitely systemic issues that exacerbate this and that need to be corrected (taxation, regulation, monopolisation, inflation, etceteration) but there’s another aspect to the poverty/inequality thing that a lot of people don’t want to hear because it’s a hard pill to swallow.
Most people are just not that great.
A large amount of people have poverty mindset. Granted this is made worse by policies that encourage high time preference behaviour. The tendency to consume without thinking of the future. But even if you stripped all that nonsense away and created the free society Dave or myself envision, you would still have these people. You would still have people who for whatever reason have chosen poverty. People don’t like to hear this, particularly leftists, as they have this beautiful ideal that all people are generally equal and that all poor people are just temporarily embarrassed poets and artists and inventors right up until the point where they get mugged.
I’m sorry guys. That’s the reality. No matter what system you advocate for there will always be a poverty-minded underclass. And in many cases, they will be the absolute worst people you know.
Dave is my brand of libertarian.
Dave is getting better by the day.
I judge things by: does this pattern make people happy? Why I don't think income equality is a necessary thing: Human Happiness is a field of real research now, real numbers, picking up on what makes people happy. General pattern: if you are dirt poor, every new dollar you get, increases human happiness measurably, in a real and positive way. As you get more and more money, your happiness goes up and up, until. Until the curve slows, flattens. Then the more money you get doesn't really increase your happiness.
This is just common sense: Bill Gates has a million times more money than most of Glenn's fans. But is Bill a million times more happy? Of course not. Elon Musk talked the other day about how we will eventually have more robots, than people. With this will come an exponential rise in material productivity.
I know lack of the basics...food, affordable housing, etc. is still a large problem for many people, but that will change.
Then we'll face new problems: what to do with our time? I was listening to Glenn talking to Tucker Carlson. Glenn found lots of purpose in life: his family, protecting the country his family came from, Brazil. Protecting free speech. Great role model. Glenn has enough money now he doesn't have to worry about that, so he created a better life, with a purpose. We'll all walk down that path, eventually.
Income inequality is a very big deal, in the short run. But in the long run, if we don't manage to screw up modern life, if we just keep going, we can create a better world, better life for most of the planet's people. I'm OK with lots of billionaires being rich. Just so long as most people get the basics, to create a level playing field of needs looked after, so people are not imprisoned by their banks, their jobs, their circumstances....so they can be truly free to create their own life.
Thank you! I see a lot people here try to say it is natural for this inequality because inequality exist in nature... like wtf? Capitalism is a unnatural system made and created for exploitation and these people here seems to think it is a natural system following biological rules. We are not molluscs.
I love it when rich guys say, "They're taking money from the rest of us" as if they actually understand the struggle. Gtfo with that, you can't fathom the struggle at the bottom. 😂
When we have permanent mass unemployability due to AGI I will wonder what Dave's views on permanent economic inequality would be then?
Being Libertarian: The ability to ignore all the pertinent facts that do not conform to your preconceived narrative.
I don't believe in reparations for something that didn't happen in this country. Shame on Kathy Hochul for doing the things that you're against. 🤨
Poverty existed for 1000’s of years before “capitalism”.
The idea that capitalism CAUSES extreme poverty is nonsense.
Poverty is the state of nature.
Poverty exists for different reason now than in the past. Before capitalism, poverty existed because of under-production. For example a bad harvest, or just lack of technology to derive resources from the earth. Now, under capitalism, more than enough is produced, but it is not profitable for the capitalist parasites to sell, so millions go hungry, homeless, live in miserable impoverished conditions.
Anything with "Inequality" is by definition NOT a good thing no matter how much you spin it. Come at me.
Edit: UA-cam deletes my replies so I'm not gonna continue with this shit. Peace everyone and F UA-cam!
Effort inequality?
Inequality is a component of the natural order. You can not like it, but that doesnt negate the reality of it.
InteIIigence inequaIity?
Being born is ok and a very very good thing that we are different.
I don't know about civilization, but nature depends on inequality.
Dave just fundamentally described the moral superiority of his version of libertarianism to whatever nebulous philosophy that grants government force Glenn supports. At the end of the day, granting the government the right to use violence to redistribute other people’s property leads to corruption and more violence. Dave should be listened to. He makes a highly compelling argument for a just society not built on violence or force, but on self ownership and being able to succeed by providing value and help to others.
Chill, taxing the uber rich isn't violence, and not even likely as they've bought "our" government.
"a Bernie Sanders type"- Sanders is not a leftist. He's the near-right, centrist.
Dave Smith wants less inequality, he resents the capitalist class, but he still wants to be privileged over the working class.
Yeah if that privilege is earned then why not.
Bernie is a self described socialist. That’s left as fuck for America. America is a center right country, by design. We aren’t supposed to be like Europe politically.
Human beings (as opposed to bees) are individuals with unique combinations of strengths & weaknesses so if they are free they are not equal & if they are equal they are not free.
@@parlyramyar "Earned" with what lol? A trust fund and a cushy allowance from mom and dad? Or by being paper pushed through some Ivy League douchebag factory, and having some relative pull some strings to get them some (essentially worthless) government job? What a crock lol.
@@parlyramyar There are a lot of arrogant folks who think they're more valuable than laborers, but what value do they produce? Market analysts, corporate attorneys, accountants, actuaries, etc don't produce anything. It's labor that produces wealth.
Inequality has increased because government intervention has made it so by protecting an elite few
Which it does because the elite few own the government. You can't forget that part. It's inherent to a "democracy" where money buys legislative votes and court seats.
The elite few are in charge of the government. They are the ones who want inequality to increase. There is no division between the government and the rich capitalist elites. The government works on behalf of the capitalists.
A yes the meritocracy dog fight
The concept of _meritocracy_ blows the minds of the far-left.
Maybe nobody ever told you this, but you’re not owed a damn thing. Get off your ass and work.
@@Lurch685 You don't know what I do. I've made six figures. The American dream that turns the wheels of poverty the zero sum game.
@@mysticmouse7261
I don't think he was talking to you specifically. Let's hug it out.
@@ThisHandleIsNotAvailable. He didn't specify so just in case.
Income inequality isn't necessarily bad, having the wealthiest people run and control society is horrible. Libertarianism and Communism suffer from the same flaw. They both require a large percentage of the population to be rational, educated and logical.
If I come inequality isn't bad why are almost all western countries welfare states? Clearly many people in the west at least don't like the concept.
Right, it's the level of it, which is what causes power vacuums.
You need a colon ":" between "bad" and "having". Sorry for the grammar policing.
It's not bad when it's moral.
The way Capitalism creates inequality is very unmoral.
If Joe the Plumber works 60 hours and Alex the Plumber works 50 hours. Duh Joe should have more money. That's moral and fine.
What would be wrong morally is Alex owning the plumbing company, and does no physical labor. And ends up taking home 70% of Joe's Surplus that he created.
If you look at the Owners of this country. 70% of the time they are on vacation.
I know a family in my town who owns all the local body shops and dealerships. The family is never in the dealerships or shops. But they're always posting on Facebook about being in Colorado and Skiing one week, and then a few weeks later they ate at the superbowl in Florida. And then the next month they'll be in the Caribbean.
The rich owners of production do very little real labor.
Sounds like he's saying government is a weapon of corporations and he wants to ban the weapon, not the criminal which is interesting.
He's just saying "let's use voluntary ways to solve problems, not forcing ppl by using a govt monopoly backed politically connected."
@@davejoe75 I'm not one to defend nation-states, but who gets to volunteer the l ways, those who cause the problems? And who gets to dissent from those solutions, and what happens when they meet?
@@tolstoypolloi
I am one to defend _nation states._ 🤷🏽♂️
When you say, "yeah, no," is that to cover all bases?
I understand the question, yes and agree with the premise (often lacking in msm) however the answer is no.
It is annoying. .. 🤷♂️🤙
Dave's been busy
Not a good look for Dave
There's a libertarian country in the world right now. It's called Somalia. How do you think it's working out there?
It got rid of it's dictator over 20 years ago. It was healing fine. As fast as could be imagined. Then CIA and USA showed up again, and created and armed the warlords, and created the civil war again. The origin of the problem in Somalia, is the USA. In so far as that proves anarchism is deficient at defending a global empire? Kinda true, for the moment. But also, that global empire is bankrupting itself at fighting goat herders, that who's primary weapon of war are the sandals in their feet. Just like in Vietnam, or even Korea? The people continue to struggle and live. And the empire dies.
Bullshit
I think it was Grover Cleveland who vetoed aid to drought stricken farmers on Constitutional grounds. In the end, through private donations, the farmers received 10 times more than the bill called for. That's libertarianism!
There doesn’t need to be ‘redistribution’ there just needs to be decent fair wages AND workers rights legislated for that and environmental protections. Inequality IS a problem there is plenty of research on that
What research? Not anything empirical.
Sociology is not empirical. In any way.
@@brianomoli4 🙄
The closest to a libertarian "country" in recent times was likely Hongkong prior to the PRC takeover.
or what's happening in Argentina right now with Javier Milei
Hong Kong is fatally flawed with it's currency peg on USD. I would argue, that's why it couldn't defend itself very well. BTW, how is that takeover going? How did the capital and people flows change? I have to confess, I lost track of the "revolution".
@@AJ-HawksToxicFinger Milei is literally a IMF/Zionist plant.
Hong Kong was a British colony...
@@epicphailure88Yeah. The leadership, the one guy responsible infact, made sure, to have as little as an impact as possible. Britain had a responsibility, sure. It had a most minimal impact, because of that one governor.
Gary Economic’s would disagree. He mentions that it’s the Super rich buying up housing that causes the housing crisis, the main way middle class people build stability and wealth. So if you’re earning money you can still be out paced by inequality and made poorer through that gambit. Which makes total sense, especially seeing what’s happening in Toronto. He used Covid government cheques as an example…
If prices of housing goes up, that means there is immense profit into making more houses. And if you think that greedy millionaires want to make more money, you would think they would try to build more housing. But don't forget that a lot of the reasons there is lack of housing is government interference. San Francisco is a huge example. Most people living there could afford to buy an apartment, but it is literally illegal to build in certain areas, you can't have buildings too high because it will create shades, etc. So you have a huge city with huge demand with a lot of wealthy people, but they want to limit the amount of housing being built, so of course there will be a housing crisis
@@eduardobranco8349 Those with power and resources are the ones preserving NIMBY policy.
A private armt isn't less violent than a public one. And if there's no government to enforce laws prohibiting private armies, we'll just submit to rule by warlords.
We already live under warlords
@@Lurch685 completely agreed. My utopian vision isn't to destroy the biggest one and let he others compete until they monopolize power again.
@@tolstoypolloi you do know how exceptionally rare true monopolies are, right?
@@Lurch685
"true monopolies"
you mean like how they own everything outright?
like what is happening in the US?
@@hairywhodini3429 there are virtually zero monopolies today. There are a number of very large corporations that own a lot of others, but those are all special interests and obtained through special access with government favors.
Libertarianism is the most radical rightwing capitalism. They love billionaires and feudal capitalism. The propose that we would all be small business people cutting each others lawns and washing each others cars if it wasn't for the bogeyman of cronyism, which is ridiculous. I've had discussions with countless libertarians and they inevitably resort to the No True Scotsman defense, i.e. that's not libertarian. They won't say this easily, but libertarians think the poor should just die. Smith let the veil slip in a debate with Dore. Libertarianism has been around, but has gained some electoral traction as our capitalist empire has been experiencing setbacks and the average citizen living with declining material conditions. It must be cronyism because we are indoctrinated to believe in a competitive system with few winners and many losers.
Dave or Glenn have NEVER been leftists (maybe liberal capitalists at best). That was the vaguest and intentionally omitting descriptions of what libertarianism really is that I have ever heard. I certainly respect their right to be as neo-Capitalist as they choose. There are plenty of old people that are not wealthy.
Anyone else think it’s insane to say that it would be ok to build homes that aren’t up to code?