Tough Talks: Bret Weinstein
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лют 2018
- A Tough Talk with Bret Weinstein
This event occurred on Wednesday, November 1, 2017
in the Laszlo Z. Bito '60 Auditorium (Room 103) of the Reem-Kayden Center on the Bard College campus in Annandale-on-Hudson, NY
The human mind is the most complex entity in the known universe. That complexity evolved for a reason--It provides human populations the ability to discover new niches. But by endowing people with that marvelous superpower, evolution sowed the seeds of our possible destruction. We have discovered the means by which to steal from the future in order to thrive in the present. Self-destruction would be inevitable but for another evolutionary gift, the ability to describe alternative futures and to choose amongst them. This talk will confront the tension between these two capacities and, in order to sketch the path through our looming bottleneck, argue that believers in human liberty must do two things: confront emerging authoritarianism, and abandon the archaic distinction between political right and left. Doing both will free humanity to seek a just, sustainable and abundant future.
Professor Bret Weinstein has spent two decades advancing the field of evolutionary biology, focusing on adaptive trade-offs. He has made important discoveries regarding the evolution of cancer and senescence as well as the adaptive significance of moral self-sacrifice. He is currently at the center of a national controversy at The Evergreen State College after irate students disrupted his class in response to an email he wrote objecting to a day of absence in which white people were asked to leave campus. His critique sparked accusations of racism and demands for his firing. He wrote, “On a college campus, one’s right to speak-or to be-must never be based on skin color.” The story has been covered by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and others. Learn more about Bret and his work at bretweinstein.net.
Event page: hac.bard.edu/event/index.php?e...
I really like listening to Bret. He's so airtight in every way. It's impossible to walk away from this without learning something. If I had professors like this guy when I was in college I would have been so much more jazzed by the process. Thank goodness for YouTUBE. This is pure gold.
My God are you easily impressed
airtight .. oh well, breathe. Also what he says is true yet not an outcome. Yes we have gone way past our limits, and now it's time to pay. Perish or what-future-have-you.
Engineered stable abundance: everyone must have the sensation that they are living in a safe and abundant world that is protecting them...and it CAN'T BE A LIE.
(from the last 5 min of this talk). Love it Bret
"I do think there's a lot of truth in the idea that the Universe is very quiet because most civilisations do not make it." I love Bret Weinstein. His knowledge and his honesty is awesome.
in any case, we have just one planet that too finite... However, stupid Star Trek, space conquest and all such space fantasy will never roll out in reality.
When given the opportunity to think clearly and organize provocative, cutting-edge material, there are none better than Brett Weinstein. Brett is too nice when he has to share a stage or a forum with other people. He is at his best when he alone is able to deliver information without interruption. I have learned an immense amount from this fellow U of M grad though I have never met him. Thanks to Ms. Wojcicki and her staff at UA-cam for continuing to provide nuggets of immense value from extraordinary thinkers like Brett Weinstein.
Thank you Bret. I have been trying to play catch up with you and Heather after what transpired at Evergreen. In that process, I have begun to feel a spark of sanity for the missing discussions that cannot be had face to face but herein. Thank you for your tireless pursuit of remaining labile while honing pragmatic ways to educate that you (and your wife) certainly reflect. I learned more in this one hour with you than a decade of search through some others. Thank you for your time, clarity, generosity in the face of outrage and giving US a sane example of how to proceed. I am grateful for your ENTIRE family and friendships alongside the intellectual dark web that provides a canvas to think with.
Going through Covid-19 now this talk is even more relevant.
This is so incredible. Going to listen to this a few times. Thank you Bret!
Amazing presentation. More views needed!
Wow. I need to catch my breath... Thank you for the clear insight Bret. You continue to amaze me.
So good so good so good. Bret speaks to truth. Has anyone ever done it with his humility knowledge and explanation better? Check his history, he is not doing this out of ego. He does this because his world formed it and it is a way. Thx Bret
You're on point in so many ways Bret. Thank you.
unbelievably good... What a brilliant man.. And what a brilliant articulation of a possible way forwards..
I love your lectures. Keep it up man. I'm very much a layman when it comes to most of what you talk about but it all makes perfect sense the way you explain it. You're a great teacher. Evergreen done fucked up.
Watching this in 2021 I realize how much you've grown up recently. Bravo!
Outstanding!!!
Fast forward 4ish years and we have A Hunter Gatherers Guide To The 21st Century by Heather and Bret.
I'm on the Libertarian Right and really enjoy Brett's talks. Look forward to hearing more from him. I bet he was an outstanding professor.
Great talk. Listening to this I heard some points I wanted to return to later and write down for future discussions with others on these topics.
Carl Sagan was one of my heroes, because I saw his Cosmos series as a teenager and it's scope blew me away. It's cohesive mix of science, history and culture was just so mind expanding! Bret's fantastic presentation has repeated the same magic and I can't offer higher praise than that.
So far, very good.
@23:00 The Dr. is most definitely in the O.R. I have a Class A drivers license & 33 years professional driving experience and I've never heard the hypnotic ability of; road, weather, traffic conditions explained so articulately. Fatigued driving can = sleep driving. Pull over. Take a cat nap.
interesting talk. gona have to give the video a second watch.
Thank you Bard!
Great to see professor Weinstein speaking again
Excellent talk! Why isn't it getting more views?
It's against youtube's agenda
I think if he had mentioned racial evolution, we would have more views by the SJWs and they would be spitting all their venom in these comments.
Bret Weinstein talks are always maximally interesting! Relations between biology, economics and politics. Awesome!
I'll be sharing it on FaceBook every day for several weeks. It's that important.
It's not sound-bitey outrage bait, so the algorithm ranks it down.
I first encountered diminishing returns playing wow. So I hear that nuts mediately where my mind goes.
Interesting ideas, brilliant presentation, great person - more talks from Bret Weinstein, please!
I'm a Nigerian but this made absolutely sense and perfectly explains the human Socio-cultural evolutions. Slavery and colonialism all happened as an evolutionary part of the human nature
Evolution is about genetics and species formation. Slavery can come and go without human genetics being affected. I hope you weren’t lead too far astray. Cheers.
Space!! Our destiny lies in the stars.
Wow uploaded yesterday, thanks for this. Cant Bret just have his own island and run it, id like to live there with his ideals.
I absolutely loved the idea presented at the end, that the Mayans found things the society should invest in that did not bring about more Mayans. I believe our current technologies and resources could make a kind of Heaven on Earth, for a smaller overall population. We just haven't yet found a decisive way to incentivize having less offspring.
Prosperous countries in the west have reduced and are in negative state regarding population, are now being invaded from poor backward peoples without resistance. Utopia for them will be short.
As people become more prosperous and be able to make a living Beyond subsistent they have fewer offspring.
@@brucehutchinson9527 My observation is the state started telling us "if you want this, this and this, you will have it and more if you don't breed as much. Oversimplified, but the basic idea. In more recent time the clever politicians are all wringing their hands as the aging populace is becoming a "burden" to the fewer youthful population.
The West went from having 4-8 or more children to one or two, or in extreme cases, none.
Now the UN is involved with forcing financial refugee immigration, immigrant families breed more prolifically than the native population, in some cases have several families as this is their culture. I don't imagine the father of the families would be able to support them all on one wage and assume the state(tax slave) ends up footing the bill.
Excellent talk. About those Mayans... Is it plausible that they may have accomplished this with out class hierarchies or an arbitrarily selected ruling elite? How can a grand architect, as seems the most plausible way to implement this kind of structure within a society, not also be a tyrant, or at least capable of tyranny? Does this idea require a "benevolent monarchy" superstructure?
Human Beings are to the Earth what rabbits are to Australia. Human beings "collectively" refuse to be self limiting and paradoxically those who are self limiting reduce their numbers, leaving behind those who are not. The responsible do not survive the irresponsible. The very design of humanity is toward extinction because there is no limiting force other than extinction.
With this idea, if true, there is no point in discussing it but it is a waste of time to discuss it in regards to attempt to avoid what can't be avoided or a worth to discuss it but only as an interesting but pointless curiosity.
Could someone summarize the Fourth Frontier practical options possible?
I'm on the cusp of a post-grad psych degree and find the area of human capability endlessly fascinating. As intimated at the beginning of the talk (forgive me if I'm stating the obvious-I'm 3:36 in), our adaptive schtick _is_ adaptability. Not necessarily genetic adaptability, but the ability to shape our behaviour around and between novel ecosystems _within_ a single generation, using the epigenetic mechanism we call intelligence. We evolved to survive in ecosystems that varied greatly, both geographically and temporally, and the organ we call the brain and the suite of capabilities it produces is the means by which we do so.
Humans survived in ecosystems that vary geographically? No way…
@@lookbovine In contrast with ecosystems that varied temporally, smart ass. Rather than adjusting by migrating, we also adjusted to changes in weather (within a year, like wet/dry seasons) and climate (over centuries or millennia) by staying in the same area but altering behaviour.
Holy shit! This is genius. Build temples!!!
They used the temples to kill babies.
but we do too. All past civilizations did that too. I think Bret knows a lot but I also think he does not realize what was required from Mayans to keep building their temples. I would think to keep building them would require quite some coercion. Economic or violent - what different does that make if you stil have to do what they tell you.
At the end we have Elloys and Warlocks - one get used by the other in the original one gets eaten the other probably keeps their world up. \Maybe this is what he said that does not exist - human nature being what nature itself is: competition for survival. We sometimes live an illusion of not having to fight and having it all and not having to fight. It is an illusion.
How about optimizing for honesty?
Brilliant manifesto
Why I do feel like No one is in this room
He's preaching atheist existential truths in a tiny chapel in the middle of a 7 billion person AMPED/SUGARED amusement park... we're BUSY! Who has time to listen to this?
Because of good audio.
Legend
I wonder what Bret Weinstein's thoughts are about the concept of novelty and concrescence in particular through the lense offered by Terence McKenna?
really need to level out the audio in this
Between this video and Bret's appearances on Rogan and Rubin, there's a lot of framework discussed. He's hinting at a bigger conversation that I have yet to see on UA-cam. I really liked the talk, and I know he apologized at the onset, but it was still a little frustrating.
I wonder if the year-long class he taught discussed things more specifically. What more could libertarians (left and right) agree upon in terms of policy? I want to know more about political philosophy when viewed through a game theoretic lens. What are some good strategies for engineered stable abundance?
One more thing...
What would a guy like Graham Hancock say about Bret's recitation of the post-ice-age "discovery" of the Americas?
Nicholas Stalker engineered stable abundance = MMT
Nicholas Stalker
I agree. I haven't actually heard him lay out his plan for economic stability in the way he's talking about. I would think it would have to get away from consumerism though. We'd have to get satisfied with what we have more so than we are now and I don't know how that's possible. We'd have to ban advertising since their entire goal is to get you to buy more. Too many things run off advertising dollars. I don't know how it's possible.
I think the appeal of Jordan Peterson, Bret and Eric Weinstein and the IDW is precisely because we humans know that buying that new car or refrigerator or toy is not going to give our lives meaning and we are sick of the BS system that has arisen around that imperative. We want meaningful lives, not just be born, consume and die. I actually think that if we had "enough" material security and safety, we would be happy following meaningful pursuits that make us feel our lives were not just throw-away like the consumer products that are engineered to be obsolete. While material wealth is better than poverty, even the richest person can feel empty if there is nothing more to their lives than the toys they amass. Hence, rich people still abuse substances, and off themselves due to depression. Once some level of material security is reached, the crisis each human faces is a crisis of meaning.
@@susanl3510 You’re talking about marketing schemes not philosophical positions. There’s no system of thought that gives them meaning, not even a promoter of capitalism. It’s beyond a straw man.
The Weinstein brothers, in Bret's backyard, discussed what they thought about what they saw of the strong points of Tucker Carlson as a possible presidential 2020 candidate!
They mentioned his "courage." Flabbergasted, I called them out on it.
A day or two later that segment of their podcast had been edited out, but returned some time later or I missed seeing it. I don't know if it, the Tucker approval remarks, are still available there. To their credit(?) they wound up saying they thought Tucker was a bridge to far.
no one has a coherent plan, 'cause there is no one coherent plan ... it calls for the most dangerous and threatening idea of all to humans ... acceptance & humility
Brett, a question for you. Why is it that neoconfucians in china with vastly superior technology travelled the world and built embassies while Europeans enguaged in what you call here transfer dynamics?
Bret Weinstein & Yuval Harari, the prophets we need but don’t deserve.
35:30 let's say that objective is the highest good for the maximum number of beings. This path is not navigable in a strictly scientific way, but it is navigable.
I am curious what you think the potential disasters would be, aside from occasional egoic nonessential desires.
I do not and never have viewed the word frontier as a negative thing- concept. Starting with
" Davy Davy Crockett King of the Wild Frontier"
I know this is a little antithetical to the premise BUT
I KNOW how we can create game B from game A
22:00
*They could have spelled his name right in the intro slide.*
*Progressive Assertions:*
1) Scarcity is *NOT* natural. Scarcity *_ONLY_* happens because of greed. Production isn't necessary; only sharing. At any time in the past, present, or future, universal prosperity is always possible, except for the greed of a few.
2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism , as advocated by folks such as Noam Chomsky, is the way to go. No one needs prices to know what is worthwhile to do. Reason, and good will, are adequate to plan production. Labor is not a commodity.
3) Sovereignty should be based upon Good Intentions and not free moral agency. Corollary: Rule by Philosopher Kings!!
4) No one should ever have to suffer regardless of fault.
5) *_From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs_* (regardless of cost to everyone),... is still the best way to organize society,... but people are too greedy and selfish to make it work. It would be better for society to live as social insects, than as human beings.
6) Why be satisfied with trade-offs when solutions suggest themselves so obviously!
7) Wealth is consumption, not production. We have our cake, not because we bake it, but because we eat it.
8) Results flow from will, and will alone. If good results are not forthcoming, it is *ONLY* due to either a lack of good will or the presence of an opposing evil will. It is *NEVER* construed that results are lacking due to a lack of knowledge. Knowledge, science, technology, skills, prices, etc., are just incidental details.
9) Lifeboat ethics reign always.
All these suppositions follow very naturally from the *_FACT_* that people today are essentially the same as we were a hundred thousand years ago when *EVERYONE* lived in nomadic, and essentially egalitarian, tribes. Most people's ethical, moral, and economic intuitions are still the same as our ancient ancestors, so is it any real surprise that so many people feel alienated in today's world where, under modern markets, the relationship between cause and effect is so abstract. For many caring, empathetic, people, trusting in Capitalism and self interest and the invisible hand of the market place makes just as much sense as walking off a ten story building,... and expecting the outcome to be okay. Just like a computer, the market can not be argued with, or pleaded with, or persuaded to be different. To people who rely on their ability and skill to influence people, the cold logic of computers/markets is, of course, experienced as profoundly alienating. If reality offers little to them, then so much the worse for reality then! This is how keirsey.com/temperament/idealist-overview/ progressives think versus the way keirsey.com/temperament/rational-overview/ libertarians think. For more, check out www.cato.org/events/socialism-human-nature .
Basically the ideology of the Regressive Left (thank you Dave Rubin!) comes down to, literally, that wishing should make it so,... and if you even question the efficacy of such beliefs,... you're evil, you've bad intentions, you only say that wishing alone can not make it so because you must not really want it to be true.
They are insane. But they speak to something that is very deep in the human soul than tends to be experienced more as the world becomes ever more prosperous and free. For more, read Nathaniel Branden's essay, *_Alienation_* in _Capitalism, the unknown ideal._ The punch line is that those who want to experience liberty covet the ability and responsibility to think for ourselves,... yet, mostly being herd animals, the vast majority of humanity atavistically craves a time when a mere instinct for survival, automatic and understood, was sufficient to survive and prosper. It isn't today. It can't be. But the Regressive Left would quite literally prefer the extinction of our species, rather than acknowledge as true the Pareto Principle as it applies to people; that roughly when any number of people are involved in most any creative activity, the square root of that number of people are providing half the value (out of 10,000, 100 create half the value, and then 10 create half the value again, or a quarter of the value of the original 10,000; How could there not be billionaires then?). We are not blank slates,... we are not all equal to each other, or even to ourselves on different days. We differ in will, merit, and ability. And we most likely always will. But, as I noted above, much of the Regressive Left would prefer humanity lived as social insects do,... so as there would be nothing to envy at all.
*_Americans are so enamored of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom._*
~ Alexis de Tocqueville
*_The capitalist process shapes things and souls for socialism._*
~ Joseph A. Schumpeter
*_Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it._*
~ George Bernard Shaw
*_[The average man] is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty,... and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_Wonderful theory, wrong species._* (On Marxism, which he considered more suited to ants than to humans)
~ Edward Osborne Wilson
*_Any cook should be able to run the country._*
~ Vladimir Ilich Lenin
*_A free man is as jealous of his responsibilities as he is of his liberties._*
~ Cyril James
I’ve just gone to church!
When I finished my MS in Psychology I kept thinking why this stuff wasn't taught at a lower level. Here is a great topic for distribution into HS. We are teaching our kids SHIT, so they behave like shits... IMHO... In case it wasn't clear... Another GREAT talk by Bret.
His "Transfer Frontier" concept should be generalized to all moral frontiers. The assertion that maximizing for a single value leads to disaster is also false, optimizing society for creativity will lead to progress in all other areas of society, it's what explains why human beings are so much better than every other being at everything. We have figured this out many times throughout history Athens, the Renaissance and the islamic golden age are small examples, but the European Enlightenment is the one that stuck and allowed for the first civilization in human history which could remain stable in the face of progress noticeable on the scale of human lifetimes. Both mainstream right and left in the US are currently anti-Enlightenment values, the shift Bret is talking about here is necessary if we don't want to end up like Athens did (spoiler, their civilization, for different reasons, disappeared). The Mayans were a static civilization, their solutions aren't the ones we need.
The answer to his universe and civilization of aliens question, is that we will never have contact with any civilization that exists outside our galaxy or Andromeda galaxy during the earth's lifetime, that outside that three is a centuries long transmission time, and that on top of these it could also be the case that this is the time with species of other worlds might begin to have intelligent life (the idea that we are one of the first in our galaxy)
A biological or evolutionary explanation for the current state of things does not account for the systems of hierarchy that this Taker society has abided thus far.
The Guns, germs, and steel thesis does not account for the behavior of settler colonialism.
well, it kind of does ... it's hard to know if humans get beyond themselves ... i think it will happen, just will go thru several very ugly phases, but what else is new !!
34m38s
"The latter half of the 20th century"
I wonder how many people caught this flub on their first listen. Interesting talk for sure though.
Yes, I did, but I am not sure, whether he made a mistake and meant the former half, including soviet communism and german fascism or is really talking about the second half.
@@johnellis7763 Middle half meaning what? Halves are two, there is no middle.
Great talk. But when Brett listed Existential Risks, he never mentioned Climate Change, unless I missed it. The only point I'm trying to make here, is that the solution he is suggesting for the survival of the human population would need to be introduced in double quick time of it has any chance of success. That sense of urgency seems to be missing from the talk. Perhaps if the talk had been given in 2023 it may have incorporated a more urgent timeline.
One of the best lectures i've seen. However, like ever professor has some holes, or truths that aren't always true or are only true in specific situations, in this lectures case. He identifies something he called unrecoverable materials and gives an example of a refrigerator, quite recoverable. The only unrecoverable materials are satellites propelled from the earth into outer space to either burn in the sun, another planet, or escape the solar system and lost. An example that might be better but still technically wrong would be greenhouse gasses, but we know how to take these gasses from the atmosphere and recreate them in their a solid form, so even that wouldn't be accurate.
Second one I saw if his has created a model of value, quite conservationist like, like likens the extraction of a resource and product building built that ascribes no value in what it does for the society that uses it or labour for it, but only the negative value of the virgin raw materials being in a different state being equal to being completely lost. This has multiple problems. Any wood furniture in this model would have a negative value to humanity by it's creation and the tree now chopped down to make it, not considering the points I made for the previous product, are that the tree will not only have a replacement tree, but that there are, according to his model, negative value activities that would result in more trees, growing larger, in the same area the one used to make the furniture needed, that have higher quality soil for plant growth than previously by the additional negative cost of using that same area to temperately feed various animals that feed on it. In his model all of those to replace the tree are negative valued, but they all created raw material, better soil, and apparently a piece of furniture with no value, even through it can be re-purposed.
It's a good model of resource economics inverted, but misses inherent flexibility we see and their causes, then again compared to someone like Karl Marx, Brett's model can actually be used to make accurate predictions under certain constraints typically imposed by governments assuming nobody breaks those laws, while Marx's model might only be used as a predictor in an work camp where nobody is allowed to leave but there all paid a little bit and has a camp store with arbitrary prices..
Just a thought on transfer frontier: is this not what goes on with migration (or mostly young males) into Europe especially since 2015? We do not seem to be able to defend our resources. I wonder how this will unfold, we have not seen anything yet I think.
As for Fermi - there is another possible explanation for silence: we send strong signals only for a short time because we just stop wasting energy the way we did over second half of 20. century. Anther thing - if you reach the technological stage at which you will be visible you do not stop there and may reach stage on which your footprint is not distinguishable from background. It is not really that much different from first argument. And then again - they may just blow themselves up too. Quite some probably do if they are anything like us.
That’s more self destruction since you are opening your door and inviting them in
If he was such a great teacher. Why would they want him gone?
Did nobody of the students step up to his defense?
From what he has said in other videos his students were very supportive, but it seems that's not enough if the administration is hostile or if faculty won't offer public support.
Why did they not come forward?
I'm guessing they didn't want to be targeted the way he was.
Charlatans aren’t valued for very long.
The Universe is not quiet. The only thing we can actually say is "We have no idea if the Universe is quiet or not." - Because we have just listened for a ridiculously short amount of time, only in our immediate neighborhood, we are basically almost deaf , with badly made simplistic hearing aid, and we listen to a single neighbor for just about few seconds then move on to another. The distances in Universe are measured in TIME. You dont get to listen for bird sounds for one second, hear none and declare the birds dont exist and that there is some great bird filter out there snuffing all the birds.
where did the people like bret go in the last decade?
Apologizes for Frontier. Palm face slap
26:26 Bret begins talking about "existential Risk", and I remembered the last time I heard him use this term. he called President Trump an "existential risk", and Bret had no scientific basis for the accusation. Unfortunately, Bret got caught up in the anti Trump hate, and let the hatred blind himself to the several benefits that Trump had for both the country and humanity. ...
It is the case that Trump was/is a disagreeable, conceited, egotistical person. With his ego as his main weakness, he was susceptible to manipulation by, there's no other word for it, swamp creatures who played him as if he were an instrument. Trump should have done a great many things differently, starting with projecting a more humble persona, but this is not a place to educate Trump. ...
Bret, Heather, and Eric should all approach the Trump campaign and work to persuade Trump to change in a positive fashion. Then they should attempt to influence the governing direction that a second Trump presidency should follow. ...
But this is not the place to go into those details. Instead, Bret & Company, having experienced a cognitively deteriorating leader, openly manipulated by a concerted team of authoritatively cruel party hacks, should admit their error, or else mankind will stand a good chance of descending into a nerw dark age.
That is the real existential threat that we face.
Brilliant. Don’t forget australian indigenous cultures : 60,000 years and counting. What can we learn from them?
Well go back 20 maybe 30 years, multiply that by two… it’s crazy… Then go back further and wow, it’s different but some aspects are the same… fucking drivel.
People can't seem to decide if it's "Bret" or "Brett". He seems to prefer the single T.
Is a population truly indigenous if they moved into the area rather than evolved there?
jrlucas That’s a silly question. You’re looking for essences where none exist.
Sounds kinda none smart Teaching cool aid manufacturer ing for 4 years ending in a BS sounds great Anything available on line?
There might be such a way; a fourth industrial revolution.
Or a revolt against technology.
36:10 The use of Comic Sans for the words "Diminishing Returns" has to be a deliberate choice by Bret Weinstein to further the disgust towards producing diminishing returns. It is meant to appall.
What a clever use of such a disgusting font. You brilliant manipulative bastard ;)
Occupy got occupied
Politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. While there are many things free people *should* do,... what *must* free people do,... as in literally do this or you will be forced to with the proviso that if you resist you may be killed.
Consider the following as a starting social contract between free people that is a work in progress.
*The Anarchist's Constitution*
1. *_There is no Sovereign Immunity._* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. *_The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule._* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.
Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply.
Is the only positive duty that of _if you break it, you must fix it_ sufficient,... or might there need to be more such positive duties. I am basically asking what unchosen, positive duties would all free people *have to observe* always,... even in an anarcho-capitalist libertopia. Rather than considering a contract between the government and a free people,... I am considering a contract between all free peoples with each other and regardless of individual consent. How can it be a contract,... regardless of individual consent,... you may ask? I think of it as the political equivalent of the necessity of all mathematics having to rely upon the use of axioms,... statements that are taken as self-evidently true requiring no further effort to prove. Anarcho-capitalists talk of rules without rulers. Okay,... so I am asking, what are these rules,.. how do we arrive at a consensus of what these rules are,... and what happens to those who dissent from these rules?
I am trying to start projects where anyone participating can submit a peer to peer social contract,.. similar to the way the internet itself works so well. Forget governments for a moment. Think specifically in terms of what positive, affirmative duties do we have towards each other. While there are many things free people *_should_* do, what *_must_* free people do,... literally,... or risk being killed for not doing it. This is serious shit!
I understand Anarcho-Capitalists as believing there should be no unchosen, positive, affirmative duty,... other than everyone has to fix what they break, ie., restitution. That unless it's consensual, it ain't moral. Minarchists aren't so sure that that is enough.
Do people consent to having to make restitution for the damages they cause others?
What is to be done with those people who refuse to make restitution for their injurious actions to others?
What is to be done with a serial killer, and how is this paid for?
Is it okay not to help an abandoned infant who will otherwise die?
Would it be okay for a mother to just leave a new born infant?
What do you think should be done about international trafficking in children as sex toys.
What do you want done with adults who do this? Is restitution really enough? Is it satisfying?
What is to be done with someone who is very wealthy and regards paying restitution as merely an inconvenience with no qualms about the injuries he does to others?
Can no violent response be made to those who gratuitously mistreat and harm animals?
Can someone who owns the last breeding pair of an endangered species destroy them at will?
Would it be okay for entrepreneurs to create limited liability corporations in which costs from debts and pollution are socialized and profits are held privately?
Is it just that such shareholders are liable only for the money they have invested, with no liability for any costs that corporation may have involuntarily imposed on innocent third parties?
A very practical question is what duty would citizens have in libertopia to cooperate with those trying to enforce what rules are to exist upon everyone,... even without everyone's individual consent?
This list is in no sense exhaustive. I consider all of this to comprise various works in progress. What are the minimum set of rules (these rules without rulers ) that even anarcho-capitalists seem to recognize as necessary? How do we arrive at such a consensus? What happens to those who dissent?
Again, politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. This is unavoidable, even in libertopia. Just curious, but would you hold that *The Anarchist's Constitution* is sufficient for a functioning free society. Can you really not think of various instances where even free people would have to submit, regardless of their individual wishes?
And please remember, I would be just as happy to learn more from this debate, but where Libertarians only see violence as a means to protect value and not as a means to create value, I am now asking, in all good will,... is this really necessarily so? Because certainly we are alone in believing this to the extent that we do.
Does the truth derive from authority or
Does authority derive from the truth?
Does respect flow more from admiration or from fear?
You’re first definition is from early 20th century political theory. Arendt moved far past that. Read more Arendt, less Weinstein and no Peterson. The essays in Between Past and Future and the collection Essays in Understanding address your questions on authority and truth. This man is a joke that seems to be purposefully obscuring every topic he touches. You’ll be better off with Arendt and may thank me.
Oh, COME ON! I have experienced micro-sleep while walking. The difference between that and driving a car is the level of danger you put yourself into...
who's watching post corona lol
So does that all mean we should reduce our earth population?
No, it means he’s an expert at producing scientific sounding nonsense with outmoded concepts he can apply to it.
Do you think bret would think about the idea that a god does exist and that evoloution is part of gods design?
I don't think Bret's argument about the universe silence is strong. First it is too big to get any signals from most of the universe, second the civilization more advanced than us can use different communication means unknown to us, third there is a good Russian joke: Someone asked is there any intelligent civilization somewhere in the universe. The answer was yes. But why they don't contact us, because they are intelligent.
I think Elon beat you to addressing "growth" sector projects.
Fantastic as always. It's sad that the metaphor of economic "growth" - a metaphor taken from biology of all places - deceives so many people. Dr. Weinstein, you're certainly correct to highlight the 'broken window' fallacy - more spending does not equal economic betterment in all cases. Unfortunately, policymakers are obsessed with statistics that don't reflect the human condition. This obscures the fact that the economic system does not necessitate 'growth' in the sense of resource consumption - it incentivizes improvement. So long as we continue to conflate growth and improvement, discussing the actual economy of ordinary citizens will be impossible. While there are economists (primarily Austrians) who point out this problem, their warnings rarely receive notice. Meaningful debate over the issues you raise can't take place if we use metaphors unsuited to the subject matter.
Metaphors are not introduced with the word literally unless you’re an idiot.
Interesting, although the argument regarding the Maya being non-utopian systems thinkers is flawed in that ecology and climate probably played a large part in the luck of the civilisation not degenerating into over-population and tribalism through limitations in food calories and rainfall.
Fermi paradox doesnt include multi-planetary species......and elon musk is working towards that idea with over 20+ successful launches. Soooo......?
human nature s really easy we do whatever we belive will cause us to survve in the most advantageous manner.
Don't all civilizations do what the maya did? Pyramids, temples, cathedrals, stupas, pagodas?
they did this arguably without societal hierarchies or elite rulers
Kinda like evergreen
Defying the omniscient expression of purgian-polutes this video fails to consider that the obstacles facing the dawn of the human crisis cannot be mitigated by mere emphasis placed on your lando defending. Furthermore many existential realities congruent with an overreaching acquisition of unilateral septurians is well known to cause a factitude of moral equivalence. In summary the one characteristic facing The human condition that has been repeatedly the emphasized is the over abundance of psychosexual tension released through the hierarchical dominance of otherwise air breathing mammals.
17:30 number
Almost lost me at Occupy. Anyone in the First World - even the poorest recipient of public aide - is the "1%" of the world.
Specifically, the 1% in the US doesn't oppress the 99%. We certainly don't limit the opportunity of the 99%. In fact, the 1% isn't a closed group, at all.
Excuse me if I’m being presumptuous but I don’t think you’re one of the 1%. You seem very confused.
Why was this person speaking about racial issues, and now there is a problem at this University? Are there pressures on this University's staff by racist groups, including blacks, and including African-Americans? Didn't black people self-organize(choice) into "black" groups, by their labeling? So why is referring to these people as "black" such a bad thing? Please watch the other videos to understand part of the complete situation.
Great talk! Like the hummingbird, there may already be a form of government that functions based on continuous feedback. The Chinese government frequently runs surveys in order to figure out the population's opinions on various regulations and services. Not on the libertarian side of the graph, but at least it's something...
Please don't be triggered by the word frontier.
Your fouth frontier is simply death for most.
Back when Bret was still a naive little babe lol
32:50 I have to disagree. A progressive is and always was a left leaning authoritarian. It was that way in the Weimar Republic, it is now. Progressive was always code word for Communist, the same as "Direct Action" is and always was code word for "Insurrection/Revolution" in antifa circles. The reason why left leaning libertarians think they are the progressive people is simply due to the appealing advertisement poster that the authorian leftists always put up and everybody fell for. We in the green square are not progressives, we are liberals open to change and update, we do not enforce it. "Being progressive" inherently means forcing the update, no matter the direction. That is not what we left libertarians are, we are simply open to discussion and updating, but we do not enforce the update against the will of others - speaking in archetypes.
8:59 This is pure jargon and an insult to Arendt’s name to have him present in front of it.
“…We actually literally define economic growth as a state in which we are maximizing the rate at which we are converting useful energy into useless heat and converting precious resources into trash.”… that is a biological definition not an economic one and who literally says that? Example of selling refrigerators follows has nothing to do with the growth of an economic system (household or national). He moves on, people’s eyes glaze over, and to explain the error would take 3 times what it took him to blurt it out…
naturally he moves to ancient peoples and other foggy assertions that takes not economics or biology, but anthropology to dispute.
No need for anyone to listen to this drivel. For enlightened thought, you’d be better off checking out Herder from the eighteenth century…
It all comes down to the question of is wealth ultimately finite and static or is wealth open ended and dynamic. I come down on the side that wealth is pretty much always open summed, and that the most important resource is the human mind by which we create new knowledge from which we have new means to create more wealth. There are real problems coming up,... but they only have to become existential if we manufacture moral panics over what we are going to do. Trust in Liberty. Distrust Philosopher Kings. We don't live in Life Boats. Malthus was wrong. It would help a great deal if people were at liberty to use commodity backed currencies again,... but that option is essentially illegal today,... precisely because that option would take power from unaccountable elites and return that power back to the people,... and the elites never want that.
*_Monetary policy today is guided by little more than government fiat ~ by the calculations, often mistaken economic theories, and whims of central bankers or, even worse, politicians. Under such a regime, inflation of three or four percent annually has come to be viewed as a stellar monetary performance. However, under a more sound monetary system ~ i.e., a gold standard ~ such increases in the general price level would be seen as wildly inflationary._*
~ Raymond J. Keating
*_What's interesting then is that every national government has some incentive to devalue [its currency] - to protect their own domestic economy and employment. Gold has no similar constituency for devaluation._*
~ Rick Rule
*_Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want and their kids pay for it._*
~ Richard Lamm
Brilliant! One caveat: BW is correct that current light water reactors are susceptible to a Carrington Event, but given the massive land use requirements, lack of economically viable energy storage, and brutal “Duck Curve” economics, renewables don’t replace decommissioned nuclear, fossil fuels do. Burning fossil fuels (even natural gas) has greater insidious long-term consequences/externalities (e.g. climate change, air pollution deaths) than nuclear. Generation 4 nuclear (e.g. small modular dual blanket molten salt reactors) can replace LWRs, are passively safe (e.g. freeze plugs, negative temperature coefficients of reactivity, mixed fuel/coolant that is non-critical outside the moderated reaction chamber), and can “burn” the useful 95% of energy in what we currently regard as “spent” fuel rods. Gen 4 SMRs are not panaceas, but on balance would appear to have sustainable benefits that outweigh the costs and risks. Again, thanks to BW for brilliant insights.
Go to fukashuma & talk real close to reactor 1
FACTS
Boring as hell. Makes assumptions that are his opinion and not based on science. For instance, argues the Spaniards had a higher civilisation based on "guns, gems, and steel" theory as if there were no agency yet describes his Utopian society as if we had agency, and of course, according to him in his wisdom, it is a Libertarian one... quite Totalitarian to think that he has the answers. The Mayans were far sighted... in doing mass killings of their enemies in order to get rain or harvest? Etc., etc., etc. A waste of my time.
🤢🤢🤮
🤡 🚽