Max Keiser - "Libertarians are Intellectually Lazy & Idiots"

[cbeast]

This is why I have abandoned all the movements to change society. John Lennon had it right in Revolution. Bitcoin is a technology that can help bring positive changes. It won't happen in my lifetime, but this is a revolution in how to think about money.

Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible. Just look at the progress made already in the Free State Project.

If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right.

First you have to change human nature (whatever you think it is). That will take awhile. Behaviorists are working on that, but it won't happen soon. Ford was talking about nuts and bolts, not social mechanisms. Bitcoin is nuts and bolts that make us think about new paradigms, but it doesn't offer any solutions to social problems.

Libertarianism has no plans to change human nature. We want to change the structure of society to utilize human nature, rather than fight against it.

No you don't. Here is where I call you out  as a Libertarian. Your poster boy Ron Paul wants to destroy the current structure without anything to replace it. I am all for that just as long as he and everyone else is willing to give up all private property and money and start over. But no. He wants to keep his wealth and take away the structure that allowed him to aggregate it in the first place. That's where I part with Libertarians.

[1715073742]

1715073742

[1715073742]

1715073742

[myrkul]

I'm afraid you're wrong about wanting "nothing to replace it"

And Ron Paul isn't my Poster boy. I'm not a political Libertarian, I'm an agorist. That means I want to build the replacement system right now, within the shell of the old failing one, so that when it crumbles (oh, and it will, on that, I think we can agree), the new way is there to take up the slack.

A few links that may help you understand my position:
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub
http://agorism.info/

But before you read those, I want to ask you, What is it about human nature that you believe libertarianism would need to change?

[cbeast]

I'm afraid you're wrong about wanting "nothing to replace it"

And Ron Paul isn't my Poster boy. I'm not a political Libertarian, I'm an agorist. That means I want to build the replacement system right now, within the shell of the old failing one, so that when it crumbles (oh, and it will, on that, I think we can agree), the new way is there to take up the slack.

A few links that may help you understand my position:
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub
http://agorism.info/

But before you read those, I want to ask you, What is it about human nature that you believe libertarianism would need to change?

This system will crumble. What takes its place will probably the same thing that always does. Feudalism. It may be a more technological feudalism, but violence will be at its core.

I didn't define human nature. I said behaviorists are working on that. How do you fix a problem when you can't even define it?

[myrkul]

I'm afraid you're wrong about wanting "nothing to replace it"

And Ron Paul isn't my Poster boy. I'm not a political Libertarian, I'm an agorist. That means I want to build the replacement system right now, within the shell of the old failing one, so that when it crumbles (oh, and it will, on that, I think we can agree), the new way is there to take up the slack.

A few links that may help you understand my position:
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub
http://agorism.info/

But before you read those, I want to ask you, What is it about human nature that you believe libertarianism would need to change?

This system will crumble. What takes its place will probably the same thing that always does. Feudalism. It may be a more technological feudalism, but violence will be at its core.

I didn't define human nature. I said behaviorists are working on that. How do you fix a problem when you can't even define it?

Well, you're the one that says there's a problem. How can you point out a problem, if you can't define it?

Libertarians think human nature is fine as is. We just need to build a system around it, instead of trying to build a system to constrain it.

[cbeast]

I'm afraid you're wrong about wanting "nothing to replace it"

And Ron Paul isn't my Poster boy. I'm not a political Libertarian, I'm an agorist. That means I want to build the replacement system right now, within the shell of the old failing one, so that when it crumbles (oh, and it will, on that, I think we can agree), the new way is there to take up the slack.

A few links that may help you understand my position:
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub
http://agorism.info/

But before you read those, I want to ask you, What is it about human nature that you believe libertarianism would need to change?

This system will crumble. What takes its place will probably the same thing that always does. Feudalism. It may be a more technological feudalism, but violence will be at its core.

I didn't define human nature. I said behaviorists are working on that. How do you fix a problem when you can't even define it?

Well, you're the one that says there's a problem. How can you point out a problem, if you can't define it?

Libertarians think human nature is fine as is. We just need to build a system around it, instead of trying to build a system to constrain it.

Behaviorists believe human nature has needs that must be met before it realizes its potential. Without these needs being met, people are dysfunctional. Libertarianism does not offer to meet basic human needs for anyone other than to say "someone else" will do it.

[myrkul]

Behaviorists believe human nature has needs that must be met before it realizes its potential. Without these needs being met, people are dysfunctional. Libertarianism does not offer to meet basic human needs for anyone other than to say "someone else" will do it.

OK, you're going to have to explain that one in more detail. I think I know where you're coming from with that, but I want to be sure.

[bb113]

I don't really care about these definitions of libertarians and poster boys or whatever. If you think about it, framing arguments with that kind of stuff is a distraction.

In my opinion voluntary collectivism has the potential to yield superior results to involuntary, and the best candidate for incentivizing this behaviour is self-interest. I also think the current system encourages stereotyped thinking and orthodoxy while discouraging experimentation and cleverness (especially academia). Don't "try to change society", produce something of value that people will voluntarily choose to use and society will change it's self.

Also, (IMO) the job of a democratic government isn't to "meet basic needs", it is to use a monopoly on legal violence in order to provide an environment conducive to the general welfare. Perhaps meeting basic needs is a part of this, perhaps not. The primary job, though, is keeping any other malicious entity from occupying the space of "biggest gang". The game is not letting the government itself become so powerful that when malicious powers take over (and they will eventually) it is not too big to stop without taking everything else down with it.

My point is, if the actions necessary to "meet basic needs" are an obstacle to limiting government power, then perhaps those actions should not be taken.

[myrkul]

In my opinion voluntary collectivism has the potential to yield superior results to involuntary, and the best candidate for incentivizing this behaviour is self-interest. Don't "try to change society", produce something of value that people will voluntarily choose to use and society will change it's self.

Agorism in a nutshell.

[cbeast]

Behaviorists believe human nature has needs that must be met before it realizes its potential. Without these needs being met, people are dysfunctional. Libertarianism does not offer to meet basic human needs for anyone other than to say "someone else" will do it.

OK, you're going to have to explain that one in more detail. I think I know where you're coming from with that, but I want to be sure.

I don't know how much detail you want. That's what Universities are for. Well just look at all the marvelous technological development that came from feudalism. Basically nothing other that sharper sticks and throwing bigger stones. Even before Maslow, Jesus and others said we are our brother's keeper. Since the 1940s when we established social safety nets, Europe and America have created a technological explosion. We make nuclear power instead of just nuclear bombs. We make moon rockets instead of just missiles. If America, Europe and USSR decided to punish Germany by genocide, they would have reverted to their monarchic roots. Instead they rebuild Germany, well mostly. If America had rebuilt Afghanistan in the 1990s, there would be much more progress there.

How would a Libertarian country deal with being in the middle of global conflict?

[Matthew N. Wright]

Should we care if he denounces libertarians? I'm not sure... will watch the vid now.

Bitcoin's community is not entirely libertarians. Rejecting him because he criticized them is unfair and unnecessarily disopen and elitist. Our goal is Bitcoin adoption, not production of copious praise for libertarians.

Bingo.

[myrkul]

Behaviorists believe human nature has needs that must be met before it realizes its potential. Without these needs being met, people are dysfunctional. Libertarianism does not offer to meet basic human needs for anyone other than to say "someone else" will do it.

OK, you're going to have to explain that one in more detail. I think I know where you're coming from with that, but I want to be sure.

I don't know how much detail you want. That's what Universities are for. Well just look at all the marvelous technological development that came from feudalism. Basically nothing other that sharper sticks and throwing bigger stones. Even before Maslow, Jesus and others said we are our brother's keeper. Since the 1940s when we established social safety nets, Europe and America have created a technological explosion. We make nuclear power instead of just nuclear bombs. We make moon rockets instead of just missiles. If America, Europe and USSR decided to punish Germany by genocide, they would have reverted to their monarchic roots. Instead they rebuild Germany, well mostly. If America had rebuilt Afghanistan in the 1990s, there would be much more progress there.

How would a Libertarian country deal with being in the middle of global conflict?

None of that even touched the original statement. I'll answer your question, but I'd appreciate an explanation of what basic needs need to be met, and how libertarianism doesn't offer to meet them.

Now, as to your question, I assume by "in the middle of", you mean in a position similar to Switzerland during WWII. And, in my opinion, it would be handled much like it was by Switzerland. Free trade with whomever came peacefully, and armed resistance to any who came in aggression.

[cryptoanarchist]

I don't really care about these definitions of libertarians and poster boys or whatever. If you think about it, framing arguments with that kind of stuff is a distraction.

In my opinion voluntary collectivism has the potential to yield superior results to involuntary, and the best candidate for incentivizing this behaviour is self-interest. I also think the current system encourages stereotyped thinking and orthodoxy while discouraging experimentation and cleverness (especially academia). Don't "try to change society", produce something of value that people will voluntarily choose to use and society will change it's self.

Also, (IMO) the job of a democratic government isn't to "meet basic needs", it is to use a monopoly on legal violence in order to provide an environment conducive to the general welfare. Perhaps meeting basic needs is a part of this, perhaps not. The primary job, though, is keeping any other malicious entity from occupying the space of "biggest gang". The game is not letting the government itself become so powerful that when malicious powers take over (and they will eventually) it is not too big to stop without taking everything else down with it.

My point is, if the actions necessary to "meet basic needs" are an obstacle to limiting government power, then perhaps those actions should not be taken.

Exactly.

The government we have today DEPENDS on a hierarchical monetary system. Money originates from the top of the pyramid, and then those at the top decide who it trickles down to.

By replacing the monetary system with a decentralized one, the same will happen with government.

A decentralized government is akin to no government at all.

[cbeast]

Behaviorists believe human nature has needs that must be met before it realizes its potential. Without these needs being met, people are dysfunctional. Libertarianism does not offer to meet basic human needs for anyone other than to say "someone else" will do it.

OK, you're going to have to explain that one in more detail. I think I know where you're coming from with that, but I want to be sure.

I don't know how much detail you want. That's what Universities are for. Well just look at all the marvelous technological development that came from feudalism. Basically nothing other that sharper sticks and throwing bigger stones. Even before Maslow, Jesus and others said we are our brother's keeper. Since the 1940s when we established social safety nets, Europe and America have created a technological explosion. We make nuclear power instead of just nuclear bombs. We make moon rockets instead of just missiles. If America, Europe and USSR decided to punish Germany by genocide, they would have reverted to their monarchic roots. Instead they rebuild Germany, well mostly. If America had rebuilt Afghanistan in the 1990s, there would be much more progress there.

How would a Libertarian country deal with being in the middle of global conflict?

None of that even touched the original statement. I'll answer your question, but I'd appreciate an explanation of what basic needs need to be met, and how libertarianism doesn't offer to meet them.

Now, as to your question, I assume by "in the middle of", you mean in a position similar to Switzerland during WWII. And, in my opinion, it would be handled much like it was by Switzerland. Free trade with whomever came peacefully, and armed resistance to any who came in aggression.

Switzerland was in no position to take sides even if they wanted to. Bad example. What if England chose to remain neutral in WWII?

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

[hashman]

Awww... I really like Max too, kind of a shame to see him get so sloppy.  Definitely a low point with this episode of his show here IMHO.
Hopefully this can be a wakeup call to Max if he wants to keep any respectability.

Some problems here:

1) Shows disrespect or ignorance of 2nd amendment
2) Shows disrespect for fortune cookies
3) Shows disrespect for LSD
3) Shows disrespect for regulatory capture
4) Shows disrespect for improved security methods such as bitcoin by implying we could be better off if we return to ancient system
5) Shows disrespect for personal liberty


Mostly it seems when watching this episode that he doesn't respect you because he just goes for volume and emotional response rather than reasoned arguments.  

[myrkul]

Switzerland was in no position to take sides even if they wanted to. Bad example. What if England chose to remain neutral in WWII?

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

Switzerland's a perfect example of exactly how a libertarian nation or AnCap region would handle being surrounded by warring nations. "Well, I suppose my people would have to shoot twice."

OK, now, how does libertarianism fail to meet those needs?

[bb113]

Switzerland is an even better example than you think. It is basically Europe's biggest bank, all the powerful families store a bunch of wealth there thus providing disincentive to anyone who wants to attack.

[bb113]

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

[cbeast]

Switzerland was in no position to take sides even if they wanted to. Bad example. What if England chose to remain neutral in WWII?

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

Switzerland's a perfect example of exactly how a libertarian nation or AnCap region would handle being surrounded by warring nations. "Well, I suppose my people would have to shoot twice."

OK, now, how does libertarianism fail to meet those needs?

Countries that were conquered during WWII were looted. Switzerland was not a military threat, but would have been conquered and looted as soon as resources were available. Yes, sometimes you have to "shoot twice" that's life. The French Underground was a good example. They never really stopped resisting. So I guess you would never choose violence as a course of action? Ghandi would have been a better example for you, although nowadays they too are a member of the nuke club.

Libertarianism is not based on science. I have no reference for defending it. You have not posited a clear specific argument where AnCap is sustainable. The Wikipedia article mentions historical roots to related philosophies, but that's like saying we have a mission to Alpha Centauri planned because we went to the moon. I think your philosophy has a lot of development to do and probably requires a technological breakthrough of some sort before it should be attempted.

[cbeast]

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

[bb113]

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.