You literally could not have. I heard he mentioned conversing with Charles Murray or Camile Paglia, or Michael Moore, or Stephen Fry, and I still haven’t seen those. Personally I want to hear his lecture at Hannah Arendt Research Center.

@@polymathicheretic5068 I can't find that recording. The essay it references is here, though: hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/reflections-on-antisemitism-christopher-hitchens-2011-12-16

Brad Iverson Thanks, that piece was literally how I knew. I meant from before an audio recording, or dare I dream someone video taped it. I should say Hannah Arendt was important to Hitch, specifically her writings of Banality of Evil, which forms the essential counter argument against the religious appropriation of what’s evil and its nature.

GoldBlockCareer Hey! That’s exactly what I was going to comment! I’m a Hitch fanatic 😜

There's hours of Hitchens on some politics show available on the C-Span website. Hitch talking as the liberal guy and some other guest would be the conservative. It was pretty much him debating others about the current political events and taking calls. He went against all sorts of conservative voices ranging from Ben Stein to Pat Buchanan and it spans like 20 years.

😂😂😂 I wanna go back (just kiddin’)

Too funny. They each have a sullen, almost bitter look. As if to say : "This sucks. I don't want to just space out. I want to ignore you."

Yeah getting lost in ones own thoughts is something that doesnt seem to happen anymore since everyone escapes to their screens at the first signs of boredom

Yeah instead of getting lost you can pick up your learn about something you'd rather be learning about. How terrible.

so they were silently, mostly unconsciously, processing information instead of absorbing more (garbage) information. Quite the change

magicpony9 legend

magic pony9 I was looking for you, thank you.

You're the real hero. Thank you.

Thank you, the person introducing the debate sounded like a typewriter if it could speak.

It actually starts at 31:45

Yes, it's crazy to think what he would do in our present political clime, I think he would pretty much explode. The left had to wait for all of its big thinkers to die before letting incompetent asshats like Ilhan Omar and Ocasio-Cortez represent it. I wonder if he would vote for Trump or just abstain completely.

@@joshuavickers9820 idk dude those are politicians, not thinkers

@@aagantuk7370 lol

Few philosophers have the style of communication to make them great communicators, but I don't think the problem is fixed in time, it's just that capitalism has so many layers of defenses today whereas socialism will always be build on sullied grounds in an effort to replace a superior, pre-extant threat peacefully. Hitchens is forced to be eloquent here by virtue of the struggle against a fascist, anti-intellectual attitude, meanwhile the opposition must lead the audience away from critical methodologies lest they begin to deconstruct the cult's logic. The sheer number of logical fallacies they employ in this effort is worthy of a completely separate video.

There are few examples of public intellectuals remaining in American society today. I really can't think of very many. Mostly just pundits and tweeters.

@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 Libertarian philosophy overlaps strongly with objectivism particularly regarding their fettishisation of free markets as the bastion and guarantor of human freedom. Surely you dont dispute that?

@Kali Southpaw it's utopian to think that capitalism can ever be the basis for human freedom

@@jbmuggins8815 Capitalism is the embodiment of human freedom. It says you own what you produce and nobody can steal anything you've made. That is freedom.

@@damonhage7451 ?? the whole point of capitalism is that employees produce, only for the product to go to their employers. you accidentally described socialism...

@@jbmuggins8815 When you work for an employer, you are engaging in an trade of your labor for your salary. I don't know where this "product" comes in. Your employer makes a profit on you. You're worth more to the company than they pay you. They never would hire you otherwise. You go work for a company because your time is worth less to you than the salary they pay. You would never take the job otherwise. There are 2 products in a trade. I don't know what "product" means in your comment.

No wonder libertarianism never took off

capitalism evolves. socialism denies.

@@swamivardana9911 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fpl8dMKH0Kq4iaM.html Socialism Gives a Better Quality of Life (Research Paper by California State University)

@Chris ask the ruling class politicians, to which collection of individuals they are giving tax breaks to, and which other collection they are sending off to war to extract resources?

@@jojosip1917 don't tell me. Lived both capitalist and socialist India. You are crazy about socialism because you haven't lived it.

If Harry Binswanger ever did get married or have kids I couldn't find it, but his Wikipedia page does say he's an heir to the Binswanger Glass Company, which explains a lot.

Yeah, that quote had me yelling alone in my car when I heard it. It’s akin to saying “the healthy suffer more than the sick”. Categorically, to the extent that the rich suffer is to the extent that they *choose to suffer in service to their further enrichment.* To the extent that the poor suffer, they have no choice not to as it’s beyond their individual actions. The rich could step down from the situation and rest on the privilege and comfort of their riches. The poor have no such privilege. That is the key difference. I know what the guy was trying to say, that the rich are seen as villainous, and that they face niche laws and regulations. But what the dude fails to realize is that these troubles are born of sheer excess, and could be disbanded at any moment. He is also ignoring the tens of millions of cases where monetary might makes right. And by sheer debt of wealth, a group or individual can crush the poor man out of hand. With ease. And do literally anything they wish to him. To imagine the “system” is set up to oppose the rich, is to fail to look at the system itself.

Kellen how is he wrong?

@@alexanderevans7930 Nice try.

Kellen what worker’s “rights” are violated in the constitution? ... i could tell you a number of violation of rights that only affect capitalist businessmen.

Wow you need to check his debates on religion man he was a legend. R.I.P

@@yada7630 I think @John McCrae was being sarcastic.

@@yada7630 Some people just don't get sarcasm.

He was being sarcastic but Hitchens would detest anyone calling him a novelist

Good comment but I can already see the comment flying over many peoples heads😊

Black pill of the day: The questioneers are still more educated than the average voter.

Small world! The more Hitch the better, I must say.

The government being bought is a necessity under capitalism, because without force capital is incapable of continuity itself.

So Capitalism can't protect itself by buying force privately, so it has to buy the most expensive and legitimized force (government) instead? Okay

@@alexsch2514 No it isn't. Who told you that? The guy who said horse-drawn carriages would mean the end of palanquins and cause a loss of jobs in the transport industry?

​@SteelpeachandtozHow does private property defend itself without the force of the state, then? Wondering for all the capitalists and business owners who wholly disagree with you.

No, just present completely unreconstructed individualism without an attempt to reconcile the individual with the collective and claim intellectual victory.

100% of socialists are statist. If you don't know that then you don't know what either socialism or statism are. Not surprising, I've never known a self-proclaimed socialist to understand what socialism is. They just simply reject the term "capitalism" while promoting and practicing capitalism and just trying to insist on calling it socialism.

Nah because they lean on the hegemony of US pro-Cold War propaganda

@@ajb7786 I'm not going to bombard you with insults about how ignorant you are blah blah blah point scoring etc, but do look up 'libertarian socialism' and discover the non-statist, anti-authoritarian currents of socialism which have been around (in their modern forms) for about 150-200 years.

Kyle Alexander the real world Canada Norway England France Conservatives are people who think that the real world is Texas and that it represents a natural order rather than a construct

@Thomas Farrell Sureee. I am sure having your resources exported, your people sold and your political system manipulated is a very nice thing. It's not like most of Africa is how it is largely because of the effect colonialism had on it. Ooo wait...

@Thomas Farrell how was Africa better off with or under colonialism?

@Thomas Farrell so you really think all of sub-saharan Africa were just a bunch of savage tribes with no real knowledge of the world around them before the Europeans came?? What about the oppression and continued withdrawal (or theft) of capital (human or resources) for years, the control and the intervention in politics in society for it's own benefit, the drawing of maps with no respect in regards to the peoples language, history or culture. If you ask me, saying that colonialism was a good thing for African countries is not only morally appalling, but just completely and scholarly wrong. It is anti-intellectual and revisionist history.

@Thomas Farrell Ok clearly you're not interested in learning. You probably just think that Europeans (and whites) are a superior people/race. Have a good day

@Thomas Farrell No I do not believe that Western civilisation or Europeans are innately superior to Africans or Asians. Thats a claim is contrary to the spirit of science and education itself. Only very uneducates people would think something like that

RIP bozo. The world is a better place without him.

@@RikerLovesWorf Any specific objection? Or are you just capable of hooliganism ?

John Ridpath was awesome.

@@RikerLovesWorfWhat a disgusting comment. Ridpath was a tremendous man.

Well I think Objectivism is an antisocial philosophy. In the psychological sense. As in toxic to society. They also don't believe in determinism. Which is contrary to science. When poor and rich comingle. They feel less alienated by one another and there is less friction. That's part of why equality is good. It breeds friendship. And friendship is good.

What are you talking about? "The Moral Majority" was a big thing then.

the fuck are you talking about?

These two gentlemen were libertarians and/or anarcho-capitalists, which indeed reject a religious foundation to justify the type of freedom of capitalism. These were not the majority of pro-capitalists back then, and still are not now.

Aurora Actually, they are Objectivists. Rand abhorred both anarchists and libertarians.

Anarcho-capitalism is a redundant phrase, as anarchism assumes private property.

look at the india. it is same dirthole like 200 years back. sad to say, but some nations are not ready for freedom. this is reason why we have plenty of failed states around the globe.

@@Ivane_Maskhulia they already had/have mechanisms of control in place, regardless of how good they seem to be functioning, or how universally moral one regards the end. Colonialism is the pinnacle of ignorance and avarice. Your statement of how India is essentially unchanged after colonial rule is evidence of the harm the West likely did, rather than accelerate human rights it may have retarded them. The social changes both cosmetic, or actual, in exchange for accepting yoke of Western model, itself of deeply unjust and bloody origin, and now there are two absolutist systems, East and West, crushing the individual and their potential.

India was one of the richest countries in the world prior to colonial invasion. The citizens may not have been on equal footing, but the wealth looted from India by the English was immense.

I imagine there are a few societies that have, thus far in history, gained from being a colony of a larger society. I suppose it all depends what you mean in gained. I mean life expectancy, literacy rates, infant mortality, calories consumed per day, access to clean water, things of this nature. An even more disquieting thought is that some ancestors of slaves are better off because their ancestors were enslaved. I might go so far as to say some slaves themselves had their standards of living raised by being enslaved. More secure food, water, and housing, free from tribal raiders and midnight massacres. If you disagree, I’m wondering if you can imagine a situation in which you would agree. Say, there is some extremely advanced society, which can heal all illness, has means of giving any material or mental wants you could imagine, and you go from being a half starved agrarian Yemenis farmer, to being enslaved by this super advanced society. Would that be a lifting of living standards? Or does the slavery aspect, no matter the context, always get trumped by freedom, however relative and meager that freedom may be. I see it akin to being a slave to a local chief working in his hut, or being a slave to a global king working in his castle estate.

Taking in the rest of his quote into context, what he said is absolutely true.

Can we handle the truth? I guess not.

Slowpoke Rodriguez ???

I mean it is technically true. North America is the best geopolitical location on the planet, bar none.

@@Mediax5 ehhh? howso?

@@PazLeBon It would be fairly long winded for a comment to be honest. Just look into how geography gave the united states super power status so quickly.

Is it your birthday? Happy birthday!

Fuck you and your birthday.

@@joshuavickers9820 there’s the objectivist! Get him!

@@joshuavickers9820 Serious question: Are you by any chance related to Jill Vickers, who was destroyed in the 1984 socialism debate against Peikoff and Ridpath?

freedom for the rich and sly versus freedom for the responsible humanity

@LaMortEtLamour well yeah but at least they don't shout and shit at each other

@LaMortEtLamour and I even more surprised with the quality of the audience

@LaMortEtLamour you see, this never changes - people come to support their sides or rather to confirm their own views, to think "yes, I'm right!", so when they hear something appealing they applause etc. but at least they ask questions, I mean real questions - to hear the answer, not to blame smb

survivorship bias

Oops

Mark Schulz They were truly terrible. I’ve never seen such a lopsided debate.

Very good.

He is using his savings. It has a clear purpose to him, to secure his life in the future. Someone who doesn't claim something doesn't own it. That was his point. The capitalist comes in, claims or buys the property; it is his. The socialist and/or statist sees the capitalist working the property; they claim it was theirs after the fact. That is, or is closer to, the proper scenario that Binswanger is mentioning.

It still doesn't make sense. If you don't know they value of a diamond but you posses one, and someone comes along and tells you it's his because you don't need it how is that fair?

@@PresidentialWinner You're presuming you're already in possession/claim of the diamond. In that case, it would be unfair. That's not what's being discussed in the video.

@@nicholasgramlich5860 Well hold on now, if you own a piece of land or your nation or tribe or family owns a piece of land and the diamond is on that land and you walk on the land and take it is that fair then, is that not the thing that is being discussed?

Protip: collectivism doesn't own the concept collective. "All a collective is is a group of individuals."

@@ThreeFingerG Protip: Ayn Rand built a cult like following espousing her objectivist philosophy. All of those people believe(d) in a set of fundamentals which creates an in-group/out-group dynamic. From Wikipedia: Collectivism is a value that is characterized by emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over the self. Individuals or groups that subscribe to a collectivist worldview tend to find common values and goals as particularly salient[1] and demonstrate greater orientation toward in-group than toward out-group. Objectivists define themselves according to their adherence to Rand's philosophy and in doing so we find that those values are consistent among objectivists. In other words, ask an objectivists what they value and believe in and you will find a lot of consistency, which is what you would expect from collectivism.

@@aliasoma "You will find alot of consistency, which is what you would expect from collectivism." You do not not properly understand the definition of collectivism. "which is what you would expect from collectivism". Yes if you have a surface level conception of what to "expect" from collectivist attributes. Protip: collectivism does not own the word collective but rather " *primacy* of the collective". Important distinction. Consistency in Objectivist circles is a product of that philosophy so strongly stressing noncondradiction, the supremacy of reason, and the potency of heirarchical integration. And really mostly the novelty of holding such a culturally atypical position as altruism=unadulterated evil. And besides this "consistency" is not so absolute as you might think. I name one of the few criticsim's of Rand that I've accepted: rebirthofreason.com/Articles/BissellRE/The_Evolution_of_the_Objective.shtml . Edit: spelling

The difference is state forced collectives vs collectives you join voluntarily. Objectivists and libertarians have no problems with the latter.

@@JensHove "ladder" latter not ladder.

No it wanted, that was a pathetic deflection.

@@equaltoreality8028 Uh, no, that was a masterclass. You must think Harry Trashcanwang is a genius in that case.

@@RikerLovesWorf Harry is a genus and frankly this was the few times Hitchens was outclassed as socialism is completely mystical and irrational.

@Oners82 I wouldn't go so far. Decision capitalist take of where to apply capital saves wealth from going to waste. Therefore it does create wealth. I agree Capitalist tend to take more share then what is due to them

He is correct. All of the wealth is created by capitalists and none of the wealth is created by labour which is why the average per capita income worldwide did not exceed 105 USD until the advent of capitalism by Great Britain in the 1580's . You're welcome.

@Oners82 iTs bIg bRaIn tImE. Reread my comment fucktard I didnt say "wealth is not created by labour".

@Oners82 Ok go run around in a field and move around some rocks. See how much wealth you produce.

@@Steelpeachandtozer The house in which you live was built by laborers. The roads on which you drive were built by laborers. The very computer which you used to post your breathtakingly moronic remark contains metals mined . . . by laborers. I can tell that you're the kind of smug little coil of shit who has never had an actual job.

Yes, well said, because he's absolutely not here. It's so rare that I've never actually seen it.

The only time Hitchens makes sense is when he speaks about religion

And about Israel, Kissinger, Mother Teresa

Worked out pretty well didn't it.

@@damonhage7451 No, it didn't. Just look at the wealth inequality in 1st world countries today. Wait until the people start justifiably killing the wealthy and their families, a-la the French Revolution.

@@rsr789 Um.... France wasn't capitalist. That is what made those killings "justified to the extent that they were. There is no justification for killing the wealthy (or anyone) under capitalism.

"Knowledge is the acquisition of info, but doesn't necessarily imply critical thinking." I think your terms are a little ambiguous. Reason is using sense data to form concepts and validating those concepts using logic. 1. Sense data 2. Concept formation 3. Logical integration I don't know what "critical thinking" is. I know many people use that term, but I've never seen it defined in a reasonable way. The only way to acquire knowledge is through reason. You need to hear somebody tell you the knowledge or see it on your computer screen (sense data). You need to form concepts in order to understand what you are hearing or seeing.You need to use logic to eliminate contradictions in the concepts you formed. If you did not use reason, then what you have is not "knowledge". "As for creating/making wealth, he probably missed the fact of inheritance". If I create wealth, its mine. If I want to burn it, or give it to the government, or leave it to my cat, or leave it to my children, that is none of your business. It is mine. "or theft. Growing rich while enslaving others is a form of theft." You are attacking the socialist position now? It seemed to me you were attacking the capitalist's position but now I'm not so sure. "Using influence to avoid paying taxes while expecting others to beat your burden is theft." Taxes are theft. Everyone should try to pay as little as possible. Your money is yours, not the government's where you are just allowed to keep a certain percentage. "And social democracy is different from socialism." I agree. Most times social democracy is the tool that is used to achieve socialism.

@@damonhage7451 Profit is theft.

@@TheSnowyBlizzard How is profit theft? Every single voluntary interact has both sides profiting.

Ha ha, you say that and then utterly fail in critical thinking. I love people trying to desperately protect their prejudiced conclusions trying to invoke critical thinking.

None of his points actually hit here, socialism is evil and immoral. Even Hitchens lied here about Marx being not deterministic.

Objectivism is all about not giving the sanction of the victim. Not engaging does that. Any Rand did the same.

lol These right wing idiot objectivists have no morals or set ideology.

but Hitchens was on the wrong side

What is so inspiring, Hitchens lied several times in this debate. Do you even understand what these people were taking about?

@@sheehan92 You’re right that Hitchens was on the wrong side of this particular debate, and was very much outmatched, but he overall was a brilliant orator and courageous champion of reason and Enlightenment ideals. If only more Objectivists had his wit and fire in the belly!

@@sybo59 This is not true. You cannot support socialism (in any form) and also champion the Enlightenment. The fundamental idea of the enlightenment is that your life belongs to you and you only, and thus nobody has the right to initiate force on to you. You cannot support socialism and say you are pro-enlightenment. John Ridpath talks briefly about this in the last part of this video. Objectivists come from the tradition of Locke, Aristotle and Cicero. People like Hitchens come from the tradition of Russow, Marx and Kant who are anti-enlightenment figures. They mix reason with mysticism, they are collectivists at the core (sometimes explicitly), they define freedom as a zero-sum concept and thus they are socialists. On a different matter, I used to think Hitchens was a good orator around 2010 when he (and others) introduced me to atheism. But pretty much any objectivist starting from Leonard Piekoff to Alex Epstein are better speakers than him. They are clearer, more consistent, more rational and more objective. Even the ones who are non-native English speakers are far better than Hitchens.

@@sheehan92 You’re wrong, and worse, showing unfortunate signs of rationalism. I clearly and correctly said Hitchens’ broader legacy beyond this particular debate was glorious and pro-Enlightenment. Did it occur to you that he might have changed his views in the decades between this debate and his untimely death? You’ll be heartened to hear that he did. He explicitly acknowledged that Marxist socialism had failed. He penned excellent biographies on both Jefferson and Paine. He even wrote somewhat fairly about Rand at one point (a lot to ask of a reformed Marxist). And besides, even while an avowed Trotskyite, Hitchens through his words and deeds overwhelmingly exemplified individualism. Have you read his biography? Any of his essays? Yes, he was conflicted and imperfect. So were the aforementioned Jefferson and Paine, one of whom did in fact own slaves. Are you prepared to isolate their sins and tear them down in kind? Hitchens was morally courageous, several times risking his safety to cover stories he thought important. He fought religionists and totalitarianism, even when it was unpopular. He daringly pursued his own values. He was no arm-chair intellectual. Shame on you for diminishing this hero, the man in the arena, from your comfy spectator seat. In addition to your base rationalism, you reveal yourself as willfully blinded by tribalism in your wild comparison of Hitchens’s oratory to that of Peikoff or Epstein. I love those guys, but this is a laughable statement to any objective observer. Hitch’s rhetorical and speaking style was seductive; Peikoff and Epstein tend toward the mono-tonal, and often fail to read the room and sway the skeptics. Hitchens, on the other hand, talked countless thinking people away from religion. Perhaps you think that a trivial task. Yet no Objectivist since Rand ever matched it, and the movement, despite having the most potent ideas ever conceived, continues to limp on in obscurity. And zeroes like you with no skin in the game help insure no lessons are learned. You keep hating - we few will keep fighting to actually win.

I actually came here for Binswanger but was excited to see Hitchens.

@@emoshunless same

I came for Ridpath, haha.

@@azorbz9286 I didn't know him until now. And I am now a fan. I'm curious why I've never heard of him..

Binswanger

if you think the system of government with bailouts, government contracts, Quantitative easing, artificial interest rates, huge stimulus packages and a variety of social programs is actual capitalism then you did not learn anything in school.

Justin Phillips ya exactly. This time in history points out how important to contemplate the purpose of an economy

Galios Elvensong I’m gonna focus on the last piece of your statement. Communism is the logical extension of capitalism per Marx. He actually credited it for more than you did (which isn’t surprising given he wrote about it.. a lot); it’s because of capitalism’s contradictions that the need for socialism arises in the first place. The last sentence of my comment was aimed specifically at this sort of comment - “history doesn’t end here”

capitalism has not failed... it is the engine of our upward progress

​@@jepper6140 Yeah? Tell me what capitalism is and I’ll tell you how that’s failing.

for sure, it isnt the system, capitalist/socialist/communist, it's the individuals/groups who run it., allied with the fact that even the privedged education systems seem to push that greed narrative

The difference is that lazziez-faire capitalist systems can cause owners of the means of production to essentially have unilateral power over any person they can buy and this works under ANY political system. Therefore, the role of government, perhaps it's PRIMARY role is, and should be to prevent any UNELECTED official from becoming powerful enough to sway politics. Essentially the exact opposite of what the United States currently has, and why capitalism has failed us. We have a crony capitalist system and any attempt to fix it is LABELLED as "socialism". Equivocation of social programs with "socialism" more broadly, and then jeeringly the pundits ask: "But when has socialism ever worked". Our politicians receive money from donors who happen to be the business owners that Libertarians essentially hand over power to when they make statements like "Government needs to stay out of our lives" or insinuates that a government necessarily will be less efficient at running X system than a company. This does not account for cottage industries like Health Insurance companies which have transformed into incredibly powerful lobbying entities. Not to be rude, but it actually fails to account for a few things other than these as well.

"Capitalism requires every citizen" - "to acquire the productive tools to find a place in the system.": Are you happy for people who cannot do so (injured etc.) to simply die? If so I would argue that your ideal system fails to provide the best experience of life possible (which I believe to be the ultimate goal of any system but maybe you disagree). "Government is merely an opportunity to become corrupted by power.": Government is also an opportunity to unify a group of people whch allows said group to exploit things they could not individually e.g. Economies of scale, bargaining strength in numbers to improve their experience of life. "The sole purpose of our species is to allow the bright-minded to release the products of their imaginations and hard work.": I disagree as is probably clear by now. Our species does not have a sole purpose that I can see. A sole purpose implies that there is an objective truth to some statement of "people ought to..." but I don't see how that can be the case if value is subjective.

@@michaeledowling1039 a. When and how did they become injured? What insurances and backup plans have they provided for themselves? Who was responsible for the injury?... b. Read history much? Can you name one civilisation where that has ever happened? Until we start employing the ideal government system that is not possible. hint: facebook.com/Vision-Representation-A-Humanist-Government-262619170609120 OR demvision.wordpress.com [the concept in those links is a test of their host culture and thus the value of humanity] c. Worst case scenario. This universe will apparently destroy this planet one day. Ergo act as if that were going to happen and make escape possible. That will require huge knowledge and brainpower. Re: reality. Survival is a sub-branch of reality. Science has many 'ought to' advisory dictums.

@@josephd2653 You haven't been rude at all. Instead you have merely cherry-picked some isolated events, chose a poor example (the USA) and carried on. The CotUSA is a flawed document. It assumed: only the very best people would volunteer for election; and that as knowledge grew as a document it would be amended. Every representative democracy has made the same mistake. Acton was right and furthermore his warning is an absolute human condition; that power corrupts. (unless their name is Marcus Aurelius or they are a fervent fan of Stoicism) This is why Socialism and by inference strong central government is not in humanity's best interests. Never has been, never will be. Read Orwell's 'Wigan Pier' for a glimpse into how bureaucracies cruel everything they touch. Including corporate capitalism. See also: facebook.com/Vision-Representation-A-Humanist-Government-262619170609120 OR demvision.wordpress.com The above links will become a severe test of the society's preparedness for humanity in the transition period.

@Ernesto Lombardo .....and sickle.

He was born to a rich capitalist family.

@@ianjedi1282 I don't see why that should impair his connection with reality...

Julian Janssen it shouldn’t. I think he’s just being dishonest.

@@ianjedi1282 I am not sure about that. If you are aware of the parallel universe conservatives live in today, it seems like he might have just been so sheltered and shown such a distorted view of reality that he is just objectively wrong about basic things. I do wonder what you can do about it. I am not sure if you can.

Julian Janssen I do not know him or about him enough, to comment with certainty. The only cure is reality and exposure to varied experiences and sometimes divine intervention if you like talking like that. Walking a mile in someone else’s mohcasins does wonders.

The insecure little fuckwad Binswanger sicced the moderator on him too! Couldn't take the banter so he shuts down his speech!

@@theinherentfloyd3393 binswanger is the original edgelord who has no understanding of economics. Should just stick with philosophy instead of spewing these nonsense regarding economic policies.

This guy❤️

@@theinherentfloyd3393 yeah, totally. It wasn't even an ad hominem.

@@eclipse369. Holy shit such a savage comment

Pretty sure Friedman said capitalism leads to freedom. He used that argument to defend Pinochet

@@sirherbert6953 better look that up. The Free to Choose Q&A series on youtube should clear up the comment. He made the comment in a speech about whether or not capitalism was humane. He pointed out that no system is "humane" that only people are humane, outlining the theme that where ever there is freedom you have capitalism. That freedom takes its most basic form through the individual and his/her capacity for economic self interest. Its the same as when Hitchens says that capitalism is not incompatible with socialism. Indeed! It is compatible, as laid out by the statement Friedman made.

This doesn't make any sense. If we are fundamentally anything, we are fundamentally social and collective. This is how all institutions, cultures, and forms of political and economic organisation have emerged. There is no individual freedom without collective, or "societal" freedom, and vice versa. The capacity of capitalism to individuate and obscure our collective subjectivity is its greatest horror.

@@samjames6890 "The capacity of capitalism to individuate and obscure our collective subjectivity is its greatest horror." AKA, capitalism throws a wrench into plans for European style government and mob rule. Come closer child and let me fill you in on some real hard truths, not assertions. Freedoms don't come from government, they are inherent because we are individuals. Freedom is the consequence of individuality, not society. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are amplifiers of that ideal. Individualism fosters capitalism. Capitalism in its purest form is the uninhibited, un-coerced transactions between two or more people. It doesn't rely on class, race, "society" institutions or political parties, it relies on individual freedom. This is why you find capitalism in the places you normally wouldn't look for it; if there is an ounce of freedom, there is at least a pound of capitalism. So again, both Hitchens and Friedman are seeing capitalism in the same way, because they realize these truths are really indisputable.

@@samjames6890 Capitalism, in the free-market sense of the word, is social. How else would a *market* exist? (in fact prices can't exist without a market either but I digress) Businesses are also collective, multiple people working together towards a goal. But in neither sense is it *collectivist*, which is state control, coercion to perform as instructed (by political actors) at threat of violence. The entire libertarian/objectivist vision is for free individuals so they can find their own passions (restricted by the necessities of the market) and form their own voluntary relationships thereby sustaining themselves via providing for others, and providing people with what they need and desire. Since it is voluntary for consumers, niches can be better served than in a centrally organized economy (greater diversity of concern). Since it is voluntary for producers, passion and competitiveness drives higher levels of production (greater amount and/or quality). That is people can both be free, more productive, and have their desires better served. In fact it can be argued that coercion and slavery are intrinsically un-productive (or minimally productive).

Tell us when you are ready to FIGHT instead of make commentary... there are a lot of us out here.

Not to mention the early years of America and the trial of librarian capitalism under Hoover during the great depression, and it's remedy under FDR

@@edwardwilson4997 For as long as the most powerful army on the planet is protecting FED's monopoly to issue world's trading currency you cannot blame 'capitalism' for financial crises.

The industrial revolution turned out VERY good for the working class. They saw an immense increase in their living conditions.

@@matthijsvanoostende9292 Lmao

I agree. Her philosophy is easily pulled apart because it is theoretical rather than empirical.

You just don't know what she actually said. She wasn't against charity or people helping other people.

As far as the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, it's a pretty good Philosophy to promote high productivity. BUT, guess what? People are drug addicts, bums, assholes and day-dreamers and some people don't have a lot going on between their ears. What do you do with them? Her philosophy is great for some people but the underlying arguments is what makes Ayn Rand perfectly fine. She's basically a small government advocate which, despite any philosophy, will actually yield greater results for ALL PHILOSOPHIES. If your goal is to smoke cocaine and do nothing than there is no place greater than a free society because only a free society can create the kind of wealth that is necessary for people to be bums.

@@EGarrett01 Exactly. It's ironic that people make this statement about Ayn and in reality their policies take thousands of dollars that otherwise would go to charity and instead go directly into the hands of politicians or government administrations etc. If everyone kept their money they would have more cash than they would know what to do with.

@@kylewatson5133 Yes, she wanted charity to be voluntary.

The public human sacrifice of women and children for the sake of religious custom was certainly a "complex web" for the British who encountered it but fortunately they came up with a simple solution: “[]f this burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs," - Charles James Napier to Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.

Mysticism can be very complex.

@@Steelpeachandtozer Yea, that shut him up, people don't know shit about India. I'd like these BLM terrorists to spend a few weeks over there understanding racism lol. Although i do miss the food. . .

@@joshuavickers9820 Exactly what part of that reply negates _anything_ the original poster said?

@@77Night77Shade77 Sounds like you might not understand the context of the conversation. Would you mind telling me what you think I was correcting? I am happy to converse with you.

That just made scream out "F#CK!" Man the whole red scare by corporate media was just as effective as it was in the time of this debate as it is today, when you have people trained to think Social programs = Stalin USSR, Communist, Oppressive China, Venezuela, Venezuela, Venezuela. The oldest tricks still works putting John in a spot to explain god damn everything. It's actually easy to answer if the questionaire bothered to give an example a Socialist countries instead of leaving it all open ended. When we talk about Socialism in the United States it is in an Economic context in contrast to Capitalism, i.e. Socialism is the public ownership of production - goods and services normally managed by governments -local, state and national (because government is a "public" entity elected by the people "Ideally") Capitalism is private ownership. From there we can have the argument on what systems "easily go off the rails" because we can than have arguments and plenty examples that can be made of wars and anti-social efforts, strife and suffering because of profit motive i.e. Capitalism

Lots of verbal diarrhea

Raaaails

You’re not wrong

Hitchens was any enemy of logic, and a champion of self-service. His mentality - unabashed prejudice and denial of anything that contradicts those prejudices - represents the biggest threat to humans.

@@ajb7786 Love it when dumb apologists rant and rave against Hitchens! 😂😂

@@ajb7786 says the monotheist

@@ajb7786 *You're a clown. A total bleating imbecile. No wonder you're a monotheist (with shades of theocratic fascism, too)*

Hitchens was right about religion but wrong about everything else, including in this debate. Point after point he got his ass whooped by Binswanger. I wish we had more young Binswanger videos.

Oh really now, "no matter how he acquires that wealth"? Even if he steals it, employs child labor, or bribes a politician to do his buisness favors?

No, it's an ad hominem.

Wrong, when you do ad hominem you lose.

@@oldrichkosacka5522 are you and @newsage stupid? watch it again, listen for 'binswinger'

Wow, you are a really desperate person. I feel sorry for you.

@@ajb7786 STOP psychologically projecting.

In reference to the great depression there is a wildly strong argument that government intervention did in fact create and extend the period. Unemployment had been on a recovery since the October crash and had seen a low of 6% in the following year. However, it came to a halt after the implementation of the Smoot and Hawley tariffs, unemployment would not be under double digits for the rest of the decade.

Braydon Bryan The tariffs were the initial big intervention, but it was a combination of all the massive interventions throughout the 1930s which have been shown to have prolonged, and deepened, the Great Depression.

@@MC-hj1fv Thank you, that's certainly true and drives the point further.

Braydon Bryan I would also take it much further in emphasising that the Federal Reserve under Hoover was probably the largest factor in leading to the recession to begin with.

don't forget war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

Look at where they are now. I'm tired of lecturing people that habe skipped their history lessons...

At 50:00

This is actually a somewhat intricate point. In my opinion the huge twin deficits of the budget and the balance of trades which the US racked up from the 1970s onwards were not a consequence of a *failure* of the US to achieve a productive export economy along the lines of Northern Europe and East Asia at the time, but were instead deliberately nurtured by the US state as an alternative basis for hegemonic global economic power. It is an extraordinary fact that following the second world war the United States was the only country in the entire world, save Switzerland, which had a balance of trades surplus; and this was the basis for the US post war hegemony. The US made huge profits by monopolising global exports, and then invested those profits in the development of economic growth in the rest of the capitalist world; hence the astonishing growth in Northern Europe and East Asia following the war. By the 1970s the US was no longer able to sustain this titanic imbalance which was the basis of its power, but it realised that it could nonetheless maintain its status as hegemon instead on the basis of precisely the reverse pattern of global trade. That is to say: If the US couldn't maintain control of the global economy by monopolising global exports, it would maintain control by running vast deficits and monopolising global demand, which it uniquely could finance through its possession of the centre of the world's financial system, and the world's reserve currency. Countries like Germany and Japan would make huge profits selling to the US, which could afford to buy only by running vast deficits; but they would then invest their enormous surpluses precisely into the US financial markets, allowing the US to finance their own deficits, which were the original source of the demand underwriting the surpluses in the first place. Hence the simultaneous trends of de-industrialisation, vast deficits, neoliberalism, and financialisation in the US. In a nutshell, the US was able to control the process, essential to the proper functioning of global capitalism, which Keynes called the surplus recycling mechanism in two entirely different, and in fact opposite, ways. Yanis Varoufakis calls this thesis "The Global Minotaur", and uses it to explain the sequence of events which lead to the 2008 crash. It's well worth looking into in more detail.

Ha, I don't even remember writing this....

By doing so you are entirely dismissing the idea of a welfare state and social equality in any way. As Mr. Binswanger has already pointed out: Objectivism (and thereby capitalism) have nothing whatsoever to offer for the weak!

I take similar liberties as the socialist side did when they spoke in favor of ideas that foster personal freedom. I take the ideas I like best from both sides. I agree with you that the weak are likely to suffer more in a purely captialist system. Consequently from a moralist stand point, I´d see society stepping in necessary. But it must not extend over my personal choices so long they don´t interfere with others. The point I am trying to make is that I prefer a good mix of the two where the individuum is sovereign. That is why in this debate I am in favor tor the capitalist side.

I don´t support his views on the war. And I find it too dangerous when many rule over one or one over many in the extreme forms. But currently I see that personal freedoms are being threatened in certain countries that one would otherwise look up to. The balance is tipping. That is why I value personal freedom and authority over oneself very much at the moment.

@Oners82 Do you prefer a purely socialist state where the individual accounts for nothing more than being part of many? I´d like to know your opinion.

@Oners82 I don´t necessarily agree with you on that. Firstly, when you state that socialism is the rule of many over many I see my point validated that the "I" has no place in that system. Secondly and consequently, when socialism is the rule of many over many, I find it hard to believe that socialists care too much about individual´s freedoms and authority. Socialist states will do so to a cerrtain extend similar to capitalist states that have some form of social walfare as both sides understand that the purest form of both is undesirable. A model that utilizes that thinking can be found in social democracies with free market economy. That seems to be working as long as the ground it stands on is balanced. I don´t want to take too much of your time but could you tell me how, you think, humanity is doomed if we can´t get rid of capitalism? Does that include any form of competition?

@LaMortEtLamour exactly. Human were not bearthed out of captialst owned factories in 1850-1900. I can't with these people...

go get a job you dirty hippie

Smoothly misquoting like a habitual liar, you mean. The full quote is: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." Hence historical determinism and the opposite of free will as correctly defined by Ridpath and Binswanger.

Like my old boss said in 1980. I'm voting for Reagan because he's going to put more money into defense.(Which was the business we were in).

Do you? Why explains the popularity of politicians like AOC and Sanders, who openly admit that they will contract the economy to achieve what they see as moral ends?

@@sybo59 Medical bankruptcy is the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US. We pay twice as much on medical expenses in the US as almost any other developed nation, while having similar or worse outcomes. Medicare for all would positively effect a lot of peoples pocket books.

Berning Sandwiches Many wealthy people vote for those who would substantially increase their taxes. It will knowingly hurt their pocket book, no?

@@sybo59 there's a lot more poor people than wealthy people. Poor people typically benefit from social programs, no?

He's a word smith

That statement was very cryptic. What did he really mean?

@@taz0k2 he meant he didn't owe his family anything, I assume