@@borninvincible the number of things one would have to take for granted in the United States to claim, "nothing" would be obscene. We have vaccines, roads, internet, free education, freedom of speech, public libraries, plus thousands of other advantages. Not being able to afford a luxury car doesn't qualify as, "I have nothing." Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not who someone else is today.

@@Nicholas-ib9nn this is true on a personal level, but doesnt give the whole story on a society level. western inequality is growing by the day - if luxury cars are not important, why do the top 1% hoard money so hard? why is there no political effort to stop tax holes?

@@baron_xd4633 I have issues with companies subsidizing payroll with government welfare, but can you blame them when the government offer to fill the gaps? By electing not to, they will be undercut by those that do. We could argue that many billionaires earn their fortunes by means of government favoritism, but that's, by definition, not a free market. What a billionaire does with their own money is none of my business as long as they're not violating anyone's rights. I don't care if someone benefits from millions of voluntary transactions. So even if they were stashing their money in a mattress, which they aren't, I don't care. What they are doing is creating countless jobs that otherwise wouldn't have existed without their ingenuity.

@@Nicholas-ib9nn I am completely on board with people getting rich by offering break-through technologies. enhancing people's lives. If you start digging into how the stock market actually works though and how real estate gets pricier by the day without improving anyones lives - thats where you start questioning the actual system. there are very few people who profit from high rents and pricey real estate, but literally everybody has to pay the price. this is happening while major economies are actually shrinking and decrease their population!

They are tied closely together though- if you have some areas with poor education, health, public transport, etc, then economic mobility suffers.

@@technom3598 Lobbyists who “donate” to politicians to change the rules and represent their interests as opposed to the people whom they were elected to represent.

@@technom3598 Lobbyists funnel unlimited amounts of money through super pacs.

You would think that's true but it wasn't true in any communist country. Each people who did nothing in their life put the blame on others and when the grabb of power arrived they attacked every family that was a little better off than them.

@@technom3598 Donations to charities it's a common form of corruption. Dosent feel strange that Bidens cancer charity raised millions but never donated something to cancer research?

He's so out of touch "we have houses cars and family", well no: WE CAN'T AFFORD ANY OF THE ABOVE!

@@floresgt3 He's so out of touch "we have houses cars and family", well no: WE CAN'T AFFORD ANY OF THE ABOVE!

@@raimonestanol8234 it's cringey just listening to him say that

@@umpteenexpression530 100%

He's so out of touch "we have houses cars and family", well no: WE CAN'T AFFORD ANY OF THE ABOVE!

@@raimonestanol8234 Well the average age for buying a house has changed but you should be able to buy one in your mid 30's which is totally realistic. People whine so much these days that they forget that if you would implement socialism everyone would get a house but instead of a nice one you can only buy shacks since prices will skyrocket without capitalism.

@@no_alias_for_me really? And pay for college? Kids? With minimum wage? And no need to do anything extreme, but how about taxing a bit more the big fortunes???

@@no_alias_for_me You have no idea how insanly good we have it in Sweden compare to you do you? To us your literally a 3rd world country.

This is right in a sense I think. It is in each of our individual interests to give to charity and so on, for a safer and cleaner society where smart people who may be poor can still get a chance to do something amazing. The problem is when you use your own self interest (or even the interests of others) like a psychopath to justify stealing from or otherwise hurting others.

i agree- it’s called America

The clean and healthy part of the picture is the ever increasing problem. This guy praises Bill Gates and what he has done for the world while he has been a part of Monsanto who try to force their way into poor countries trying to sell their business model and toxic farming methods onto vulnerable people. Soil quality and the food chain is compromised but politicians keep pretending like there is nothing to see here. It is the classic example of how the political system is bought out and the most fundamental aspects of life disregarded to powerful interests. It won't be long before you can't eat anything out of the ocean and struggle to have clean water, which arguably we don't already.

A majority of Billionaires fund and profit off of endless wars.

@@alexisdumas84 precisely

Maybe deregulate the housing markets

What's your point babe?

@@potpu what's yours

Will someone tell euro191

@@yellow01umrella I should get free money the moment I step into the USA? No thanks. I already went through communism once, that's enough for a lifetime.

@@potpu Ye. Communism = No bananas

Soros

Yeah this guy is a billionaire simp reactionary, I’m starting to thing lex is to the way he approaches socialism

Jealousy is such a feminine trait.

Made the world better off according to who?

@@dt0349 That company is there. So most probably they provide some value to a considerable amount of people. That value might be an increment or a radical one. What the fuck have you achieved till now? Anything?

What about a situation where your CEO was paid say three times the salary of the frontline worker in your company. Wouldn't that mean that you might get a better salary? There is no real strong correlation these days between what CEOs deliver and the amount they are remunerated. Massive inflation in the latter which is damaging in all sorts of ways to the good of most who work within corporations, and those in wider society. Many executives even get rewarded after abject failure.

@@mrweasel Playing what if, I guess that if that CEO was offered only three times as much as a "frontline worker" then that CEO would look for a different fortune 500 company to lead.

@@mustang607 Absolutely. So in that case there needs to be a systems wide cap on CEO pay. Its not just an issue of personal freedom, it is an equalities issue which weighs social versus individual good.

@@martinaee “He’s always building up a straw-man to knock down...”. “Homeless people can’t eat iPhones.” That’s some next-level straw man making.

Jealousy is such a feminine trait.

Right, wageslavery is increasing, work is more precarious, people don't give a damn about billionaires until they are struggling with rent, medical bills etc

You’ve obviously never had a reason to protest

@@kshowngordonable fact as that may be, he isn't wrong. If you look at the history of every uprising in societies, they are underpinned by a moment of severe unemployment. Usually anywhere from 20-50% of a country being unemployed makes a revolution inevitable. The #1 reason why there were so many protests and riots in 2020 is because more people are unemployed or underemployed than the last 20 years.

He's so out of touch "we have houses cars and family", well no: WE CAN'T AFFORD ANY OF THE ABOVE!

@@_audacity2722 I think you missed my point. I agree with you. But I was replying to the original comment where he said “ people would rather barbecue on the weekend than protest.

Yeah, because anything being possible for individuals to choose their own lives and enjoy a similarly high standard of living, the use of currency is what equalizes people, and the only alternative is a non-voluntary economy via dictatorship or majority command -- i.e. slavery.

Did you even listen to the clip?

@@kslash7564 Yeah I did, it's still very poor argument. If you do a parallel, should I be envious and want socialism just because I'm not Michael Jordan? Those people put a lot of effort for a long period of time and they have brilliant ideas, that's their accomplishment and my mother teach me never to want stuff that you didn't earn.

Paar zinnen kloppen niet volgens mij hahaha

Yeah try to provide for a family in third world for a year then come and say that. First you.

Yup I would listen to that

In case you didn't know, Brook and Wolff debated on Capitalism vs Socialism: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jMiBa9p9kpqsgJc.html

Covid has an IFR of .5% in ages 50-69. That's actual science. Branch Covidian is a cult and the face mask is a talisman.

@@luishernandez-hs1ks LOL!

The idea is the Steve Jobs (and co.) came up with the ideas for Apple products and took the risk of starting the business. Imagine you are an engineer who wants to start a business. You would need to come up with you own idea and manage your own business. This takes a lot of work and risk. One can argue that the engineer is stealing off of Steve Jobs because the engineer is benefiting from Apple without the enormous effort and risk that Steve Jobs took. Of course, it is ridiculous to claim that the engineer is stealing from Steve Jobs. But, the claim that Steve Jobs is stealing from the engineer is also ridiculous. The main idea here is that in Capitalism, employees and employers deal with each other in win-win transactions. I'm surprised no one has answered this question in a year.

True it was an argument against capitalism

I was just thinking that. Tech Billionaires are a small number of the super wealthy and don't really reflect the majority. Other points, like the "private plane" thing was nonsense. I found a lot of his points very easy to pick apart.

What the hell? Almost nobody is making any arguments in this comment section. Saying that Gates and Jobs are poor examples with no further elaboration is not an argument.

@@phamnuwen9442 I agree, it's not an argument. Not everyone has an axe to grind in the comment section.

@@phamnuwen9442 Didn't I just say that?

@@myelectioneering Give a better example then.

No one in western civilization is living in poverty wages. Especially here in the states. Our lower class lives better than the middle classes of other countries. I work in human services. And I can tell you if someone is poor it is because they refuse to work or they are just horrible with money. This is just about every poor black or white neighborhood. If you depend on the government then you will be poor.

Describe what exploitation means when the context is 99% of the time relatively high paying jobs with good health benefits?

"No one in western civilization is living in poverty wages." Well, it is so great to live in this utopia called the 'western civilization'. Because last I checked most of the amazon warehouse workers were being paid so well while their CEO and executives were living just above minimum wages. Not to talk about the majority of the electronic products being made in the US, the EU, and Japan. Fashion and clothing are all produced in the UK; while the petroleum/rare earth materials which the capitalists love so much all come from some of the freest and the most peaceful democracies in the world. Also, anyone who is not a Bill Gates or Donal Trump didn't hustle enough and should rather kill themselves rather than demand 'freebies'. Such wise words of wisdom. Thank you for saving mankind, Mr. Galt! :D

@@glidingstar complain as you type into your smart smart phone, tablet or computer that most people in the world don’t have. Capitalism has created every single creature comfort you have in your life. Without capitalism we would al be living in wood cabins, huts or wigwams. Burning wood for heat and starving. Plus we would be freezing to death in the winter and having heat strokes in the summer. Name me one thing socialism or communism ever created. Or invented. And don’t say misery or poverty. I already know those two things.

I would add murdering 100s of millions of natives, looting their land, and then enslaving 100s of millions more as some of the crowning achievements of American capitalism! It is truly a remarkable model of growth and development for all poor people to emulate. :P

I appreciate your intelligent comment, a few remarks if I may: you begin by attempting to lay out the evidence of negative externalities caused by wealth inequality, yet all you present are vague correlations, except of course for the self-evident emotional distress often caused by social comparison. That, however, should at most make the case not for wealth redistribution but for extra taxes on conspicuous consumption. Which brings me to my last point. I don't know anybody who is jealous of Julius Ceasar or the Queen of England, they're just too far away from our reach. Few are even jealous of the CEO of their company. But I know lots of people who are burning in envy of their classmates/neighbors/associates and maybe their managers. My point is that even truly massive wealth redistribution will remove but a tiny fraction of most people's envy-pain. If you want to really make a dent, prohibit people from going on instagram.

@@user-ts5yg5bj6s Tbh, a lot of that is sound criticism. The Instagram point I think is highly reasonable. Envy is confined among social strata (very sound, though it doesn't make the point you imply it does); in fact I'd also be willing to say that the role of 'static' wealth inequality in fragilising societies is overstated in my answer. I also don't know of controlled studies demonstrating a (simple) causal relationship between wealth inequality and crime, so your point regarding this 'vague correlation' is apt. (That said, I'd find it hard to believe that people don't use extreme wealth disparities as a proxy for social unfairness, so I wouldn't be too convinced that the connection isn't causally related in some way). On wealth redistribution, note that you're responding to a policy suggestion I didn't make. I'd be far more interested to hear a discussion of policies that redistribute opportunity (in so far as certain wealth policies do so, they should also be on the table), and prevent the redistribution of risk from risk takers to wider society. I can't comment on 'taxes on conspicuous consumption' because I haven't the foggiest what you're referring to (probably my bad). entrepreneurs To see this pattern in action, look at the French and Russian Revolutions. What happened? Centralised states are fragile to begin with. Then throw in high levels of wealth inequality where (crucially) the upper class (i.e. the aristocracy) also enjoys near-immunity from the downsides of the risks they take. Then a middle-class proliferates on the back of increasing bureaucracy, envy sprouts among those who are starting to run in similar circles to the aristocracy, and narratives which frame the amorphous category of the 'social elite' are popular and flexible enough to rally the population behind a committed minority comprising the dispossessed and power hungry psychopaths. So the goal of policy-making with respect to (dynamic) inequality should be to prevent this explosive situation from happening, by preserving fairness in the system by maximising social mobility (which is achieved by stopping the wealthy from becoming so without Skin in the Game). It's not a matter of reducing 'envy-pain,' but to keep the game fair enough (the distortions from technology are another discussion) that this doesn't cause people to overturn society on account of their tendency to do so when they sense that the game is rigged. And with increasing complexity in society, and increasing (wealth) inequality, and increasing connection between social strata (the middle class see the rich on their TV screens), AND many lurid examples of rent-seeking (i.e. the financial collapse and bailout of central banks), I think you can make a strong case that the US should tread carefully around arrogant rebuttals of people's envy and scepticism of the system's fairness.

Lex should ask Mr Yaron Brook on how American Capitalism has so far handled this pandemic. Perhaps Mr Brook should listen to Professor Richard Wolff on this topic: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j6efkrR7ptmzd5s.html

Sweden had no socialist system in it's history and is a market economy

Stop calling government spending "socialism". If we all followed that definition, every government in history would be "socialist". Socialism means centralized control over all means of production, NOT welfare or in general spending tax money on any public service or property. Nobody but irrational radicals and as of yet uneducated people think welfare for the needy is unethical or "socialist". Socialism is practiced in North Korea, to a small extent in China, Cuba, was practiced in the late Soviet Union and Venezuela, etc, until they collapsed due to mass slavery leading to liberal and military revolutions.

How long do you need to listen to someone telling you 2+2 is 5 before you can interrupt confidently?

@kinvert The entire sentence...

@@MrLlamasKid Only if they end the sentence at 5. If they keep talking what more do you need to know?

@@ssssssstssssssss Sure thing bud.

It’s funny to think this... his argument should’ve been socialism is theoretically about the community and capitalism is about the individual, therefore socialism is better than capitalism as it relates to society. Each large corporation has to turn into a socialist regiment to maintain and grow their business as the best employees will leave. So, I believe that says something about the problem of capitalism to the benefit of socialism.

Communism begins when the socialism runs out of funds.

The goal of socialism is communism - Vladimir Lenin

It's 3/4's of the population now? Impressive how that fake as shit number grows.

@@iobject1421 yeah, it’s called a pandemic. Have you been living under a rock all year?

80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and before the pandemic, 40% could not afford an unexpected bill of $400. Now toss a pandemic in the mix. You can dispute me spitballing 3/4 of the country could lose their homes because they don’t have enough in savings, the numbers are plain as day.

Because of welfare policies. When the lower classes are allowed to multiply faster than the middle and upper middle class that pays for everything at the local level (and most of what we consume is at the local level), middle class suffers. Also people have forgotten that we are living literally in the best of times ever in history. The fact that we are having internet service and learning from world class teachers like Lex is proof of that. People have lost their common sense.

@@MilanElan just because technologies have advanced doesn't mean we are living in the best of times. Spending power is a big deal and it's been going down since the 80s.

@@mrwaltermathews too many people chasing too few good jobs, due to unrestrained immigration and high birth rates of lower class people who used welfare support that increases with each child to make more money. Irresponsible behavior

@@MilanElan wages have stagnated for the middle and lower classes, while the top 1% are seeing their wealth grow at historical rates. The system needs a fair and honest look.

@@mrwaltermathews it is THEIR money! Without wealthy people none of us normal folks would have jobs! Wealth redistribution is communist! The wealthy everywhere pay most of the taxes! Look up NY tax receipts and who pays for over 50% of all of it! Stop hating the Rich.

He should have driven the first one home, with the logical implications that the respondent completely ignored.

The first *excellent question.

@@sotired2766 Don't agree. He explicitly raises the fact of the tendency of people to perceive their own wellbeing relative to that of those around them (product of the dominance hierarchy), and probes for a response as to the obvious implications of this in a society with drastic inequality. I think this gets to the crux of the issue; though it should be driven home and developed with further questioning and rebuttal (though I should say I'm not so hot off the tongue in person, rather than behind my keyboard eating potato chips :| ).

@@ik1408 The above point is related to the intelligence of Lex's initial question, not the depth of the ensuing conversation (which I think can be better attributed to Lex's reticence and his respondent's ideological myopia). See what I wrote a few hours ago: "Lex asks an intelligent question, and receives a dumb reply, rather than the reverse, and is too reticent (and polite) in his approach to expose who has the better grasp of the issue raised. Lex asks a question relating to the population level downsides of radical inequality, and the reply only addresses the sense in envy at an individual level, hence doesn’t in the least demonstrate the claim that Lex’s entire framing of the question is wrong (even some small part of it). Where’s the engagement with the distinction between degrees of inequality with respect to their effects on society (which I sense is the root of Lex's inquiry)? For instance, that with a certain degree of inequality in a neighbourhood, levels of crime skyrocket (irrespective of the individual morality of theft), that extreme inequality of wealth and earnings (and zip codes) rises exponentially and is antagonistic to equality of opportunity (and hence that a balance has to be struck to preserve both innovation and meritocracy), and that humans are (generally) programmed to perceive their own wellbeing through the lens of how this relates to that of others… particularly when the system thrives on a certain amount of competition between individuals. There’s also a complete oversight of the existence of rent seeking in the reply… he speaks as if all extremely wealthy individuals earned their wealth by a proportionate (or better disproportionate) contribution to society (CEOs generally would be a good case of people who don't contribute a skill-set that is valuable enough to justify their personal gain). With regards to the latter claim that ‘the giant’ is more important than the engineer… firstly, it’s specious to compare individuals when you’re discussing population level contributions… obviously the engineer contributes little to the wealth of his wealthy innovative employer, but equally the innovator wouldn't be doing anything helpful to anyone without being embedded in a larger social context that facilitates innovation. To illustrate: would Elon Musk be creating billion dollar industries right now if he didn’t have the benefit of a class of engineers ready to implement his vision, or the kindness of certain teachers, family members and friends in childhood and beyond teaching him to be a better human being (without engaging in such high risk high reward activity themselves)? And would we have such giants if there weren’t armies of dreamers whose stories we’ll never hear exploring design space with them, narrowing down opportunity space so that, collectively, we radically increase the probability that a small number of these people will hit gold? The contributions of such individuals only make sense in the context of a broader community of individuals playing complementary roles, so it’s absurd prima facie to take either in isolation and imply that they're making the lion’s share of the contribution when both groups contribute to a system of innovation that couldn’t exist without both performing in concert. It’s like the fallacy of assuming muscular stress is more important than rest in hypertrophy (would muscles grow without stressors?), or that predators (as a group) are ‘more important’ to the ecosystem than their more abundant prey, or that the high risk high return strategy traditionally seen as masculine (risking everything on a business, a military expedition, going over the horizon) is more important than lower variance mid-level rewards associated traditionally with the feminine (i.e. child rearing, education, kin-work). It’s just the same glaring ignorance of the functioning of complex systems: we need both engineers and entrepreneurs, even if they exist at different frequencies; because these are interdependent groups. I prefer Taleb’s argument; risk takers are collecting positive Black Swans (innovating) for the sake of all, so they should keep their rewards (disproportionate since they’re taking on greater risk, and are in lower frequency relative to the majority of non risk-takers), but they should not be insulated from the risks that they take to ensure a rapid turnover of individuals benefitting disproportionately from risk taking… and even then there’s a serious discussion to be had about levels of inequality that creates more harm than good. To his point about his personal capacity not to envy Bill Gates’ superior wealth (earned by honest innovation), I applaud him. Then again, I’d be much more impressed if he’d spent the last twenty years socialising predominately with people earning a much larger wage, with more attractive wives, driving nicer cars, with he and his wife (and his family and friends) being frequently reminded of his ‘ relatively inferior contributions’ to society (or perhaps just slightly worse luck) on a semi-regular basis. If he has, and doesn’t vent his frustrations in some other immoral way, he deserves real credit, but if we’re solving population level issues (probably hypocritical) sermons on the futility of envy on an individual basis are… well, futile, and a big hunk of BS."

@UCGcWKn-xyXXvFe_uAw2Zh8A I appreciate the fact that we're sharing potato chips :) And your sceptical approach; it's one I hope to maintain as well. With regards to the hypothesis that people are more affected by relative inequality than absolute measures of wellbeing, I don't know the empirical literature well, but there is scientific consensus that local crime rates are much more strongly correlated with measures of relative poverty (relative wealth) than those of absolute poverty. Put into KZfaq Jordan Peterson, Gini Coefficient. Beside that, however, just think about how this plays out in your own experience, and that of the people you know. When I was in junior school I moved up a few sets, and I was always down on myself after entering a class where I was 'small fish in a big pond' than the reverse where I'd been on top previously. And history: think of the catastrophe of the Soviet Union (i.e. the implementation of authoritarian Marxism); it surely couldn't have taken a foothold within a population of (historically) well-off bourgeois, middle-class intellectuals if they weren't primed to envy those with more, but instead to simply count their own blessings (which were many at the time). The biases (e.g. distortions through Social Media, the window in your living room into the lives of wealthy, popular celebrities) definitely contribute; it's the cherry on the cake; like looking at a freak-show through a fun-house mirror. Mind you, on an individual basis I'd like to think people can make themselves more robust to the draw of envy, both by environmental control and personal discipline. But on the population level, it just seems to be asking for trouble when we have historical examples of carnage following radical inequality.

No, capitalism is when greed is the driving factor in the society and socialism is when care is the driving factor.

@@Scartomuffin People are greedy and people also care. The two economic philosophies can't be distinguished in that manner. If you can't accept that you, yourself, are also greedy, you won't be able to properly diagnose the ills of society.

@@Scartomuffin such vague concepts that have no real relevance to the implementation of the ideology. The actual practical difference is under capitalism you are free to sell your labour as you see fit while under socialism some sort of third party or external entity dictates how you can sell it with the goal of making sure everyone gets a fair deal. There is a power dynamic when two parties enter a contract that means one side can take advantage of the other. Capitalism accepts this and it's up to individuals to figure it out for themselves (i.e learn more skills to have more power when negotiating contracts etc.) while socialism seeks to enforce equality on behalf of both parties.

@@TrophyGuide101 The power dynamic determination is whether you want a more hands off or hands on approach. I do think you need to get general but not vague. I'm obviously capitalist-biased, but I want socialists to be able to accept that they want to use government to guide the process. I have my own biased way of saying it (more freedom for people) but I think socialists should figure out how to say that they want to guide society rather than let society run free/rampant.

"The communist world, it may be noted, has one big myth (which we call an illusion, in the vain hope that our superior judgment will make it disappear). It is the time-hallowed archetypal dream of a Golden Age (or Paradise), where everything is provided in abundance for everyone, and a great, just, and wise chief rules over a human kindergarten. This powerful archetype in its infantile form has gripped them, but it will never disappear from the world at the mere sight of our superior point of view. We even support it by our own childishness, for our Western civilization is in the grip of the same mythology. Unconsciously, we cherish the same prejudices, hopes, and expectations. We too believe in the welfare state, in universal peace, in the equality of man, in his eternal human rights, in justice, truth, and (do not say it too loudly) in the Kingdom of God on Earth. The sad truth is that man's real life consists of a complex of inexorable opposites-day and night, birth and death, happiness and misery, good and evil. We are not even sure that one will prevail against the other, that good will overcome evil, or joy defeat pain. Life is a battleground. It always has been, and always will be ; and if it were not so, existence would come to an end. It was precisely this conflict within man that led the early Christians to expect and hope for an early end to this world, or the Buddhists to reject all earthly desires and aspirations. These basic answers would be frankly suicidal if they were not linked up with peculiar mental and moral ideas and practices that constitute the bulk of both religions and that, to a certain extent, modify their radical denial of the world. " - Carl Jung

@@yellow01umrella Jung can't distinguish between Utopian Socialism (which emerged first and can freely quote from idealist religious texts) and the Scientific Socialism of Marx and Engels. The quote you provide implicitly assumes that capitalism is the natural order. Does he state his support for the existing order? Socialism isn't an ideal to be striven for but a necessity to save us from barbarism. Two world wars were fought last century as the imperialist powers sought to re-divide the world in their own interests. Nothing fundamental has changed to stop another one.

@@johnwilsonwsws Who sided with 3rd reich in 1939 and jointly invaded east europe? Also what system transformed rich regions of east Europe like Moravia or Baltic states into poorest regions of the continent after 50 years? And same regions have experienced a radical increase in standard of living in last 30 years as soon as said system was removed between 1989 and 1991?

I don't think the discussion should be narrowed down that much. But first of all, it's already misleading to use the word socialism. Too many people think of the Soviet Union or even Stalin when they hear this name. Any discussion about social benefits is demonized. The assumption that there is a conflict between social rights and individual freedom is an example of this way of thinking. I mean this above all insofar as I do not believe that we have to think of them as opposites. I often have the feeling that when many people speak of individual freedom, they mean the freedom of the big companies, which unregulated amounts to dictatorship by the economy. on the other hand, private freedom is very little if one's own freedom of action is limited by one's own poverty. That is why, in my opinion, even individual freedom and a functioning social system go hand in hand.

@@kallebuchholz2156 "Social" systems don't have to be public. The fact that welfare has to be socialised is itself a socialist presupposition. Individualism does not mean no welfare. Individualism means whats good for society is whats good for the individual. The government appropriates and monopolizes services even welfare. Welfare should be an ends, not a means to tie the interest of the individual to that of the state or a particular political faction. If your interested here are awesome talks on pre socialised welfare functions. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oNuXkqSUu9DJcYE.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pJqVqMmitLzQiX0.html I just think people deserve better.

@@kallebuchholz2156 unless the social right is a negative right, there is a direct conflict between them and individual freedoms. I agree with your point about socialism. It’s really collectivism v individualism. Or equality v Liberty

@@EMO_alpha of course, no type of welfare should lead to dependencies or patronage client-like relationships, but in fact every type of social interaction also has binding factors. This applies to social assistance as well as to wage relationships or even friendships. If welfare were private, this problem would not be eliminated. In general, I do not believe in “must” in political discussions, because you always run the risk of starting to engage in ideology if you think you know the truth. In this respect, I do not think and did not write above that social assistance must be state-run. But I also think that social welfare should not be a matter of the free market alone. Because here, too, dependencies would arise. And even if the start seems to be a monstrous juggernaut, the chance of participation is greater for the individual here than in the field of private companies, where, if the companies are strong enough, only the law of the stronger applies. I'll write something about the videos if I have time to see them. But unfortunately I have little time at the moment.

@@RM-iu6mm I also consider the construction of these contradictions largely to be ideological work. Absolute freedom and absolute equality are both grueling ideas. Apart from that, I regard a measure of freedom as a prerequisite for equality and at the same time a minimum of equality as a prerequisite for freedom. So I actually never understood why these two values ​​are set against each other. Regarding individualism and collectivism ... Here it is sometimes really contradictory within individual world views. American conservatism likes to present itself as a guarantor of individualism, but at the same time supports the idea that these individuals should be ready to give their lives for their country. Which is a collective thought. what I want to say is that the worldviews that present themselves as collectivist / individualistic also have individualistic or collectivistic aspects. in the end it is probably the case that it is always nonsense to think the world or ideas one-dimensionally. The interrelationships are too complicated to just think of them in a yes / no scheme of collective or individual, right or left, capitalism or socialism.

If you are a socialist I can't believe you have. Poor people don't like the idea of depending on government, they want to rise in the social ranks by their own means.

@@cronichs na so many people depend on food stamps to feed children since they can't even earn a living wage

@@gokulnaththeboss08 Yes, food stamps, the government way of breaking your legs and then providing you a crutch.

@@cronichs lol government.

@@gokulnaththeboss08 Yes, goverment.

@@ik1408 >It's already in America. But not for all. It can't be not for all because it's by definition "absence of private property on means of production". > the government (the state) protects and supports businesses and organizations That and rest of your nonsense has nothing to do with socialism. Nationalizations are socialist measures, co-ops are as well. Welfare, subsidies are not. And no, government or corporation planning spending is not a sign of planned economy. Planned economy is about planning the resource allocation in the absence of prices.

I know I'm late but yuuup. Lex is jump a simp for Billionaires. He's a Capitalist through and through and all this love about love and empathy doesn't show in his political ideology.

have you paid attention to culture? apparently not

@@ColinStuckert Why ask me a question you're gonna assume the answer to? :D I'm glad my comment gave you a space to exercise your desires to have conversations with yourself and feel better. Good luck.

Langars by sikhs and Hare krsna meals....are decent ...

Bro, I know people who wage slave for 80 hours a week and struggle to pay rent. Your comment is too simple.

@@shainn2237 I got mine! That was the skinny of this convoluted answer.

Big money can have a pernicious effect on unelected governments. In democracies, only the people are to blame if they elect bribable officials from among themselves.

@@IAM-ux1bf But if you have made the effort of becoming an elite. Does it not better you to network with people of your own class? And thus protect your intrests? And who better than you who is at the top of the human wealth structure to decide what is best for the masses?

Actually both the pixel and Wi-fi were developed in the state sector so there goes your stupid argument

@@belminm.5168 as far as I can tell reading the Wikipedia page, the most important part of Wi-Fi as we know it today was invented by two corporations. The precursor to that, with ALOHAnet, was likely only governmental due to the fact, stated just afterward on the page, that most bands were only for government use apparently. (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi) As for pixels, as far as I can tell most or all display technologies were of the private sector. If you wanted to make a good point, mention GPS or the internet - although my response to you doing so was that, sure, the government may have funded early research, but it was companies and the free market that made it useful outside of universities, cheap, and ubiquitous. Moreover, that kind of early research can be funded in other ways.

@@belminm.5168 Who paid for it?

Problems can’t be solved unless you can explain it in a short tweet with no footnotes. Like Petty theft vs white collar crime... it’s easier to get people outraged if somebody snatches a purse versus trying to get mad at a complex scheme with no relatable victim. Education is probably the only way to wake up a generation... cross your fingers that the US Department of Education’s leadership will make it so.

Free market capitalism has risen more people out of poverty than any system in world history. And it doens't come with the side effect of millions upon millions starving to death.