Equality of opportunity is the only equality I can stand up for.

But consider how stupendously difficult this actually is in practice, since a considerable proportion of our opportunities come via our families, or the group we happen to have been born into, through being recognised as having certain qualities by people with similar such qualities ... all are functions of differences in innate capacities, and positive feedback loops span generations ...

It would be a difficult thing to achieve but considering a system that took such a goal as a primary motivator would be far superior to the one we have now, I think a laudable thing to support.

What do yyou mean "stupendously difficult this actually is in practice"? What the fuck do you have to do? This is just a fact, it just "is", you need not do anything. This is the reality.

What if his speech was better ? What if he said someone was born with better genes given by their parent. What if someone had a 20 inch dick and everyone else had a 2 inch dick . Is it moral to cut off his dick and staple it to everyone elses dick just so that there is no inequality ? Is that moral ? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

+Will Hart some of their facial expressions were not too polite tbh... i find the lack of intelligence of some of these students quite concerning to say the least.... and is proof really that going to uni and memorizing a bunch of text books and then regurgitating it in an exam room does not give you good critical thinking skills.

I think they are amazed someone could believe so strongly in such dumb simplistic reasoning. As if Steve Jobs built the Iphone all by himself! How dumb can you be? Technology has advanced because your tax dollars have paid for military research for nearly a hundred years. For decades we paid bell telephone, a monopoly, 10xs the cost of phone service and long distance so they ran bell labs with it the profits. We, not Steve Jobs, created the technology that allowed the iphone, to be built, which isn't even the best phone. People bought harry potter because that's all the damn media talked about so you had to in order to not to be left out of our culture. That isn't win-win as he says, It meant other authors weren't tried because we only have so much time to read. Concentrated wealth dominates the culture and silences other voices. Dominance created by wealth concentration is a huge loss, not a win-win. The perfect balance between competition and cooperation is where win-win is found, that is a question of fairness. Gross inequality is detrimental because the rich can force media pundits to fall in line and distort everything from politics, to talent, to culture, you name it.

If you are born into a society that protects individual liberty by law, and a society that uses a citizen owned free enterprise system, since we are born with no knowledge in our brains, and have to gain knowledge in order to thrive, let alone survive,----where does the inequality come from? If a lobbyist and their government cronies put you out of business, or regulate the industry to keep you from even getting started,--or if they decide to have china make products because it is slave labor and cheaper,----isn't that a infringement of your individual liberty that can keep you in poverty? We will not ever be equal, and if we are, it can only be equal in poverty and incompetence. I see the kids with worn out cars with that equal sign on their cars---and I don't want to be equal with them. Individual liberty protected by law and a citizen owned free enterprise system is the only way to be-----great. Tell me,---If you want to earn a better way of life in a free society, do you find inspiration from people who achieve, or people who desire to share equal misery?

Until you understand that steeling from people is wrong and immoral, I guess you will never figure out why your going broke. You won't even acknowledge the fact---that your nation is broke also, and falling to communism. Study history and economics? Study the premise of your education first.

Two hundred years ago Slavery was Lawful... something being lawful have nothing to do with morality, by your logic a gang rape is just love making if they vote 9-1 in favor. THEFT IS THEFT.

LENIN WAS A CAPITALIST

I advice you to watch the video with an open mind. Feel free to pause and do some research if there are parts that you dont understand. Now, I assume what Skyler means with freedom is freedom from coercion.

You have a very limited view on the world. Dr. Brook explains this excact misunderstanding in the video, so again: I advice you to watch it.

You say you dont want to waste your time on Dr. Brook, and then write me a small essay of questions based on several misunderstandings of Rand and liberalism on your side. You ask so many questions, yet show no interest in learning something new. I fear you have little knowledge of social economics, the book "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, could give you a better foundation for debating these subjects.

" I simply copied and pasted a question I have on file which I have often ask many Rand supporters to answer, including Brooks himself. Not surprisingly very few including Brooks himself bothered to answer and those few that did respond simply told me the boring, why Rand not the, how Rand." I see. Now, I dont intend to insult you when I say that you have misunderstood Rand and liberalism, but it is clear from some of your questions that you have. This might be the reason why people give up on explaining it further. " Not surprisingly very few including Brooks himself bothered to answer and those few that did respond simply told me the boring, why Rand not the, how Rand. Yet while you all seem to have the ability and time to argue endlessly about Rand's work it seems when in comes to asking you to explain such a fundamentally important question you all glam up. So , prove me wrong explain to me how Randism would actually work in practice?" Now, a free society is very different from todays societies, as you point out yourself. Therefore the "how Rand" is extremely complex as it involves a change to almost every little part of todays society. And the transition between these two societies will have to be a thorough and lengthy process. The process would also be different from country to country as no country, no social security policy and no society is the same. "Regarding my sweatshop equals coercion point all you had to do was to give me the time slot on the above video to where you say he answers the point I made?" Yes, of course. You are right, I could have done that - and I should have done that. So here it is: 1:14:07 "Btw, given you lot are always pushing Randian, Libertarian books are you on commission? " Definetly not. My mission, as with Dr. Brook, is to have as many people as possible to live the best way possible (for them). " I've never pretended to be anything more than I am. And neither have I. "Which an ill educated ageing man who over time drag himself out of a worn torn slummed with hard work and honesty and I hope with a social conscience and a desire to live in a civilised caring society now live in comfortable security. I might not be an expert on many things including economics but I know how many beans make five and I know I hope how to live my life being a worthwhile human being which given you r values I don't thin you or any Randian follower can be. So it seems even without having an education I have the wisdom to be able to ask you people perfectly valid questions about Randism which none of you, no matter how well educate you are or how much you no about Rand can ever have the honest straight forward answer too." You seem like a proud man - and thats a good thing. At the same time I would say that no one knows everything and that everyone should be aware of that, and have a healthy portion of self-criticism. As Socrates said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

They're kids, they've never had it or been denied it. Give them a few years out there in the real world and they'll change their minds fast enough. The only ones to worry about are those that leave and go into education, because they never leave school.

Right on Marcelo, see my analysis above.

Me too. A year later 😁

I know about him and Rand, for a week now. Amazing

I forgot about this guy lol I should watch him again

@@ryand3759 He's a purveyor of bullshit, just like Rand was.

@@rstevewarmorycom Point out where he was wrong. Easy to say it's bullshit, offer proof.

In this video. A few years back. Watch a recent Cambridge talk....

A society that puts equality before freedom, will get neither equality nor freedom. But a society that puts freedom first, will have a great deal of both.

he stole that quote from benjamin franklin

@@g2trashtxd781 This is absolutely incorrect. A free society will result in huge economic inequalities between those who produce value and those who don't. Did you not watch the video? Equality (material) is not a moral goal. In fact it is an evil goal.

@@phamnuwen9442 that's literally a friedman quote. Lmfao

@@g2trashtxd781 So? Friedman was wrong. Freedom creates inequality.

Near the middle at 35:42 they got there eyes opened when he said the money you earn represent your time and your effort and if I take 50% of your money I took 50% of your time and you talent.

@jeep23862 we where do start to answer your question? First energy took form of matter and then started forming solar system and all, the balance sheet says a lot,

@jeep23862 There should be no income tax or value added tax both these taxes disturb either the incentive to grow or gives incentive to hide taxes, the tax on products creates a dead weight which distorts decision making, if there are 100 people willing to go on bus ride for 10$ and having tax over it increases it to say 12$ which can reduce the people who now are willing to go on the bus ride thus lost rides thus a potential loss to the economy. So how do we fund government, pay for defence and pay for other non profitable but essential things like biodiverty protection, research etc. The answer is land tax which increases based upon the carrying capacity of an area. The land is finite and there is a limit after which population becomes un productive and logistics becomes a nightmare in an area. So carrying capacity of a city should be calculated and tax land should increase to bring down the population in that area to carrying capacity, and reduced if there is not much population in there to send a signal to people to come and settle. This will remove any dead weight from economy, filling taxes will be easy, and hiding taxes will be super hard, people won't hoard land for the sake of speculation as holding it will incure a cost, so either make productive use of it or sell it to someone else who can. The development won't be concentrated in an area as there will be incentive for businesses to move to low tax areas and develop them rather than entering already developed city. Thus reducing inequality and also reducing burden on natural resources in particular area. Thinking at a moral level, the people on right political line should be happy that they have low taxes and easy tax law and free entrepreneurship, the left side should be happy that a city with low traffic will not waste fuel in idealing standing cars, the undeveloped areas also get chance of development and natural ecosystem are protected from the burden of highly polluting cities. More over I am paying for a product which is land and if I am not happy I can move to different city to reduce my bills if I want to increase my savings, rather stuck with a set percentage of tax that gets deducted or charged on my income or purchases. You should not presume things and should look at the system as a whole, this idea of your that someone has taken from society is wrong I have never met a thing called society, all I have met are individuals of different type. So I have taken nothing from society but from nature, yes sure.

@jeep23862 when explaining things one has to put things very clearly, in mass communication it is said a communication is messaged understood by the other. and now i know you are just blobing boy or girl who has recently learned the word bullocks else you would have put reason and logic against the presented information

@jeep23862 buddy society is just a reference to a group of individuals, in the end you are dealing with people at individual level, society as a living organism is nowhere to be found it is a word used refer a group, you have no economic knowledge you have picking few things from the text and arguing, just for the sake of it, you haven't added any valuable information to the conversation only complaints. Be a solution to the problems don't become a probelm itself.

Yes shame he had the kic; they were rightly not convinced and nor was I. It's reheated Robert Nozick though well done.

Never trust a speaker who doesn't do Q&A :)

Check out Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

So Long Suckers Yes, the right wing has a totally distorted view of reality. They are anti-humane and vengeful.

So Long Suckers The supposed SJW "left" is not, the Antifa is NOT "left" either. The actual Left is social democrats, such as Bernie. The screaming college anti-free speechers are actually right wing.

Laurent Guyot why? What would it have changed for you?

Couldn't agree more. I make sure I discuss with and challenge the young minds there days. The public school systems aren't

@@elsagrace3893 it would have changed me - great speaker

Paying taxes as you get wealthier becomes more complicated. Those billionaires are not paying on income. Many have already earned their money whatever that is and then have a very large asset that is worth billions on paper but in reality they would never be able to get billions for. Most that are labelled billionaires do not have billions in cash many could not pass writing a check for $100 million.

tubularbill indeed. It’s fascinating how people will demonize CEOs, but aren’t in the slightest perturbed by athletes, artists, writers, or actors - like Rowling, or George Clooney - making millions/billions. Seems an awful double standard to me. Like, do you not realize that taking 80% of, say Sam Walton’s, fortune also means doing the same for Lebron or Rowling? Why do we view talent in business as somehow different - more insidious - than we do talent in more artistic fields?

Harry Potter is for children , try reading a book called The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists this one is for adults only .

@@adamoates8826 because talent is something you express as person but when it comes to companies the majority of them take things to make money not express something from source that dose not affect anyone else. plus if companies where more like they was before the 50s being apart of society and giving back to society instead of being parasite and feed of society people would think differently

pop

tubularbill it’s not. Billionaires are not made by selling lots of products.

¯\__(ツ)__/¯

neoliberal HA

And a facile arguer.

He's an ok speaker. But he is passionate. And that really makes his words so much heavier

I honestly don't think Yaron Brook is the best of ARI. I like the ARI's foreign policy researcher much better.

Argument from authority isn't really an argument.......it's just in this case....it plays out as true.

I wouldn't characterize it as an argument from authority, it was an analysis of what she said.

+Iamwen03 Andrew Ryan made an argument from authority. That is what DarthYodaXIII was talking about.

Noone should not be criticized because of the position he or she holds. I agree the change that this kid is right and he si wrong is small. Still just because he is the director of the Ayn Rand institute does not mean the student should not critizice him when the student with his current knowledge believes it is right to do so.

+TravistheGREAT03 "Current knowledge". L O L

Not just a fear of failure, a fear of success too. These kids know nothing but failure, they know nothing but getting smacked down whenever they try to stand out as an individual. I'm explaining this as a person who lived through the public school system in recent years and even then it wasn't as bad as it is now. Everything that made me stand out as an individual, every talent I possessed. I was born with certain talents and flaws that set me apart from others and my entire school career is a story of being punished whenever I expressed whatever I was good at while mocked for what made me different. I always had what made me worse than others emphasized and highlighted while I was never allowed to even acknowledge that I might be better than someone at something, because they might feel bad about it. My unique perspective and upbringing showed me first hand where things were heading, though I did not realize it until it was much to late to do anything about it. I was made to believe that using or expressing my talents hurt those around me. However, on the flip side of this, my flaws were ever present given the vast gulf in functioning between the way my brain functions and the vast majority of people. There are many things that I find exceptionally difficult that most people do not. Whenever I figured out a way to cope with those cognitive problems, the coping would be treated like a failure to conform or behave, and I would be publicly shamed for using them. They were not disruptive behaviors, just things that helped me cope with the overwhelming amount of sensory information I was being bombarded with. My brain kind of innately connects things that relate together, it's mostly automatic and I can't really prevent it from happening without an great effort of will or something significant to distract myself from it. Additionally, I can hold a significant number of details in mind for as long as it takes to make sense of them. This has two direct consequences, one quite helpful and the other significantly difficult to deal with at times. In any situation in which the incoming information is related, I can understand how those relationships work almost innately. For example, I taught myself Algebra in two hours by speed reading a math book. Another time I spent few hours over a week learning Trig and Calculus so I could skip having to take either course in college. Now, you're right in thinking that being able to learn like that would be a massive advantage, it was.. for learning. However, the reason that I have never been able to say that I am "better" than anyone else is because I know intimately what I can't do that other people absolutely can do effortlessly without thinking about it. The most disruptive is when sensory information isn't related in any way. Earlier I mentioned that I can hold a significant number of details in mind for as long as it takes to make sense of them. Well, it doesn't let go of any details until I can make sense of them and if the details are not related, they just get backed up until I can't think about anything at all. It's like a memory leak, the old information doesn't get removed.. it just sticks around taking up space. All sensations are like that for me. Sights, smells, touch, the various gurgles and bodily feelings you have that you notice as hunger or nausea. I don't immediately recognize those sensations as anything in particular, I have to make sense of them first. I am incapable of ignoring any details or sensory information that I receive, those flashing lights in the corner.. Yup, my mind tries to relate that to what I'm learning. The clothes you're wearing, do you feel them all the time? Like a rubbing and itching across the whole of your body, probably not. As such, I had to figure out ways to cut out a lot of sensory information and to reset things when they begin to back up. If I don't, I get increasingly exhausted until I get a migraine and pass out. I'll wake up with everything back to normal a few minutes later. Instead, I try and find ways to create sensory input that is easier to pattern so it can be processed and let go of. I wash my hands a lot because of that. See, I feel everything that I touch with my hands as weird phantom echoes of everything my hands have touched that day. The cold metal from the stairwell railing, yeah.. that creates a strange phantom chill wherever my hands touched the metal for the rest of the day. Washing my hands created a single sensation that is unified, allowing me to just ignore it. Back to how this relates to school. One, I would never be believed about anything I was saying. In this day and age, I would be diagnosed with autism and put in a place where the rest of my education would suffer as every waking moment was spent reminding me of how different I am. When I went to school however, they just demanded that I stop rocking back and forth or fidgeting (the movement helps me think), that I stop "sleeping" or laying my head down in my arms on the desk (It was dark, less sensory information, easier to listen if I can't see), that I stop drawing (again, it distracted large parts of my mind so I could focus). I would only be called on in an attempt to embarrass me for behavior they thought was aberrant. I would be punished for the homework I didn't do, despite never precisely having it explained why I needed to practice something I already understood, and eventually placed in remedial classes for finding it difficult to do the busy work. The entire time I was acing every test I was given, making very detailed and researched projects, and able to answer any question the teachers had (even when they asked me while "sleeping"). I should have been moved up, and I regularly begged them to do just that, but the focus was never on learning the material or actually becoming educated. I was put in remedial classes for not conforming to a standard. Any time I stood out or showed my intelligence in any way, I would be punished or shamed for it. Any time I did anything different, despite the need to do so in order to focus long enough to do anything else they wanted, I would be punished for it and often had said flaws paraded around for everyone to laugh at. I started failing most courses because doing the work when my ever success was being dismissed because of my intelligence while the struggle was never even acknowledged. At some point, I just stopped trying to be good at anything and kept to myself. I would learn in secret, teaching myself whatever I could while avoiding authority figures. I wouldn't even let myself get caught reading in class after a dozen times of being being forced to turn page to the page everyone else was on. "Stop skipping ahead, we're on chapter 2." Public schools have only gotten worse since then.

I know how you feel! I had a very similar experience in public schools to the point where I was kicked out because of it.

RurikLoderr that was very interesting to read and I learned why it's way easier for me to talk to people when I have less sensory information. When I have my eyes closed I can actually think. I did the same thing at school sometimes.

Their retort will be "if it saves just one... does cost matter". So yes, property rights is ultimately the root issue, and rights are emergent from self ownership. Even if government was entirely benevolent and efficient; if it was funded by extortion it would still be overall destructive and immoral.

Exactly.

We need speech therapists and the confidence not to yell at our microphones

​@@peterwelsh1932 You need a brain.

@@peterwelsh1932 Typical.

He will always be a minority because he's wrong!!

Universities should start hiring from the Ayn Rand institute to drastically improve the quality of their service. Whoever includes Objectivism in their curriculum will win the market.

***** they should make good arguments instead of giggling. their point will be more effective

***** Eh but he's not. He's "playing" yaron brook at a college. I think certain political pundits are very laughable but if they were giving a presentation Id focus on arguing them instead of just giggling their points off.

Alright, I disagree but whatever

their giggling does'mt necassarily mean they disagree.

Utkarsh Sahni you're right, but I could just infer that most kids in that room aren't totally on board with what he's saying

I've been asking liberals / progressives / collectivists this for 20+ years. "How do you believe your life would change if Jeff Bezos was taxed at a rate of 80%? They have no answer other than personal attacks.

Their questions' proper answers.

He stole their propaganda and did his best to replace it with factual data. But muh socialism...

He did. Their innocence.

@@DW-oq8rf So true. You can see from their face he instilled doubt in their heart.

He did , their ignorance

No, just had the mic and a practised, fluent style. A mixture of logic and tendentiousness. Why did no one ask aboutour wicked health system, a lot better than America's.

no its not. the government pointing a gun at your head to pay for other people's healthcare is not good. its immoral. and now the EU has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the world

Tbf, European healthcare systems are the best in the world. 20 of the top 23 are European and the US ranks 44th according the WHO. I would say though, that these were Exeter university economics students; very few would be socialists. I'd bet most of these people were tory voters actually.

" the government pointing a gun at your head to pay for other people's healthcare is not good. its immoral. " No one has a gun to our heads, if you don't want healthcare you can move somewhere else. I find it immoral that a person who gets cancer has a family in debt forever for treatment, a sick person has to deal with an insurance company who's trying NOT to help you A hospital thats for-profit trying to sell you services you don't need American healthcare costs more than ours in Canada, I gladly pay into the system knowing my fellow Canadians are cared for and that care will be there for me one day. If I *want* to pay for a precedure I have that choice, there are private hospitals here.

Well, my biggest problem is being forced to pay for a service I find inept or bad. Imagine if you are forced each month to get bread for 10x the prize from an extremely rude and awful person in a smelly shop that constantly is calling you names. Would you like it ? If you don't like it, why don't you move away? (That's your logic)

The "people" are pointing out an inconsistency in the Objectivist argument. The Objectivist argument says that people are generating wealth because the market is rewarding them for making goods and services that people want. Yaron Brook refers to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, etc. who fit this mold. The "people" are saying, "We don't have a terrible issue with accepting that these benefactors are wealthy, but there are many other people who are wealthy that did not themselves make goods or services that people want. The most obvious case is someone who receives his wealth through inheritance. Why would you want to protect his inheritance from taxation considering that he did nothing to 'earn' that inheritance?"

What do the overwhelming majority of rich people who inherited money do with it? It's invested. In capital for new factories, technologies. You don't think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't have capital investors? Think again. Even if people who inherit large sums of money do nothing but leave it in a bank at a lousy 2% return or just piss it away on partying or buying expensive toys everyone who interacts with them are better off. The banks that hold their money loan it to businesses and individuals to make more money to help millions make even more. The multiplier factor is HUGE. What this is really all about is people being envious of others who just plan old "got lucky". I'm tired of the lefts "moral superiority" on these issues. It's plain old bullshit.

"Earn" can be subjective. I know of two people that have worked 7 days a week 12+ hours a day building up their businesses. Both of their justifications for all the missed sports activities, limited time, disappointments, etc. are to insure that their kids have a better life. One happens to be a naturalized citizen from Mexico and his "wealth" will be a Pest Control business with 10 employees that his children can run or sell. The other is a business owner that inherited an 6 employee electric company and sold it and turned that money into a business that has 100 employees. Both of these men's children will tell you that they will have "earned" any large inheritance due to the sacrifice in quality time with their dads. I would agree with Brook's that leaving too much money would be a disservice but ultimately it's no one's business on how that money is dispersed. Those students may be focused on the super-rich but these two gentlemen I know could easily be super-rich had they applied their work ethic/sacrifice with the right "revolutionary" idea.

oremfrien no people can do what they want with their own money. They are giving it to their children and they shouldn't be stolen from.

The children of the Wealthy didn't earn the Money, but their Parent's earned it for them. There is no difference in that regard. If you ever become a Parent, you will realize that is the entire motivation and existence and Love of a Parent and GrandParent... to set up more opportunity for their own children and grandchildren... and for that matter their Lineage. That Concept is the very fabric of our Society, the sacrifice of Parents for the betterment of their own Children first... not other people's children. There is no contradiction.

It could be the ladies underwear he's wearing is chaffing.

Juveniles agree with you.

It is because for their whole life they have had the opposite pounded into their skulls and they truly don't understand what he is explaining to them.

I think it's the Christian value of sacrifice that most Western countries have instilled that has made it difficult for even me to swallow such robust libertarian logic.

@@Rellikan you're confusing sacrifice with suicide

I got introduced to him through Ayn Rand. If this is the first time you hear of that kind of ideas it's a huge disruption for you. We're entitled. We deserve healthcare, that's what we think. And suddenly there's that dude telling students (who are for the most part anti capitalistic) that they should care for themselves. Earn everything by working for it. Just the phrase that taxes is stealing. Your whole life you heard that taxes are good. And now there is that capitslist telling you that paying taxes is stealing. It takes some time to be open to that philosophy

@@Rellikan It's objectivist logic, not libertarian. Ayn Rand did not like libertarians I assure you.

+Mark Grayson sadly agree

+jeep2386 Not an argument.

+jeep2386 If it was not intended to be an argument, then you will be glad when people ignore it, and you.

***** I wish you would. I wish you would advocate that all people such as you ignore me. The world would be a lot better off if your sort were to just go along on your own and leave real people alone.

***** Hee hee. It's fun to play games with somebody who is unaware there is even a game on. Yes, I would like you to ignore me. But I seem to be living rent free in your head. But ignoring me in comments isn't what I was referring to. I was hoping you would ignore me in life. That is, not advocate that anything be done to "equalize" me with anybody else. That is, in particular but not only, have government ignore me. But this is a subtle little jab that you are unable to resolve.

jeff carsello I like the way you assume that you know how the students are feeling.

@@elsagrace3893 It's no assumption, you ass. Watch the smug ahole starting at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ftp6qqSKr5-mYGw.html and tell me the punk isn't perturbed. Looking at everything from his tone to his posture to his expressions to his very dress tells you mountains about where his mind is. And the fact that you've taken such issue with this very obvious fact tells us that you're just defensive about the characterization. Likely because you associate with that dirty, stinky, hippie piece of garbage. If not, then I apologize. 😉

Yeah, it doesn't work that way - and it never will. Communism is a failed system every single time, and there's a reason for it. You'll inevitably end up pissing off the rich via taking their money, and the poor via not being able to make them equal - it's doomed to failure and there's literally no way to change that. Neither side will EVER be content during such a crusade - which should be obvious to these socialist / communist kids ... somehow they miss that detail.

Um...VeggyZ, did you bother to even _look up_ the two stories I suggested? "Harrison Bergeron" is available online for free. They're illustrations of how attempts to make outcomes equal can utterly destroy any sort of excellence and make everyone mediocre AT BEST. Here's a link to that story, so you don't even have to look for it: archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt This URL has a version that might be easier to read: www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html The Wikipedia entry (which is accurate, I checked, and nobody has dicked with it to make it less accurate) starts like this: "In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic." NOW do you get why I suggested checking it out? It's a poignant testimony to the eventual end result of attempts to make "equality" about OUTCOMES, rather than opportunity, or equal treatment under the law. Instead of raising all boats, it sinks them, so they're all equally lying on the bottom of the sea.

More than that, everyone needs to read The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It shows the consequences of collectivism and focusing on equality over freedom.

Well its no question that gaining equality is a hard challenge but if the "want" for equality is the problem then those opposed to it are actually the problem. We should all at least desire a fair and equal society if not then we are going to continue destroying the world as we know it. Poor people can and should "want" to be rich and just because the feat is heavy doesn't mean that they then shouldn't have that desire.right? And to assume a equal world is "unfair" and therefore we shouldn't make one is a silly argument.We have never witness true equality to make such a judgment.

Gwen Patton No one is talking about restricting talent. One is talking about equalizing wages. Why? Because everyone and their family needs to eat and have a decent home, even if they aren't the brightest nail in the box. Needs are the same for every human, regardless of talent.

Brainwashing is rather effective, you can see it in how the students base assumptions are.

You don’t even know why you hate the students, you just automatically assume “clueless, uneducated or brainwashed” (uneducated😹/ look who’s teaching them!) . Typical knee-jerk brainwashed response. They are being yelled at by man that sounds like a 5-year old with a speech impediment. Currency is a zero sum game unless you make iPhones in suicide proof Asian sweatshops and sell them in the U.S. Only the most clueless, uneducated person would fall for this. Apple and Harry Potter ( the story of the magical private school boy, destined to rule because of his parents) are the worst examples he hold have used.. no one earns a billion dollars. That why they spend millions lobbying, buying politicians and laws, not paying taxes, stealing benefits and wages, moving production overseas,sending the military into the oil deserts and third world nations… no one is a billion dollars smarter or hard working. iPhones are based on technology built in U.S. Schools, taxpayer dollars, often for military, then given to private corporations which sell it back to the people that paid for it. ZERO-SUM if you print double the money, money is worth half . That is the definition of zero-sum. BACK WHEN CORPORATIONS PAID TAXES: THE AMERICAN DREAM HES PRETENDING EXISTS: IT DID EXIST. what more proof do you need? The mobility of the poor, the “middle class” that was all going fine a few decades ago. But: people with the most money always vote themselves ALL the money, so the system destroys itself. The Greeks figured this out (about democracy) almost immediately. Aristotle said you could have capitalism, if you planned for about a 10% welfare state. There is no free market. Look what happens when terrible banks fail: “we” give them trillions of zero-sum dollars. Look at the crack dealers on my corner. Go try and sell some heroin down there. (“Hey, this is a free market society!”) We just ended child labor in the U.S. We still have companies willing to give cancer and misery to every order they can get away with… This guy really needs a speech therapist if he’s going to yell, through a microphone, at people like this. Especially yelling about how he likes his iPhone and he likes his Harry Potter .

The prefrontal cortex doesn’t fully develop until one is 25, so I can understand the entrenched generalisations and collectivist thinking at that age. But having said that, there really does seem to be an increase in self righteousness and self perceived infallibility in undergrads the past decade.

@@benjaminjeffery6873 based on the age age most humans (and life forms) have lived; we must not be meant to live with a prefrontal cortex. How many Sapiens have had a substantial life past the age of 25? 0.001%? 0.0001%? How many die before 25? 99.999x % ?

@@peterwelsh1932 Late reply but first evolution only works through the individuals who live long enough to both reproduce and successfully raise their offspring, and to them having a prefrontal cortex has evidently been a huge advantage, regardless of the tragic demise of a lot of people before they get to that point. But even more important than that: think of it, it takes about 35-40 years for an entire reproductive cycle, i e from being born yourself until your kids are old enough to get by without you. Bearing that in mind the figures you give are clearly nonsensical. No species would ever have survived death rates like that. The fact that disease, predators and other nasty stuff has been a constant threat throughout our existence doesn't change the fact that there still was a quite large part of any human population who survived. The only exception would be extreme unique events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that could wipe out an entire population in one place, but otherwise there weren't anywhere near the death toll figures you put forward.

I don't care about your feelings is the argument kids need. They have been taught that all that matters is their feelings, that reality is not the world out there but what they feel inside. Telling that they reason and facts superceed their feelings is exactly what they need. And yeah they might feel hurt. They might cry but eventually they'll grew over their mental age of 10 and become adults.

+Trust YouMe I, too heard this guy on Rubin Report and then found this video. What logical fallacies are you referring to, anyway?

According to leftist econmists that is a problem because you are now $5 poorer.

That's how you know what his ideas are worth. He couldn't sell this garbage to the intelligent.

@@rstevewarmorycom Not that how many copies you've sold, at what price you've sold them, or how intelligent you believe the readers are lends any credence to or disparages the validity and soundness of your arguments, but Yaron Brook's ideas are very much in line with Ayn Rand's ideas. She's sold almost 30 million copies of her books - and is still selling them today. I don't believe you've thought this comment all the way through.

@@ericguynga Oh yes I have. Nobody likes Ayn Rand except for immature insecure adolescent minds who are selfishly driven to eliminate their own obligations to their society, why? Because they're adolescents. All young rebellious youth fashion themselves as libertarians. Most grow out of this, Yaron Brooks did not. It's embarrassing when a grown man still acts like a pathological teenager. Most people grow up and come to understand the Social Contract and that society cannot survive without demanding things of those it rescues from dog-eat-dog anarchy. Yaron is a fixated little sociopath. I'm 72, I've thought all this bullshit well through and quite well, thanks. In any tribe of humans he would have been ejected and died of a broken bone or a predator, because nobody would tolerate his selfishness and cruelty.

@@rstevewarmorycom Ah, yes. The “only children would agree with your position” argument. Brilliant. Do you have an actual argument against any of his positions, or did you come here just to show off your incredible intellect? I actually some arguments against some of his positions myself. What’s one of yours, oh most knowledgeable one?

Unfortunately, that world does not exist just yet. Our present world is rooted in greed and exploitation. When there is no greed or exploitation whatsoever, then there will be Love and Wisdom. In that world, trade and business will be the activities of Love and Wisdom. Until then, we need government. Unfortunately, instead of the government being made up of the most Loving/most Wise among us, it is dominated by the dynastic plutocratic families, the corporate oligarchs, the international banksters, many of whom are zionists and/or are members of secret societies. Without government intervention, their endgame is guaranteed. This is why "Less government" is the battle cry. Not because government interferes with the little guy, but because it interferes with the big guy. To have no limits on them means that they have a free hand in exploiting us. This is basically the government in the pocket of the dynastic plutocratic families, the corporate oligarchs, the international banksters. This corporatism is fascism. Even if you got rid of the government, they would still control the People through their dominance of the legal system and the financial system and the mainstream media and the corporations and the police, and the military and/or their own private security force.

Still uncontroversial for most people.