When Capitalism Fails (Why Won’t Anyone Think Of The Children?) | Learn Liberty


JEFFREY REIMAN: Well I mean look, let’s address
this question. What do you say about the children of people who have made bad economic decisions
or have had bad luck, got sick, signed up for education in a field that disappeared.
I mean, I hope none of you is planning to be a travel agent or a photo enlarger: those
things are gone. And if you oriented your education toward that, you made a big mistake.
Well, maybe you should pay for that mistake. But what about your kids, who enter the market
at a disadvantage compared to the kids of people who were luckier? How are you going
to deal with that? BRANDON TURNER: Steve… STEVEN HORWITZ: How are we going to deal with
the children of parents who made really good decisions and benefited them, right? I mean,
it seems to me that if there’s some kind of case that one is problematic then the other
should be problematic, too. But at the end of the day, it’s parents who are in the
best situation to judge what they believe is best for their kids. If they make mistakes,
they make mistakes. We do, I think, have processes and mechanisms in civil society to help those
who have fallen into that situation. I think that we also want to be sure to make sure
we have an education system that offers even the children of the poor opportunities to
improve themselves, because perhaps their parents have made mistakes. But we can’t prevent people from making mistakes,
and we can’t prevent those from having consequences for their children. The question then is,
sort of, empirically what do we do, right? How do we try to make sure that the kids of
the parents who have made those kinds of mistakes still have the best opportunities possible?
I just don’t believe that government is necessarily the best way to do that, and I
think we’ve got evidence to suggest that as well. REIMAN: Look, I mean you want to have better
education. Well, it’s going to be hard to do that without government. And you want to
have some kind of system that helps those people who fall into a bad situation for reasons
outside of their control. Maybe you can do that without government. I suspect that you’re
going to need government for that. So I think government is unavoidable. I am suspicious
of it myself, but I think just saying, well, something else will work better—maybe. It’s
highly speculative. HORWITZ: Then why do you think so many parents
of poor kids are choosing to opt out of the public schools and want opportunities like
school vouchers and school choice? REIMAN: School vouchers are still provided
by the government, I mean— HORWITZ: There’s multiple ways you can do
it. REIMAN: Sure. But, I mean, it’s not going
to come from the poor people’s own money, because they’re poor. And so you’re going
to have to do it in some way that’s mandated. And that’s going to require you to use government.
I’m not saying government is the best provider of education; I’m just saying government
is very hard to do without. HORWITZ: There’s some interesting examples
of places across the world, India for example, that have opportunities for private schooling
that poor folks are easily able to take advantage of that. I’m not so convinced that you can’t
get it done if you think creatively and if the barriers, the competition— REIMAN: I think it’s an empirical question,
but one that I think raises the serious question of whether you can do without government at
all. Let me just throw one other thing: I’m sure we’ll disagree about this, and that
is, I don’t see that it’s so bad to take away some of the unfair advantage that rich
kids get. What’s wrong with that? I mean, I’m sorry about that because I know that
they’ll be disappointed. But if we think that people ought to start off on a similar
baseline, then make it happen. Why allow the bequeathing of millions of dollars from one
generation to another?




Comments
  1. He's sorry about taking things away from children?   Of course he is, like every other Democrat who rationalizes taking things away from people.  Despicable.

  2. Citation greatly needed on Horwitz's remark that "many parents of poor kids are choosing to opt out of the public schools."  And even after citation, he is still essentially committing an error of implying causation from correlation…although he tries to hide this behind the smoke screen of asking "why" when I suspect he already thinks he has an answer.
    Further citation needed on this claim on India's educational system.  I work with Indians and read blogs by Indians and I hear much the opposite: only the wealthy are given the best educational opportunities.  Which means that the people I work with are from wealthy families.  I grant this is anecdotal, but, at the moment, I'm going to rely more on my anecdotes than an assertion for which I am very skeptical and cannot easily verify.

  3. Those who think big and believe there is something like free market r delusional and they go against their own views. Everything in capitalism is owned including "free" market, this is the basic core idea of capitalism. True owners rule and they dont like word free. Capitalism is made of those few on the top who really own and control market. Under them r those who r called middle class and who wants to be become owners like those above them. Finally in the bottom r those fucked up called poor who scare the shit of the middle class (thx George Carlin!) Golden times of capitalism when anybody could do business simply and easily r gone. Now is the time of global corporations who wants as less goverment control and rules as possible to grab as much power as they can. They r more powerful than economies of some countries and they r not afraid to excercise it. So go on give them more power and u will see how these banksters will take care of u and the idea of the free market. Core of the business mentality is to screw each other up so winner can get it all. Losers r not welcomed in this game and nobody wants to give a shit about them. We shouldnt think about winning or loosing, profit or loss, but finally about giving a fuck of this world we share and those who need it most. Otherwise this tiny blue planet will kick our ass so hard we wont probably make it.

  4. Why do I hear so many discussions regarding the failure of capitalism without ever hearing anyone clarify that we do not have a true capitalistic system in place? Capitalism can never fail if it was never instituted. As for thinking of the children, check out "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".

  5. To answer his why allow inheritance question: so I can help make it possible for my children to make mistakes I could not have afforded to make at their age. When you talk don't allow inheritance, you are fundamentally arguing parents should be able to provide for their kids.

    If I can leave my descendants resources that allow my great grand kids to not have to make compromises I was forced to, I will consider it a life well spent. Who is this man to take this gift from my children?

  6. Children are always the center of mankind empathy. Empathy is one of the most powerful emotion, thus incite great support from the listeners. That's why people usually cite children to their causes. Name it politics, economic, even religion. When someone start to put children and other kind of helpless entities into their argument, I become really skeptic. It's like he is using social engineering technique to turn human nature against me.

  7. that lat line: "Why allow" can anyone else imagine the kind of arrogance it take to see yourself in such a position that you get to "allow" or "not allow" children to be given money that you have no damn right or fucking connection to in anyway?  Sorry for the cursing, statists just frustrate me is all.

  8. Absolutely astounding that Reiman ends this video segment with trying to take the property of "rich" kids.  He says "What's wrong with that?" and literally follows up the next statement with "I'm sorry…."  Uh…if you don't see anything wrong with it, why apologize?  This is precisely the moment when the "intellectual" abandons his reasoning skills, grabs a weapon, that is the State, and wields it to satisfy his personal emotional needs.

  9. I understand where you guys are coming from but your logic isn't all there.  Yes its unfair that we have to pay taxes for stuff like this.  But how else are can you get out?  "Hard work and Patience and they'll make it out the slums".  That shit doesn't work anymore.  Its almost impossible to get a decent job unless you have some sort of Higher Education and experience. I make $30k+, but guess what.  Its a warehouse job and their aren't warehouses everywhere. 

    Now imagine you live in the outskirts in Wyoming or Mississippi.  Not many jobs, and not much money.  How do you expect a freshly graduate Teen to make it?  Work Harder?  With what job?  What Experience? What Education? 

    America, the home of the free and 'selfish'

  10. A parent is to a child as one country's generation is to it's child generation. So using the logic that the gentleman at the end put forth, it is perfectly justifiable to take away the economic advantages that one country has procured for itself away. And let's be honest. These advantages taken are never redistributed in full, but they do make us more equally impoverished.Now that's progressive!

  11. About the last question: Yes, you should allow  a  parent to leave money for his own children at death..  If my son and daughter can do better than I have done financially then it will be a blessing to all that surround them..  I don't have a car and walking across the busy street to get to the park with my kids is dangerous.. the richer parents drive their cars to the park and get their kids to the park perhaps in a safer fashion.

  12. Have you heard about charity? If we can afford paying for education + the whole "system of education", we can certainly afford paying market prices for education alone for ourselves and to help each other out.
    BTW, charity is to socialism as a wedding night to a gang rape.

  13. The truth is life will never be fair, we can try hard to make it fair but we will always unbalance something else in the process.

    The poor will always be with us as well as the rich. There is nothing wrong with being poor and nothing wrong with being rich. Money is amoral. It is the people you have to worry about.
    I personally think a lot more government should be more like volunteer work as opposed to paid jobs. I think America started off that way and should return to state. (Yeah, extremely unlikely but still…) I also believe vocational schools should be tied in more with regular high school so that kids can get paid jobs and experience at an earlier age. (Again, very unlikely but why not?… Ha, you could have them save that money for college or be put in a emergency account, teaching kids to save money and avoid credit sounds good to me! )

    I think government can be great and also terrible, just finding that balance between socialism and capitalism is tough.

  14. Why allow the rich children to have what their parents earned?
    Yeah, fuck property rights!  But then how can I treat this idea as something that you own just because it came from your lips?  I guess I'll run off to contradiction land with you now…

  15. its always done in the name of the children."luckier,luck" "fair,unfair" the rich arent lucky & poor are unlucky & the government cannot make a level playing field.the game is given up at the end when he says he has no problem with "stealing" from the kids of the "rich".

  16. I really need to say that education is the ONE thing that the government should pay for, not necessarily run, but pay for.  This evens the playing field substantially; if admission to a prestigious university or private secondary school were based solely on merit and not on finances, wouldn't that make things fair while maintaining a free market?  I'm clearly thinking a voucher system.

  17. I was with him until the last part. The poor person's idea of enough to make it is often degrading and brain damaging. Don't take richer people of of that opportunity at a normal life. 

  18. Good question- ill get back with this guy- when I can love other peoples children, as much my own nieces and nephews. Until then theirs nothing I can do to help that your parents have poor judgement.

  19. Taking the 'advantage' away from people who have worked hard for is not the right thing to do. Sure no one likes to live in a society full of uneducated people, therefore government fund public education is mandatory. However, those who are better off must also have the option to give their children a better education than what the government can provide. A government policy that put all the kids no mater rich or poor at the same starting point is unquestionably unfair. Such policy will just destroy people's incentives to innovate and strive above others.

  20. There is no getting around the fact that life is unfair and it isn't the government's job to try to make life fair. The question should be how do we help the poor kids? But you have to keep in mind that taking from those who "have" creates its own problems. There is no way to redistribute wealth without undermining the incentives to create wealth.

  21. Reiman is assigning rectitude to his own arbitrary opinions without alerting his audience to that fact. Reiman asserts that some people get an "unfair" advantage over others through inheritance and that government force is the only solution to that problem. I credit Reiman for saying that government's purpose is to force one person to hand over wealth to another but he assumes that transfer is always from "wealthy" to "needy" and that's a very bad assumption.

  22. I have the say the Libertarian thinker was out-smarted in this debate.  He got boxed into the Anarchy vs. Order argument.  Libertarians should always concede that government is needed, but should provide answers that distinguish (1) between political solutions and market solutions, and (2) between local government and Federal government.

    Public schooling is perhaps the best example.  Yes, government should offer an education to disadvantaged children (this improves market outcomes), but the child is best served when given free-choice in a free-market. Vouchers are a libertarian solution, but Prof. Horwitz allowed himself to be painted as short-sighted.

    Instead of debating weather government should exist or not, libertarian thinkers need to better articulate the correct "role" of government.  

  23. +jcaled24 Prof Reiman isn't delusional. There are some things that government can do better than the free market.  Law enforcement and national defense are two easy examples.  There are even more examples where government can be part of the solution (although not the entire solution), such as education.

    The sad part of this debate is that the libertarian thinker allowed his opponent to fight a strawman for most of the conversation.  The progressive effectively framed the argument as Anarchy vs. Order, which is often the Achilles-heal of libertarian arguments.

    An effective countered would be to concede the need for government, but then nuance the specific, and very limited, role of government.  Also, highlighting that government can be an effective catalyst, but that only free-choice and voluntary exchanged can deliver the most prudent outcomes. 

    This would force the progressive into an argument of Government efficiency vs Free Market efficiency, which is an easy fight to win for a libertarian. =)

  24. @Leo Buzalsky I like your response! If the ultimate goal is utilitarian, i see little problem in a progressive tax structure. However, we must also acknowledge that there are limits to the positive outcomes of discrimination.  People will only be discriminated against so much before they take action. In the case of taxing some more than others, you slowly erode the natural laws of fair play, people stop playing by the rules, and this can lead to an erosion of civil society (exampled by 20th century Communism). 

    A paramount distinction between a socialist state and Modern welfare state is private property rights.  Property rights are a preservation of the laws of fair play (if i work for something i deserve the fruits of my labor), and they allow Modern states to push the boundaries of tax discrimination.

    I suppose the challenge is finding the point of discrimination at which society begins to break down; finding the optimum point at which to maximize both "leveling the playing field", and preserving order in a society.

    Also, it is important to examine if a specific discrimination is actually accomplishing its goal.  I often wonder, how is it that we have more redistributive policies today, than ever before in our history, YET, income inequality is still growing.  You would think that after trillions of dollars of redistribution, we would see an improvement in poverty rates, but we haven't. Indeed there is a closer relationship between overall economic performance and poverty, than between taxation and poverty, which suggests that government has little real impact on poverty.

    I do not know the answers to some of theses questions, but i believe its important to examine them. =)

  25. Get rid of the monetary system (including government, socialism, and capitalism) then you don't have people's children being punished for having ill or disabled parents. There seems to be a great deal of 'just world fallacy' belief going on in these videos.

  26. This video/channel should have been titled "Why won't anyone think of the rich people?"  The dude's whole argument is based on an obvious false dichotomy: we can't let children benefit from their parents good decisions without letting children suffer for their parents bad decisions.   Even if these issues are interconnected, and you can't give benefits to poor children without taking away benefits from the rich children, is he really going to take the side of the rich kids?  The standard of living for the poor child could be massively increased at the expense of only a marginal decrease for the rich kids (they'll survive).

    "Parents are in the best situation to make decisions for their children"  This is clearly not true across the board, hence the question.

    "We have processes and mechanisms in civil society to help those who have fallen into that situation" Mechanisms which tea partyers and self styled libertarians constantly try to get rid of.  What's his point?

  27. The government will not give the best education to compete with other people.  Manual labor does not really require much education.

  28. In a nutshell… 
    Capitalism: People are free ( To be rich or poor)
    Socialism: Your not allowed to have too much or too little… 
    Simple as that. And personally I find the latter abhorrent, that people actually believe the more fair system is one which allows no one freedom.

  29. Government is good at collecting money, and typically bad at deciding how to use it.  School vouchers use government to supplement the resources necessary for education, but permit a market of free choice to efficiently put those resources to work for the goal in mind.

    This of course, raises the question still on how much the government should be confiscating and redistributing wealth, but if we don't step back to that ultimate question, and stay focused on the "how do we educate our populace" with the implication that we will do it, whatever government we have to use… then the best way is to have the government allocate the funds, and let the individual parents and children decide how best they can best be utilized.

  30. So, how do you help the poor when the only people that can help don't want to help? 

    What's that say about humanity, our society? There is a saying in Africa, "a poor man shames us all". Meaning, it's the communities responsibility to not just help but to help them get back to functioning so they can give back to society as well. So, the one's that were once helpless and needed a hand will be able to help and give back to society. 

    This isn't a gov't issue this is a morale's, ethics and societal issue. 

    You might argue that bailing out the poor creates a morale hazard by saying if you fail we will always bail you out. You might go on to say the system of reward and punishment is the best way for people to learn. A system were you go on to say that they are poor because of the decisions they made and why should I have to be burdened to help out my fellow human being? I was right they were wrong why should I be punished monetary also? A barbaric system that I can hope to say was once the way of the past. Helping someone that has failed and then teaching them why they failed is a system that we can all envision for the future. A small price to pay to have one's integrity.  

    A system not where you just give money to the poor blindly because you feel bad, but a system where you give money to the poor and you teach them how to stay out of poverty so they too can one day in turn help out society. 

    Remember, if you're rich you are indebted to society the most because other people bought your service, or products, and made you rich not the other way around.  It doesn't matter what product or service you create or offer even if it betters humanity it still requires society. You can be the person that made the ipad, cell phone, or cured cancer, but it still requires society to make you rich. 

  31. Why allow millions go from the parent to the kids?  Because it's their freaking money moron.  You start using that logic and we can apply it in all manner of ways.  As soon as you start arguing that something is unneeded or unfair, suddenly you can argue anything as unneeded and unfair.  I for one "think" that old people should be "put to sleep" at sixty because they have an unfair advantage of capital, have more experience and knowledge, linger in jobs to long, use too much medical care, and tend to have lot's of free time so they can be politically active.  We don't really need them and it's unfair to young people who don't have the same level of experience nor the social contacts.  See same argument, makes sense.  Get rid of old people and we can get rid of all kinds of problems.  /s 
    Last time I checked life is not fair, and becomes even more so when you try to make it fair.

  32. A lame debate. One minute with Stefan Molyneux would clear up all the misconceptions put forward by the pro-Statist professor.

  33. It's not a matter of wealth disparity, it's a matter of the overall wealth of society. Socialism reduces disparity but shunts economic incentives thus inhibiting the production of wealth AND opportunity. Free markets allow the greatest opportunity and the greatest overall wealth. The moment a gun enters the room civil society goes into decline and poverty explodes.

  34. Interesting short take. Capitalism isn't the only economic or political form of government which fails children. The USA does not have a monopoly in failing children. This failure of children at every level is a world problem. In which most of the world cares little for. Except in argument or in debate. Most people knows the right answer to express in social, public, professional and political settings. Yet, most people do nothing which would benefit children and actually believe the opposite of their expressed views.
    It would be interesting to see the children of the world in SPCA commercials. Replacing sad puppies and kitties with helpless children.

  35. 1:51 Actually for the longest time we had separation of government and education and HAD the best education in the world. Ever since the introduction of the DOE things have improved sooo much.

  36. I, for one, am not surprised that a Professor of Religion (more appropriately termed ancient mythology) loves the State (more appropriately termed modern mythology).

  37. Why allow millions to be transferred to the next generation? I think the question should be why not allow it.

    People who want to fix what they see as inequality by helping the poor aren't that bad, but stealing from those that aren't poor is, well, stealing. They reason why you let people do what they want to do with their money including giving it to who ever they want is that it is their property that they should be able to give freely.

    All humans are in value equal for just being human. It is shallow to judge people based on what they own.

  38. The problem is this video contradicts what the rich have trained everyone to believe.  The other problem is trusting government will do it for us, without being corrupted by the rich.  What kids need more than money are tools to question the world, education on critical thinking, understanding that the world is bigger than themselves and understanding they can influence the world in positive ways.   The problem is companies aren't questioned often enough for questionable ethical practices, that cost people their lives or enslave thousands who could easily do better jobs, but aren't given a chance to prove it or aren't even aware they have a chance.  The other problem is the people who inherit the money aren't always given the tools to manage it, so the wealth these companies earn is lost in a few generations.  Learning to think is so valuable, because think about who benefits when you don't.  Which leads to, why I'm telling you here, I really don't know.

  39. Capitalism isn't all bad, but Wall Street is nothing but stealing for the already rich. School vouchers is another boon for the rich. At the end were they talking about doing away wiyh inheritance? I like that idea, REALLY start everyone off equally.

  40. The crux of the problem in a nutshell occurs at 3:26 when Mr. reiman admits that he advocates STEALING from people

  41. Contrary to many comments here, you do not have a right to an education or healthcare. These are services, like lawn care, physical training, and accounting. If you want it, you have to pay. If nobody is selling to you at the price you offer, start asking for help, charity, or find an alternative. Yes, that does mean that if all the doctors in the world refuse to help me when I get cancer, I CANNOT morally force them to do so or use the government as my instrument of force to the same object.

  42. "Why allow the bequeathing of millions of dollars from one generation to another"

    And there you have the mind of a malevolent thief.  Perhaps he thinks every American generation should destroy the interstate system and rebuild every generation.  After all, we can't have rich Americans' being bequeathed this gold mine worth billions (probably trillions) from one generation to the next, when there are other countries that don't have this.  By this evil man's logic, we should destroy the electrical grid, tear down every dwelling and building, and so on and so forth every generation.  

    This is what's so disgusting about the mind of the egalitarian.  The belief that it is good to tear others down because you can't or won't rise so high.

    It's pure evil.

  43. Anyone who thinks government provided education doesn't catastrophically fail children on a grand scale only needs to look at the US education system.  More money is spent on American children's education per student than any other in the world.  Primarily because it's about lining the teachers union bosses' pockets and the kickbacks their political allies get.  You should really look at DC.  The per student spending in many of those schools tops the highest private school in the nation, yet illiteracy rates are shockingly high.

  44. Yes, things are so bad for Americans these days that the government has had to mandate insurance to protect every Americans health from the most deadly force ever seen by the people of this country…What terrible force do we face ?…Obesity.  Yes we eat too much. and do too little.  Life is really hard here.

  45. This man thinks he has more of a right to your parent's/family's money than you, and the punchline is that they call all those who disagree with him the "greedy ones"

  46. As a parent, should you bring a child to this world if you're not willing and able to provide for their nourishment?

  47. Pauline Dixon (E G West Centre) spoke about this subject on a Tom Woods podcast (Jan 9th 2014).  A extensive study of developing countries showed that poor people were and are sending their children to private schools in favor to government "free " schools.  They did this for several reasons.  The "free" schools were not free.  Students were required to buy books, uniforms, supplies and transportation from government crony's.  Government schools were receptive to parents.  Classes were often without teachers as the teachers were connected to the government (crony's) and the got high paid jobs without having to even show up.  And, yes:  the children did better in the private schools.

    One other thing.  Historically the vast majority of US and British children were being educated in private schools before public education.  Public schooling was unneeded and has turned out to be a disaster.  Each failure has been met with even more centralized control.  We've seen this happen  in history and it isn't pretty.

  48. The doofus in the striped sweater is a doofus. He thinks govt is the only source of all these goods. But he provides zero evidence. And the data is that govt screws it up, while private action does it wonderful.

    And that is completely side-stepping any moral argument. He claims that some people are poor due to no fault of their own, so concludes that all rich should be mugged for the money to pay for helping all of the poor. Is this what passes for intellect and thought these days? What a doofus.

  49. A brilliant example of a straw-man liberal socialist. (A conservative posing as a liberal tips his hand when he uses Communist rhetoric right at the end when he talks explicitly about seizing and redistributing the inheritance of the rich, but not necessarily in those exact words.)

  50. Society is not the state. Society does not equal government. These idiots don't get it. People help each other. That's who people are. People develop sovial bonds. They have to in order to survive. You can have your small or big communities, families, you name it. But people trusting into central governement coercion to solve social problems? Oh my god. The state is an institution of force. It's role is to wage wars and catch criminals. It cannot solve social or economic problems. 

  51. He doesn't see what's wrong with taking money from the dead to prevent it from being passed to their children. Well. Let's start with the fact that it's horrendously immoral and unfair, and end with a question. Who gets the money? People who didn't make the right choices and make a good future for their children? So don't worry, shitty parents. Your kids will be taken care of by the rich, which you hate so much. And who better to trust with this transaction than a corrupt, inefficient, monopolistic mess of a government, with no oversight, checks and balances, or guarantee that the money will actually help anyone. Sounds great.

  52. CAN the "Federal" government do a better job of educating people/children than the private sector?  IF so then why are the public school becoming so much worse the more the Federal government get involved?  Why is it that the more the Federal government gets involved the worse the schools get?  Do your research.  It's not that hard and the debater on the left side of the stage should know that.  (Funny that he was on the left side of the stage, uh?)

    And this ideology that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE should be equal.  How can that possible happen?  Can we have the government make/force the weak man be as strong as the strong man?  Force all women to be as strong as ALL men?  Is this not an inequality?  Can the government make the talentless one the same and as talented as the virtuoso? Can the government make/force the naturalist run a corporation as well as the founding CEO?  Should the government make the musician as capable of building bridges as the engineer?  So that they can both be equal and receive the same pay?  Should the seamstress be forced to be able to jump motorcycles like a professional motocross racer?  WHY must EVERYONE be equal?  Should everyone receive the exact same monthly pay as everyone else no matter what they do or how much risk they take compared to the others so that we can ALL be equal?

    Should those who are lazy, wasteful, or gamble their money away receive more so that they can maintain the same life style as those who save and invest wisely?

    Could ANY of this possible work? (at all by any stretch of the imagination?)

    And WHO is this person that is the standard that we should ALL be equal to?

    CAN taxation and government violence make a better world?

    Is not this ideology, that EVERYONE should/must be "equal",  the very same that Marx, Lenin, and Stalin promoted?  So, how well did that work out for the common man and woman in Soviet Russia or China?

    Is that what you all want?  Is for the government to tell us all exactly how to walk and talk and what to be in our lives?  If you don't want to do this or that should the government force you to do it anyway so that everyone is equal?

    IS THIS the freedom you want?

    ONLY by bringing everyone DOWN can the government create "equality".  There is no other way.

  53. What this man is also saying is that children, ALL children (to be fair and equal) are the responsibility of the government and it's the government's responsibility to decide HOW children are brought up… NOT THE PARENTS!

    Because you see, not ALL Parents can be trusted to raise children the way the 'State' wants them raised (and educated). So to protect the children from parents who can't be trusted (all parents, so we can be equal, fair), the state NEEDS to TAKE over.  It's for their protection.  Otherwise someone might claim "we", the government, didn't care about "the children."

    This is what is best (we say so)

    You who believe this imaginary idea that things can/should be equal are the very ones promoting the confiscation of your own children.

    You've been warned.

  54. People like the guy defending "Government Assistance" need to take a big step back and ask themselves, "What makes some countries rich and others not?"  Unless you answer that question, you're not doing anything about the cause of poverty and thus not really contributing to the discussion.

    The longer and more pronounced a country's history of free trade and rational thought, the more wealthy it tends to be.  The Eastern Hemisphere never had an Age of Reason, and many of the countries still haven't had an Industrial Revolution.  Many countries in the Eastern Hemisphere also have extremely powerful and corrupt governments which interfere with free trade – especially in Africa and the Middle East.

  55. Grade points should be redistributed too. Wouldn't that go extremely well? Just think of the children! Only at public schools, though. Private schools are an impossibility. Even if they could exist, they would suck.

  56. I don't see how parents being caregivers for their children presents a problem. Is the alternative Plato's Republic, a statist nightmare where children are confiscated as property of the state and "Philosopher king"?

  57. I despise the constant, "but what about the children" card being played every time a leftist supports tyranny, soft or hard versions. Let me play it for a change just to show how arbitrary it's application is. We should do away with imminent domain completely, because preserving individual rights are more important than any given bypass or walmart. Oh, you want to undermine all individual rights & private property rights so someone can build a bypass? "But what about the children"? What about their rights? We should do away with all taxation, because taxation is confiscation of privately owned earned wealth by G-men with guns and cages. That's called "theft". Oh, you want to fund gov with stolen money because you think that ends justify means? "But what about the children"? What about their individual rights? 
    Truth is, there is no conflict between individual rights and public safety. (Your saviors taking away your rights is more a threat to you than the comparatively rare terrorist attack). There is no conflict between inequality and justice since people are not interchangeable cookie-cutter cogs in a marxist machine. There is no conflict between spirit and flesh. There is no conflict between business and compassion. 
    There is no conflict between wealth and poverty. You are BETTER OFF when your neighbors become doctors, dentists, and famous authors, not worse off. They're CREATING wealth, not taking it from you. Your neighbor's increased property value is your increased property value. The tribal premise of zero sum simple does not apply to homo sapiens sapiens, producing man (as opposed to hunter gatherer scavenger). The rich are not making people poorer, they're making others RICHER. "Fair share" is simply a meaningless term in the context where wealth is CREATED & PRODUCED rather than hunted and gathered fruits and fish. What is ones own "fair share" of iPhones? IPhones are wealth that didn't exist until someone created them. I am not due a "fair share" of some else's creation and achievement. My achievements are not at other people's expense, they're are at your BENEFIT. 

  58. In this you have 2 people debating how to help people in an inherently hierarchical and parasitic system.

    1 side is top-down economic and psychological control over people and resources through government power, and the other is top-down economic and psychological control over people and resources through corporate power. Different entities, same goals. These debates (if you can even call them that) solve nothing.

    You will never have enough government blunt force rule (regulation) or private pittances (charity) to fix inequality in an inherently socially broken system. Poverty, desperation and false scarcity are not only BUILT IN, but are mechanisms that are used to maintain it.

    For these reasons I advocate for a resource based economy.

  59. jeezus christ. This old geezer literally claims that "everyone should start off on a similar baseline", and that "what's wrong with that? Make it happen."

    I see. So if some child is born to Olympic track star parents, odds are he's gonna be a really fast runner. UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. Better cut his legs off.

    Or if someone is born blind, well…of course we can't have any children being born with eyesight. That's an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. We need everyone to have a similar baseline. Better blind all the other babies.

    Or if some kid is given up for adoption and doesn't have loving parents who will read to him every night and help him with homework.  Better murder all the good parents and make sure that their kids are orphans too…don't want these kids who are born into loving families to have any UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

  60. India is no longer a good example for a good private education. We have been given the gift of RTE (Right to education) by the government which allows it to regulate private schooling as it sees fit. Many private schools have been threatened to be shut down.

  61. Before the government can provide (education, health care etc) it must first take from those who produce.  Theft, murder and violation of rights on a small scale is call Organized Crime. On a large scale, it is called government.

  62. I made this video discussing wealth inequality and why workers are losing purchasing power relative to their productivity. Spoiler alert: inflation and corporate subsidies are very big factors. Watch the video and find out how government, not capitalism, is funneling money to the top at the expense of the poor and middle class. Professor Jesus vs The 1%

  63. I grew up on welfare.  I had nothing, three changes of clothing, government based lunches, I was shamed… my life was hell.  I can tell you that the vast majority of people in my situation fail and the only reason I succeeded was that I put myself into terrible situations.  I joined the army, I worked jobs no one would work.I had 5 hours sleep a night at MOST so i could study and work at the same time.  What did I do to deserve this fate? Born to the wrong mother… what a shame… Yes, things need to change, how is the question.

  64. It's going to be difficult to have better education without government?  Are you kidding me?  A true free market can supply an education that is required at a price that is affordable whereas the government causes mal-investment in education, driving prices higher and efficacy of degrees lower.

  65. A free economy and a free society— especially free of the well intentioned meddling of helpful do-gooders– is the BEST thing we can do to assure that disadvantaged children have the best opportunity to leave their disadvantaged situation when they grow up. ALL people come from some state of disadvantage or other, and any advantage bestowed by family must be renewed by the efforts of each generation…. just as the disadvantages bestowed by background must be re-invested by the choices of every generation.

  66. If I can't work hard and save up money to give my kids a better chance at life, and maybe leave them some money… Why would I or anyone else work beyond the bare minimum? By bare minimum I mean the least amount of money I need to live a happy life, making any more would be a huge waste of time and effort as there is nothing else to do with it.

    I just don't understand his last point. Why should those who are willing to work be punished by those who don't, or make bad choices. I have 4 younger brothers, 2 on welfare. They're lazy and they're happy that way. I work as a programmer, I make decent money and they STILL eat better than I do.

    The one thing I"m sure of, is you can't help the poor by just throwing money at them. You only hurt those who want to be and live better.

  67. Who are these poor in the west that everybody else is so worked up about? What percentage of people are we talking about. What is it that money can buy, that they need to succeed, that they don't have?

  68. Why hand down money from one generation to the other? Because the ability to do so drives parents to keep earning and working because they see value in providing to their kids and giving their kids a leg up. Take away that incentive and you will never generate generational wealth.

  69. one kid with average education and one kid with great education are better than 2 kids with average education
    why would you deny people the oportunity of increased quality?

  70. Poor parents make poor children its just evilution nothing the kids can do may as well just lie down and die.
    Or you know exercise free will and make Better choices than your parents.

  71. A family's wealth usually lasts about three generations cuz (1) IQ is the best indicator of future success, (2) IQ isn't always inheritable, and (3) a willingness to work hard is the next best predictor and is inversely affected by how wealthy you are. [forgot the source tbh]

    If that mystery source was right, then we actually have multi-generational social mobility baked into capitalism's structure. The laudable goal of social mobility from changing wealth, achieved in equilibrium.

    Not to mention that welfare disincentives firms to innovate in ways that reduce prices, since fewer people have more elastic demand within range of two arbitrarily lower prices, so long as their needs are assured to be met no matter what.

    So despite the lack of innovation, it might still raising our present standards of living, but at the expense of our grandchildren's possibilities.

    Why would we do that to them? Think of the children!

  72. Astonishing to see how some people say "what it SO wrong about taking some money from someone to help those less fortunate?".

    He should go back to study ethics, before speaking his ideas about politics and education.

    Is like asking "what is SO wrong about taking an eye from someone who has both, to help those who are born blind?"

    Even more incredible when we realize it is coming out of the mouth of an "educated" "intellectual".

  73. 01:49 If you want to make beter education… Well, it's going to be hard do that without government. – Lol, better edutcation is hard to get with the government involved

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *