Bryan's argument is that social democracy is bad because it harms the poor via immigration restrictions and building restrictions and presumably a million other regulations, and because it wastes the money it gathers by spending on non-poor people.
Leaving the first part aside, which is clearly true and I concede, is Bryan's view on the second part that spending on non-poor people is unjust, or not utility maximizing? Most people in society are consumed by one vice or other. The ur-cause of vice is lack of impulse control. Most people are consequently unable to assess risk (are innumerate) or unable to save for the future (have high discount rates). The welfare state's function is both social control (steering people to do things the state approves of with their money) but also to insure against the bad and predictable outcomes of people operating in a cognitively demanding society.
My question is: why is redistributing non-poor people's income back to them in essentially forced savings and a health care system bad? Would it still be bad if you could demonstrate that, say, social security improved human welfare, or is this a moral claim independent of results?
One thing people often miss in regard to mechanization taking all jobs is that people can and do compete with machines. Example: Take a corporate farm with a 12 row harvester, why don't they use a 24 row harvester, it might be because it's cheaper to have a human drive 2x as long than to buy the 24 row harvester. You might think, but wages would have to be very low, but I'd respond in a world of much more machines everything will be very cheap.
I think debaters would all do well to put end dates on projections like machines will take all the jobs in the future. Like say, "by 2100", instead of "the future".
I saw this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cJ5eroU5aw entitled "Bryan Caplan debates people who hate the global poor," and I'm wondering if the whole debate is available somewhere; either on Bryan's channel, or elsewhere.
You should put these videos on the main channel , almost nobody clicks through to the playlist
Question for Bryan:
Bryan's argument is that social democracy is bad because it harms the poor via immigration restrictions and building restrictions and presumably a million other regulations, and because it wastes the money it gathers by spending on non-poor people.
Leaving the first part aside, which is clearly true and I concede, is Bryan's view on the second part that spending on non-poor people is unjust, or not utility maximizing? Most people in society are consumed by one vice or other. The ur-cause of vice is lack of impulse control. Most people are consequently unable to assess risk (are innumerate) or unable to save for the future (have high discount rates). The welfare state's function is both social control (steering people to do things the state approves of with their money) but also to insure against the bad and predictable outcomes of people operating in a cognitively demanding society.
My question is: why is redistributing non-poor people's income back to them in essentially forced savings and a health care system bad? Would it still be bad if you could demonstrate that, say, social security improved human welfare, or is this a moral claim independent of results?
Hey Bryan, you may want to consider adding the dates of speeches into the video descriptions, as this can add important context. Thanks!
A playlist of the most digestible explanations of basic market principles would be useful
Things like this explanation by Milton Freidman about making a pencil.
https://youtu.be/4ERbC7JyCfU
Caplan on Szasz https://youtu.be/Kx7kIAAwe8M
One thing people often miss in regard to mechanization taking all jobs is that people can and do compete with machines. Example: Take a corporate farm with a 12 row harvester, why don't they use a 24 row harvester, it might be because it's cheaper to have a human drive 2x as long than to buy the 24 row harvester. You might think, but wages would have to be very low, but I'd respond in a world of much more machines everything will be very cheap.
I think debaters would all do well to put end dates on projections like machines will take all the jobs in the future. Like say, "by 2100", instead of "the future".
Bryan Caplan on the minimum wage (with amusing pictures!): https://youtu.be/4ikW8JbPBZ4
- Some videos on Huemer's libertarian ethics
- Video interviews on other books you like and endorse
- "Just for fun" entertaining videos you like. Maybe some music.
- Add some suggested channels to your sidebar. Michael Huemer, Dwarkesh Patel, Salem Center, CSPI, Learn Liberty, etc.
I saw this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cJ5eroU5aw entitled "Bryan Caplan debates people who hate the global poor," and I'm wondering if the whole debate is available somewhere; either on Bryan's channel, or elsewhere.
EDIT: It appears to be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwRVNVT6xLY.
I'd be interested in a playlist of your fav songs!
Why do you have a Youtube channel, given their censorship? There are alternatives.
youtube is big, and collecting all the debates he had on it isn't that much work i assume