Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in the
libertarian Institute. Danny.
Duchamp returning, guest and champion of the show.
Danny, thank you for your time. Thanks very much for having me.
How did you first hear about Richard?
See Eli. I don't recall if it was mold
bug specifically but it was one of those near reactionaries
using him as evidence. That America is a communist
country and they make their case by just showing Eli and people
like him and the effect that they had on American politics.
Yeah. And the, so the first my first
introduction to him wasn't a flattering one.
Looking at his Wikipedia page, he lived from 1854 to 1943, was
an American Economist allegedly, using that term loosely author
and leader of the Progressive Movement, who called for more
government intervention to reform, what they perceived as
the injustices of capitalism, especially regarding factory,
conditions compulsory education child, labor and labor unions.
He is best remembered as a founder and the first Secretary
of the American economic Mike Association as a founder and
Secretary of the Christian social Union, Thou shalt, not
steal and as the author of a series of a widely read books on
the organized labor movement, socialism and other social
issues. So before we get into equality
of opportunity, the section of his autobiography published in.
I believe it's 1938 the sections titled my belief in equality of
opportunity before getting into that, why do You opposed
equality of outcome. So yeah, equality of outcome is
the normal thing to bashful modern, conservatives when they
are talking about leftist attempts to Institute some
major, in the name of equality, they say equality of opportunity
is what we want. Not a quality of outcome and to
be fair, they have some good points that I do agree with
equality of outcome. Is it does seem difficult just
intuitively for anyone. One to support that.
If you have two people who are both made worse off, right?
They could become more equal. How could I see a moral ideal?
That could result in everyone being worse off, be a decent
moral ideal. That's, that's excellent.
I think it was me watching a speech of Barack Obama while he
was president, and I'm sitting there wondering, he's talking
all about equality and I go. This is like the least equal
thing I can imagine. He has executive powers.
He has like a 90% civilian hit rate in his drone program and
he's really worried about some people in the voluntary sector
making more than others. Is there anything?
Being more unequal than the citizen to the state.
Like the police officer says, you have to obey my arbitrary
commands or I get to kill you more or less and we get to K2
angle. That is the most unequal thing
as bad as, you know, my boss and my parents and some jerk
friends, nothing is more unequal than that.
So it's so perfect that they will promote this thing that
could never be achieved because the more legislation you have,
the more unequal equal is and they're constantly pushing for
more legislation. So of course, one of my favorite
means ever is communism leads to a quality.
There's this giant statue of Chairman Mao, how many Chinese
people have a statue in China as big as that one of Chairman Mao
very right. Anything else on equality of
outcome before we get into Eli's my belief in equality of
opportunity. Yeah, yeah.
So obviously Eli's stick here is going to be talking about He'll
talk about equality with an implication that what he's in
favor of is some side being raised up, right?
If you're if you're actually in favor of equality and at all
like of opportunity, outcome, any kind of equality then there
must be some situation in which you would be willing to accept a
lower overall standard of living for people in order to make it
more equal, if not, then your standard see, Actually be that
you're in favor of high living standards in general.
Not that you're in favor of more equal living standards
excellent. Please read the first paragraph
and we will analyze it with pleasure, okay.
So my belief in equality of opportunity.
My belief in the importance of equality of opportunity has
never wavered or changed. The struggle for equality of
opportunity is what made America great.
From the point of view of social philosophy.
This struggle runs through So our entire complex history like
a red thread, giving it unity and explaining what is American
as nothing else does in the 18th century.
It was based on the philosophy of natural equality later, this
philosophy was modified by the recognition of the existence of
natural inequalities today. We know that there are vast
natural inequalities of naive of native ability among men upon
this knowledge. It is based upon us.
Knowledge is based the attitude which characterizes Erica at its
best. The attitude expressed by the
words, give him a chance, it's give him a chance, not give all
an equal chance. Because when you're thinking of
him, you're thinking one person, I'd like to give a person a
chance. But today, you'd be talking
about 330 million people, but if it's a principle that has to
apply to all 7 billion. So I'm guessing the UN would be
behind this equality program and he says the struggle runs
through our entire complex Story, so he's giving
progressives a narrative to build on.
So, it's saying not only do you have this belief but your
ancestors had this strong belief and now it's resulted in you.
So you need to carry the Baton forward.
So so manipulative and it just goes to show how important
historical narratives are when it comes to convincing people of
something. That if they already think there
are part of it, well they'll continue to promote it.
Any thoughts on the first paragraph?
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
The I think that a lot of early I shouldn't say early but this
era of socialists in America. What they tended to do was they
wrap socialism in the red white and blue, right?
They would tend to try to find some way that they can relate to
their relatively foreign ideas to Liberal principles what that
America was based on and try to work them in.
So that any push towards socialism Let's just just us
carrying on the Proud tradition of our forefathers.
It's and I think that if you really talk to him, or if there
was someone who he thought was an ally talking to him, I don't
for a second. Believe that Eli would say that
that America was founded on sort of, socialist principles.
I think it's quite cynical that he's trying to weave that
narrative in there. It's, I think it's intentionally
trying to mislead chapter goes on He says some years ago, mr.
Vaughn bethmann-hollweg, son of the old chancellor, who was
famous for his remark. That the treaty with Belgium
was, merely a scrap of paper. Visited me in my office.
In Chicago, we talked about many things and At Last, I said to
him, you have been in this country, three months, you have
traveled extensively, you are a keen Observer, your impressions
are vivid. Tell me what it is that
characterizes America above all other countries.
He replied quickly that what characterized America above all
other countries, could be summed up in the phrase.
Give him a chance. He did not speak about the speed
of our life, our acceleration. He did not refer to America as a
land of unlimited possibilities. The four little words, give him
a chance, expressed his outstanding impression.
So let's try and take their own move and use it against him.
I believe in the concept of give him a chance.
Why should I advocate the principles of
anarcho-capitalism? If I believe such a thing, Yeah,
so giving someone a chance in the lingo that he's using here,
seems to essentially mean provide him with material
resources at the expense of someone who does not consent.
We have a word for that, it's called stealing.
There's there's General reasons that giving someone a chance or
giving someone anything. Without the consent of the
person who previously owned it, there's a general reason why
that will tend to result in were social outcomes.
So, I get the value of the thing that I stole from you, you lose
that value. However, there's also the fact
that now you're less incentivized to work because,
you know, the stuff could be stolen from you at any moment.
Why build up your capital goods and your resources to try to
make a better life for yourself of good or be taken away?
So it reduces the incentive to produce.
And it means that you're going to try to spend money on
security restrict the amount that could be stolen from you.
So that mountains lost. So, when something stolen, it's
not a straight transfer from one person to another.
It's a friends for with a significant loss in the process.
So just from a utilitarian standpoint, you would want the
resources to be taken to be given freely right?
Between people. Yeah, under anarcho-capitalism,
libertarianism volunteerism. Whatever you want to call it,
you would want to give people chances, but the reason you'd
want to give them a chance is because that person who you're
giving a chance to you believe is going to do something good
with that chance, right? You're going to invest and his
projects or you're going to give them a job or something like
that because you think that there's something of Merit to
what he's doing or to what he can do.
And that's kind of giving him a chance to giving him a chance
where it's rather than, you know, taking involuntarily from
one person and giving to another.
But instead, Voluntarily giving to someone on the basis that he
will be able to produce. That's something that tends to
raise the standard of living for everyone rather than leave us in
a race to the bottom. Yeah, the word give is extremely
manipulative because people will sometimes say, it's important,
we give these people X, whatever X is in, in the topic Social
Services, access to education, access to healthcare.
I like, giving people things, as a matter of fact, you can
purchase Purchase the volunteers handbook on Amazon or get it for
free on Odyssey.com. I love the Catholic essays in
their idea of brilliant people. All Danny wrote an excellent
article, the utilitarian case for voluntourism, it's in there
along with some other great Heavy Hitters.
But when you say give it assumes that one person's kindly giving,
what they really mean is, I'm going to put obligations on
total strangers to do something and to Bear a very Large cost.
When it comes to government it to the tune of what it's estate,
get like 45 trillion dollars every year.
So it's not like you're asking them to help you lift the
groceries. It's like, you're asking them to
work a third of their time for someone else, and it always
seems like they're talking about people.
They already like, like, if they say, well, I really want to give
people a chance, by the way, half the country as a bunch of
racist, bigots homophobes, who want women to be.
Tied to the handmaid's tale. Well, you want yourself to be
forced to fund those people. That is extremely rough.
Ridiculous. I mean, they spend all their
time vilifying them and they want to help them out
coercively. Also, the word chance is a bit
of a lie because if I give someone a chance and let's say,
they screw it up, I've screwed up jobs in the past and it
assumes I can stop giving them a chance.
That means that Point in the future it can stop.
You know what we're going to fire.
You actually you're not allowed to fire someone unless you meet
the following OSHA criteria and so therein lies the
Ridiculousness. Two of the four words are
completely manipulative. They couldn't even give us four
words. That's why I didn't read this
whole book, but I get you told me that I probably should
anything else on give him a chance.
No, I think we've done that to death.
Plus we're about to get into the Crux of Of it, which is where he
moves on from give them a chance and tries to relate that to his
equality of opportunity, attitude.
Very nice, let us hear it. Okay, so on its positive side,
this struggle for equality of opportunity.
Expresses itself in a multitude of ways, which aim at giving
every individual a chance to develop all his powers,
whatever? They may be to the fullest
extent, we want every American to have an effective right to be
provided with Real goods for physical growth to maintain his
health and strength in a favorable environment public
school system. Cannot be explained.
Otherwise, even now in publicly supported colleges and
universities, the struggle is going on to give those who are
qualified to benefit by at the opportunity for research and
scientific investigation. Every step forward in the
history of public education has met with obstacles and those
which have not been overcome gradually yielding.
To the irresistible pressure for equality of opportunity.
However there still lingers on in our Public School System.
The idea that all men are born essentially equal that they
should all have the same kind of training.
This is fallacious and socially in Juris.
Generally, speaking and academic high school education is
desirable, but there are many who cannot profit by it.
It has been said that there is no greater inequality than equal
treatment of unequals. George Washington did not
believe in equality of powers. He thought that each should have
an equal chance to develop what powers he had.
So that our government might function as the makers of the
Constitution intended, it should in his farewell address.
He said, promotes then, as an object of primary importance
institutions, for the general diffusion of knowledge in
proportion as the structure of a government gives forced to
public opinion. It is essential that public
opinion, should be enlightened. The makers of our constitution
expressed their belief in equality of opportunity.
When they safeguarded to all the like, the fundamental rights
which are stated in the first ten amendments, no agency of the
government May abrogate these rights.
Good. So so again, we have him
invoking. The founders telling people,
this is already part of their tradition and specifically
George Washington. So if you want to be like
someone like George Washington Advocate equality of
opportunity, notice give him a chance opportunity is not
necessarily meaning that all chances should be equal because
it's so undefinable and so unachievable.
Even at the time whether you're in Arizona or New York or what
if your neighbors who are raised by different parents?
This equality of opportunity is completely the or rather the
concept of equality has nothing to do with whether or not people
have opportunities. The fact that you would want to
make those equal, I'm not sure that it's even desirable at that
point. What were your takeaways from
that paragraph? Yeah, so the first thing is what
you had on to that again. He's trying to weave that into
the American narrative. He's Not trying to be honest
about it and say, okay, I have these different ideas.
I think we should take a left turn here, he's trying to weave
it into the general thrust of American History.
If that was in fact what the founders intended then why?
Now do you have to set up these programs and institutions?
If this is what they meant, then why did they not set them up?
I think I think that that tells you that that is not at all.
What their intentions were nevertheless his whole thing.
About equality of opportunity. When he's talking about giving
people a chance, right? He's talking about having a
public school system so that everyone gets some kind of
education, it should be noted that there's a mismatch between
the policy prescription, even if it works.
And the, the ideal like the words that he's using.
So if everyone goes to a public school, a government school that
isn't necessarily going to give her everyone the same
opportunities, right? Because people still have Some
families, right? They'll be in different areas
which were in poor areas which will have different quality
schools. There's going to be as he
mentions different inherent characteristics.
That will be able to take advantage of you're not you're
not actually going to get to a quality with the measures that
he's advocating. So I think that that's kind of a
foot in the door thing. I will propose it.
Let me draw an analogy to the current gun control movement.
That's so the current gun control movement.
They'll say, look at all these shootings in America, we need to
ban AR-15s. I have 15 the know what used to
shoot most people in America. That's not what most shootings
are caused by. They know this.
The point is that they will propose some method of solving
the problem that won't actually resolve the problem.
But we'll start taking away rights so that in a few years
when has failed, they can Advocate to take away more of
your rights. And I think the same is true
here like that equality of opportunity is an absurd goal,
right there is there is no way that everyone is going to To
have the same opportunities and I did an article a while back
called against equality. And one of the things that you
can find animal in the sun scientific literature, is that
reading to your child, whether or not you read bedtime stories
to a child actually, has a larger effect on the outcomes
then sending them to a private school which is pretty
significant, like, so your read your kids, by the way, guys,
that's a additional thing here, but That's something that is
going to create a large inequality of opportunity
because the kids who didn't get rid to as a child, they don't
have that opportunity. We really going to say that you
can't read to your kids because that gives them an unfair
opportunity, right? Or they will.
All the point is that there's always going to be something
that you're never going to get rid of all of it.
And so, it justifies an Ever larger and larger state to solve
this unsolvable problem, and the end of the day, Day, the things
he's relying on in order to justify his equality of
opportunity, aren't equality of opportunity, right?
He's not actually proposing. Equality of opportunity, hear
what he's saying is give people a chance, giving someone a
chance, doesn't mean that everyone has exactly the same
chance, right? Someone who already has a
chance, it's still good to give him another chance, right?
If you if there's something you think you can do well, even if
he's screwed up before, give him another chance, right?
Even if another person doesn't doesn't have one more and
better, For people, that's a good thing, more, equal chances
for people, it's morally irrelevant.
Yeah and certainly, if you want more opportunities you'd want to
make sure there's not one group of people coercively intervening
in voluntary exchanges. It's like, well hey, give this
man a chance. I know he doesn't have your
license. I know he doesn't have your
certification and frankly we don't respect that.
Anyways give this man a chance for Christ's sake.
Stop halting his Progressive future to make a better life for
him and his family so you can just use this same argument.
If you Advocate it it doesn't justify the state at all as
David Friedman. Does an excellent job pointing
out. So much of the greatest
inequalities are the result of things provided by governments.
He uses the case of education is everyone equally educated.
I mean, surely we got 12 years that people spend in their
younger and younger portion of their life under State
schooling. Certainly everyone should
basically everyone knows the same amount of stuff.
No, not true. Watch, Who Wants To Be A
Millionaire, even the smartest people.
There's a wide range of intellectual diversity there.
He also uses the court system, so someone who has no money and
gets a public defender versus, I don't know, o.j.
Simpson, or Jeffrey, Epstein in 2005, not in his recent non
suicide, but I mean he gets Alan dershowitz to give him like the
total sweetheart deal like that you would get if you like
probably stole a Snickers bar or something.
So there is no equality when it comes to government.
So his entire thesis has rendered.
I think ridiculous. Let's go on to this next one on
the negative side. This struggle for equality of
opportunity. Expresses itself in the
determination to render adequate service for material Goods that
we receive. We are determined that men in
our country shall no longer receive something for nothing
because if they do, so they abstain tracked from the wealth
produced that, which should go for service.
Sorry that was hard for me to read through Stock Exchange
manipulation through dishonest. Manipulation of real estate
through. Unfair, practices in
merchandising millions are given to those who have taken
something from nothing. We are trying to reduce this
amount to a minimum property, which is inherited by passing
from generation to generation, includes vast.
Of surplus value in 1891. I made the following plea for
reform of the laws of inheritance quote, excessive
wealth discourages exertion, but a suitable reform of the laws of
inheritance will remove us. Many Idol persons, who consumed
annually, immense, quantities of wealth, but contribute, nothing
to support to the support of the race and who leading Idol lives,
cultivate bad ideas. And disseminate social poison
for the sake of the sons of the rich, as well.
For the sons of the poor, we need a reform of the laws of
inheritance. A reform of the laws of property
will help us to approach that ideal condition, in which the
man who does not work, shall not eat.
And it will also tend to the equalization of opportunities.
So as to give all a fairer start in life, allowing each one to
make use of such opportunities as Capacity and diligence
permit, and thus rendering inequalities economic and social
less arduous, and in Juris, injurious more stipulating and
helpful. Lord have mercy, what?
A pile of nothing. What are your first thoughts?
I don't know where to start reform.
Okay, so the probably the wealth transfer The Inheritance reform.
And that he's that he's advocating here is probably the
place to start. There's I think the for the
first part it's based on kind of a myth that most wealth in
Western societies is based on inheritance, right?
That all the rich just tend to inherit all their.
Well, there are a couple of ways of showing that this is
ridiculous. Like Thomas Soul often points
out that. I think it's one in five
Americans will be in the top 20% at some point in their lives.
Looks like four out of five will be the top 20% at some point in
their lives, but I think that the clearest way to point this
out is point out. Look at the way that wealth
increases, especially during the time when he's writing, right?
You, you've just gone through the one of the longest periods
of biggest periods of wealth creation in the history of
humanity and we are talking about inheritance, right?
Right? If all of that wealth is
created, it clearly was not inherited.
Right? Is all of that wealth has come
new into the world. Someone went out, did some work
and produced it. Now, he talks about a bunch of a
bunch of professions, a bunch of different things you can do and
tries to basically throw mud on them, right?
There's something about Stock Exchange investing in the stock
exchange and investing in property and things like that.
And you just write that off as though those people are doing.
Just nothing productive. It's just ridiculous and nothing
but All of those things are entirely useful, right?
So, investing I think, hopefully, most people know why
investing is useful, but basically, the reason is time
preference, I've worked and saved up a lot of money.
You have a great business idea, you could wait, and save up a
whole lot of money to put that into practice, but then would
lose out on the world would lose out on that.
Well, that you could have created if you just started the
business now. But I lend you the money and
therefore you Go out and do that business.
That's the same if it's during the progress of a company.
It's a similar sort of thing for real estate investment, all of
these sorts of things, the things where he's talking about
someone getting something for nothing, that just simply aren't
the cases. He's just riding off a whole
bunch of productive tasks. There are situations in which
there are Market manipulation tactics that don't produce for
people. Right?
Where it really is getting something for nothing and that
would be, for example, a politician getting involved in
the market and using their position.
As a politician in order to control stop movements, right?
That arguably would be the case, but that's I don't think what
he's talking about. He's not talking about
government officials, he's talking about business people,
that's who's trying to go after is, so yeah, the whole thing, he
tears down so many Different professions that are entirely
useful. Oh, he also talks about and so
wealth transfer from parent to a child, right?
That's actually a particularly useful thing.
If I am working, right, someone might say that.
Oh, well, if I can keep all of my own wealth while I'm alive,
but then once I'm dead, then it will go revert to the state or
some portion of it'll revert to the The state that can't
possibly change my incentives, right?
That can't possibly change my theme for some make me want to
work less, but of course, what could be a larger incentives
than leaving? Something to my children.
I don't know if you realize but people actually care about their
children, but lat that's a yeah. It's confiscating.
Someone's wealth after they die. Does not change the kind of
Billet area social effects that it has when you confiscate,
well, Yeah, tell me there was probably more than that.
Yeah well that's that's the gift Gallup, where they throw 50
false things that you that you just say, well there's got to be
something that's right about. This Thomas Souls book, basic
economics, he talks about a study by the University of
Michigan and the IRS and he says, well certainly you can see
the top one percent wealth increases what you're not
looking at. Are the different human beings
that Then occupy that 1% the analogy that I like to use is
there's a guy who gets a 50 million dollar Grant by the Paul
Krugman foundation and he goes and he looks at a high school
and says, all right, 25% of people are seniors. 25% are
freshmen. Here's the top and the bottom
guy comes back. 20 years later. And wouldn't, you know, it?
Still 25 percent of seniors are 25% of students or seniors in
25% of freshmen. So these groups haven't moved
They're still seniors and they're still freshman.
Well, the obvious response is, those are different human beings
than the ones you study 20 years ago.
So what you could actually do was look at individual incomes
and see if those increase over time and of course they do as a
result of competition and capital investment.
So I mean there's really nothing to what to this argument at all.
And of course, you know, bashing Investments, as if initial
public offerings that give so many.
As the startup Capital to employ people, to invest, in research
development, to write that off as useless, a guy advocating,
government schooling is worried that an institution might be
useless. What, what's going on?
He must have worked in the Wilson Administration.
Let's get on to read the next chapter for us.
Many objected so many objected to my proposal to reform
inheritance tax laws. They said you are proposing
measures which a the rights of private property.
This is not a valid objection. The right of inheritance is one
right and the right of private property is another and
distinct, right? The right of property means an
exclusive right of control over thing.
The right of inheritance The transfer of this, right?
The state or local political unit must be recognized as Co
are entitled to share in all inheritance.
Has a man is made what he is by Family town or local political
Circle, which surrounds them and by the state in which he lives.
And by the nation, a tax on inheritance is the means whereby
the claims of the town State and Nation May secure recognition.
No wise man wants to abolish The Inheritance Of property but a
great deal is being done and war is going to be done to bring
under control. The passage of property from
generation to generation and thus to cut down very
gratefully, the receipt of something for nothing.
So yes, there was something that I really wanted to hit on there.
Okay. Well how about this?
The state or local political unit must be recognized as Co
are entitled to share In all inheritance has so, okay, that's
basically Barack Obama's, you didn't build that, does it.
Do you remember that? Hopefully, people do.
But Barack Obama had the speech where he talks about, you know,
how your business requires roads and stuff in order to function.
You didn't build that. And therefore, you know, the
state is entitled to some share of what you have and so are all
the other people in the country. And so really, really Yo, no man
is an island that kind of thing. The problem is, is that there
are two ways that a business acquires things in order to
function. One is on the open market,
right? We purchase certain things and
then transform those things. So, you could also argue the
Third Way where you create yourself but good start to
purchase a resources. So two ways you purchase them on
the open market. In that situation, you have
paid, you have already paid for the things that you're using.
So the you didn't build that there for you over some of it.
No I paid what I own it is already done.
The other way is the taxes, right?
So you are going to use some Services, the government
provides like roads or maybe the workers you use used Public
Schools or things like that. The current taxes were supposed
to pay for that but apparently they're not enough apparently,
some dilapidated roads and shitty public.
Schools is not, it's not enough to cover that.
That's the government gets the trillions of dollars that are
currently does, apparently insufficient we, it needs more
now, it's ridiculous. Clearly, the amount of taxes
that people pay have massively outstripped, any of the things
that are actually useful in their lives, right there the
amount of money that it would actually cost just to run some
schools and Roads, right? If it was any other entity
doing, it would be a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the
current Us government's budget. So, yeah, that whole thing about
how if you create a business or you earn a living or you produce
something that you really ho Society in general, no Society
has already you've already paid Society, voluntarily purchase
the things you use. You have more than paid enough
taxes to cover the government provided parts of it.
So that that's just as honest and it's honestly, the still
going today. A with, or at least not so long
ago with Barack Obama. Well, look at the bait and
switch, they bring you in with something real.
No one got where they are by the fruits of their own labor.
Of course, you are raised by parents and you probably weren't
that productive at this time until 14 16, 18 lot of 30 year
olds, I know would even put fall under this condition so he takes
something that no one does it all by themselves and of course,
when you're born into a There are a number of things you
benefit from. It's also a number of costs
imposed on you, but he then takes this reality and says
therefore this group government becomes the co are not Walmart
or I don't know who was big in the 1830s A&P Grocers, or I
don't know if Sears was going on back then, but it's the total
non sequitur of, this is a reality in which people live,
you are able to reap benefits from the work of others.
As you mentioned, We pay for things, and that's how we can
compensate them, but it doesn't follow that.
Therefore, only this group. Now, maybe if he was a real
believer in a quality, anyone at any time can take anything from
anyone else? Because, I mean, they didn't
build it, they basically got that they drove on roads that
other people paid for. So theft isn't really a thing.
But by that metric, well, government doesn't have the
right to own four trillion dollars every year.
Anyone can just go into the Take whatever they want.
They can go into the Pentagon because they didn't build that.
I mean they only got that because other people did stuff
so we can go into the Pentagon and take all of belongings that
the Department of Defense has and then other people can take
it from us and all you have is this circle of theft unless you
recognize self ownership and voluntary exchanges anything on
the need to question property titles and inheritance?
Well yeah so jumping back to the first part of the paragraph.
That I just read where he says, they said you're opposing
measures, which impaired rights of private property, but he says
it's not a valid objection because the right of private
property is the right to control something.
And the right of inheritance is the ability to transfer the
right to transfer that. Right?
And those are distinct things. No they're not like one is a
subset of the other, right? My right to transfer this
property to someone else is part of my control of it.
If I can. Transfer this property to
another person in to some degree.
I do not control it, it's so it's it's I don't know.
It's just an elementary logical mistake.
He's just saying these two things are just different
inserts. Not a valid objection.
No one is a subset of the other and so it is it makes me wonder
kind of how much he can believe it himself right to what extent
does. He he doesn't strike me as an
idiot. It's an elementary logical
mistake that you know, if You handled that in to your
philosophy? Professor?
You didn't F, right? This is just one of the subset
of the other. No, go try again, right?
That shouldn't be something that mistake that he would make.
That makes me think that he's not actually making these
arguments in good faith. He's just trying to find excuses
right that he thinks the reader will buy for increasing state
power, which is what ultimately he wants to do.
That's it, that's his job. He sells justifications.
State power. Final paragraph says, in these
ways we are trying to carry out the philosophy of equality of
opportunity, expressed in our constitution.
We must not run all the people through the small Mill
educational or otherwise, we must give each one in
opportunity for educational spiritual and religious training
in accordance with the character and makeup of the individual.
We provide opportunities and give Each his chance that is
America. It's too boring for me to say it
a third time, but I will, again, he's trying to build on the
historical narrative. This is why understanding
history as well as philosophy is.
So, vitally important anything on that last paragraph or the
section in general. Yeah, yeah.
So running all the people through the same Mill, we know,
it's not run, all the people through the same Mill.
I thought he was in favor of equality, that that Literally is
what? Yeah, would be required.
You're going to have to put everyone in the same.
Same position. Ultimately, I think that there's
just Falls to all of the same problems that any equality.
Argument Falls to when someone's trying to sell a quality to you,
whether it's opportunity, outcome, whatever it is.
What they will do is they will paint a picture and in which one
person has less of something than the other.
Them and then they will say, well, wouldn't it be better if
they both had a lot? Notice that in such a situation?
What they're doing is they are imagining one person rising up
to meet the other person. The reason that that seems good.
The reason that intuitively go. Yeah.
That seems like a great thing I guess.
I do favorite body. The reason it seemed good was
just because the overall benefit to everyone was increasing,
right? One guy was becoming better off
and the other guy wasn't getting worse off.
Like The concept of equality should be distinguished from the
what's concept of improvement. The only way you can say that
actually, no, I do favor equality rather than just
Improvement in general, is to say that there might be some
situation where I don't even want someone to get worse off so
that they can all be the same or even that both people get worse
off but they are but they're all the same and the telling thing
is that that is kind of what all of these advocating for is going
to result in. So giving government control
over education, stopping people from passing their wealth on to
their children. Which thereby reduces their
incentive to produce in the first place.
All of this sort of thing is going to reduce the overall
production of Humanity's. Reduces our ability to produce
better schools for entrepreneurship.
It reduces the ability or an incentive to produce things for
our children. All of that is just going to be
a slow degradation And of humanity.
And even if that resulted in more equality which as you
pointed out from solid gold, masks statues, it does not.
But even if it did result in more equality, who cares?
I want things to be better, not more equal.
Excellent points. Yeah, there's a great article
called is equality. A worthy goal by Bradley,
Thomas. It's in the book, free pdf,
Adonis, e.com. Anyone with the faintest
acquaintance with reality, however, realizes that the human
species and kind is uniquely characterized by a high variety
diversity. Differentiation in short.
Any quality included in these human inequalities and
differences are traits like intelligence, Ambition, work,
ethic skill sets, ability, Etc. So, this is the ultimate Fool's
errand, to think that we can make people equal in Opportunity
or in equality of outcome. Danny do Trump.
Where is the best place to find your work?
Just Danny to show.com Da in. And why do you see aham p.com?
It's pretty basic website, but it has links to all of the
places you can find me my subset.
My YouTube. My Odyssey.
My float. Put a all that kind of good
stuff. Thanks for everyone for
watching. Keith Knight Don't Tread On Any
libertarian Institute. They need you top.
Thank you for your time.