Removing this from the Talks channel. This is not a debate or a lecture, @ant. Come on now.

I've had lectures exactly like this.

Sorry you feel sick, but tough. Get used to it.

"the only people who can get elected are over-calculating douchebags."
(for many other reasons besides public scrutiny.)

Ah, you're quite the Sherlock Holmes.
(At least we have some area of agreement here.. even if we attribute this to different causes.)

"The First Lady is subjected to this shit and she wasn't even elected."

She never asked for it! That's why she goes on national TV to lecture people, and call people knuckleheads. And yeah, she never even got elected. No one wants her on TV telling people what to do. So why does she? Or do people actually want this. Some may, I guess, like you!

"They're terrified of offending anyone and everyone."

Yeah, that's right.. The politicians are the victims. The poor politicians. Such a thankless "job".

"Shut up with this bullshit and talk about how Obamacare is stupid"

That's beating a dead horse. At this point, only the most fanatical don't accept the ACA as an abject failure. Even Democrats know it. Even Obama knows it.

(Not to mention everyone who knew it would fail from the beginning!)

"the richest fucking country in the world have a problem with free healthcare
when poor ass countries can do it better?"

Because many in "the richest fucking country in the world" would like to keep it the "richest" and not turn it into a "poor ass country" with "free" healthcare.

Your failure of imagination is not my problem, @Yogi.

That's ok. Everyone has off days and more imaginative ones. Other people can imagine why I posted it.

What's up with the Australian health care system?

Good thing there are so many good intelligent talks and lectures(*) on the sift, 'cos I need to watch one now to prevent my braincells from committing suicide as a result of this overdose of stupid.

(*) A ton of them posted by @kulpims, much <3 for that!

you do realize that anarchism is incredibly diverse right?
it is not some rigid dogmatic approach to structural societies.
the political philosophy can stem from a strict individualism to a pure collectivism,yet both can be an anarchist philosophy.

i will post some lectures that can clarify our discussion much more competently than i ever could.

because it seems we are getting snagged on definitions.
i use the classic definitions and you retort with the "americanized" and no matter how many words we type to each other...if we are not on the same page in regards to the most basic of agreements, "definitions", then we will always be in the weird loop-d-loop of circular reasoning.

we will probably still disagree but at least we will understand each other better.

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

A few years ago this guy was a nobody insofar as the media was concerned. Then he started playing the 'baddie' on Shark Tank and the Canadian version of Dragons' Den.
I think this guy is borrowing a page from the likes of Ann Coulter and other right-wing talking heads. Essentially, they are media whores who know that controversy helps to sell their books, programs, lecture circuit, investments... their 'celebrity-ness'. So they say outrageous stuff because they know it gets them face time in our dumbed down media. How do you think it ended up here on Videosift?
Whether they actually believe their own shit... who knows?

Sorry, I wasn't bashing the video... any time you can boil down most of the qualitative ideas of 12 lecture hours into a 6 minute video is a worthy time investment.
I'm was mostly trying to drunkenly convince myself the math I half remember was worth the other 11 hours.

Yeah, it'll be a while until we really 'understand' why everything is how it appears to be. But in the meantime, we can quantitatively describe most of the interesting effects down to the subatomic level. Which is great imo.

This was a pretty concise explanation of about a month of physics II lectures... minus the math.

Spoiler, Hitchens 'wins' the debate. I can't honestly say I've watched or listened to a debate between him and anyone were that did not seem to be the case. As often is the case though too, his grandest victory is understated, brief and easily overlooked.

Ritter thumps hard on the absence of WMD in Iraq to condemn the invasion, which on it's surface seems a strong argument. Hitchens casually references an unwillingness to be lectured on WMD's by those who cautioned against invasion for fear that Saddam would use those WMD on US troops. Scott Ritter went on Crossfire before the invasion to state that Saddam could easily reconstitute his chemical weapons and invading was too risky.

have you seen his lecture "capitalism hits the fan"?
i think i posted it a year ago.lemme look....
aaaaand you already watched it lol.

i think the biggest hurdle here in america is that we never criticize the system.
and dr wolff is doing exactly that,rightly so in my opinion.

the fact that he makes economics more digestable for someone like me is just a bonus.

*edit=oh well what a nice surprise to see that doublepromote on the very lecture we have been discussing.
thank you very much my friend.
you should post the december lecture and i will return the favor.dr wolff needs more exposure.

The December update highlighted an issue that has been driving me insane for years now, an issue that makes me want to punch my fellow citizens right in the kisser for not looking beyond the facade.

His illustration of the price you pay for a t-shirt can be applied, without alteration, to our energy sector in Germany. The old, centralised infrastructure, primarily coal/gas/nuclear power plants, were subsidized heavily over the years, both directly through interest-free public loans and the privatisation of the energy grid as well as through indirect means, such as tax/insurance exemptions, R&D financing. Hell, the clean-up at Sellafield in the UK alone is expected to cost just shy of £100B. All this outsourcing of costs made it possible to keep the price of energy comparably cheap.

Meanwhile, all the subsidies for renewable energy are added on top of the energy price for consumers. No smoke screens, no outsourcing, no legacy costs. You get the price tag on your energy bill. A decent level of transparency, at last. But now people get pissed at the high prices of energy and demand a stop to the renewable energy program, which ironically pushed prices to a record low on the energy exchange. On-shore wind and solar are now cheaper than heavily subsidized coal and gas. My home town in the middle of nowhere generates wind power at 0.08€ per kwh, all year long, with minimal operating costs. Even solar works splendidly, despite the abysmal central European weather.

I think I might just try his Walmart explanation on some people, it's much easier to understand.

So cheers again for pointing out this wonderful series of lectures.

He still has time to insure that his swan-styley lecture circuit will consists of stops primarily abroad or insulated within the U.N as well
Piece a mottled work

Amazing, I'm going to see one his lectures this weekend at U of T. =D

Brand always reminds me of people I've known who have spent too many years smoking too much pot. Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of what he's saying and I'm all for pot, but I've heard the same kind of rambling, disjointed and allegedly mindblowing lecture many times before.

Basically he missed out on being a pretentious student thanks to addiction and now appears to be making up for lost time.