Steelmanning and then 'destroying' LIBERTARIANISM (Milton Friedman's Chicago School)

A Steelman and critique of mainstream libertarian thinking, particularly as it relates to their philosophy around individuality, free trade, universal basic income in the form of the negative income tax, and the rationality/irrationality of human beings. I use Milton Friedman as the foil for my analysis, and quote him directly in order understand libertarian philosophy.

Timestamps:
0:00 Libertarians are basically correct
0:41 Why I don't call myself a libertarian
1:24 Milton Friedman is the libertarian proxy
1:44 "This is a family society, NOT an individual society"
2:51 The evolutionary origins of collectivism
3:36 The best libertarian idea ever (negative income tax)
5:05 Free trade is a narrow minded policy
6:34 The fundamental libertarian mistake
7:53 Reliable proof that humans are not economically rational
8:56 401Ks are an example of "structural rationality"
10:02 My ultimate argument against libertarians

#Libertarain #MiltonFriedman #Critque

PF Jung Clips and Extras Channel:

Follow me on twitter:

If you'd like to provide me with any in depth/private feedback, please email me at:

[maxutaibi]

My main gripe w/ ancaps is that when they replace govt police with private security, the largest and most efficiently run security firms will most likely become a de facto government, all forms of anarchism are unstable equilibria.

[IronComrade]

The ultimatum game is also dependent on the cultural norms within a given society. Some participants would refuse receiving all of the money because they would be entitled to future reciprocal gifts. Likewise, some people would accept any deal, regardless of the ratio, because money is money.

[rhysknight]

You're super balanced man. I'm rooting for your success on YouTube

[matityaloran]

When Milton Friedman is talking about a good model for predicting rational behaviour on a group level but not an individual level it sounds like he’s talking about psychohistory from Dr. Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels.

[pootis]

I don't think Milton Friedmann is the libertarian proxy cuz he was a Chicago school economist and most libertarians support Austrian school of economics

[matityaloran]

See, I generally support Free Trade because I think that Free Trade normally produces more good than harm. That said, in some cases that isn’t my view for instance in the China example that you mentioned. Since I actually would support using the mechanism of legislation to curtail trade with China because otherwise we in the West fund China’s evil regime (or at least our companies do) and that’s unconscionable. And there I am aware of the fact that such legislation would create economic disadvantages for the US or Canada or whichever Western country enacted this policy. But I would say that that harm would be necessary to combat the greater harm of allowing support to the murderous regime in China. But I think that that’s an outlier rather than a general trend and as a matter of generality I would actually support Free Trade

[MikaelNevear]

In Friedman's defense, behavioral economics literally didn't exist yet as a macroeconomic field, only really gaining mainstream appeal in macro applications in the late 90s to early 2000s. Some neoclassical models include behavioral economic assumptions to make them more accurate.

[matityaloran]

Though as I understand it the majority of Americans who identify themselves as libertarians don’t actually support the Libertarian Party

[fathomless]

I find libertarianism to be a vital necessity for the political sphere, it gives at least some balance between liberals and conservatives, it’s skeptical overview of government practices and government spending/regulation is also very refreshing (especially when it appears that conservatives and liberals overlook this to consolidate power and impose their policies) and finally I think that it exists quite possibly as the only real way to run a capitalist society. It seems however, to be very anti-poor in common rhetoric which I don’t appreciate. It’s individualist nature obviously exists with values that apply to the collective, which I think undermines some of its individualist arguments. However, if capitalism is the only viable economic option, it appears in my opinion that having the libertarian party with some synthesis of liberal safety nets and regulations (based on some underlying fundamental belief) as well as conservative strong military seems to me to be the way to go if capitalism is the way to go.

[keeleon]

"Libertairan" and "Anarcho Capitalism" are kind of different things, even though they seem similar on the surface. I don't think its very a very fair "steelman" of libertarianism to criticize AnCap. Most sane libertarians don't really have a problem with small govt. The problem is the vocal part of the "libertarian party" isn't really made of sane people any more than any the vocal part of any other party.

[tomdailey]

I really thought Milton Friedman was a "dead before video" type economist. Pretty dope to see him for real. The negative income tax is fucking brilliant

[fathomless]

I would love to see a video steelmaning then rebuking stoicism! These are great videos!

[natmanprime]

damn what an outro! as a brit i appreciate your american-ness

[matityaloran]

See with Anarchist-Capitalism, I think that in theory it’s basically right inasmuch as Murray Rothbard and his followers are correct that the law is meaningless unless enforced and that enforcement depends on an armed police that is both willing and able to use violence against those who don’t comply. So the idea that the State is violence like the Anarcho-Capitalists say makes perfect logical sense. But in an anarcho-capitalist society the police would have to exist to enforce the Non-Aggression Principle but would have to be private due to the fact that taxation wouldn’t exist. And accepting that I would see two possible outcomes. One, is that a single rich person or corporation would purchase every privately owned police force and as such be capable of breaking the Non-Aggression Principle with impunity or worse using his privately owned police to tyrannize others. Or two you get different corporations and entrepreneurs owning their own respective police forces some of whom (some of the entrepreneurs that is) will have few to no qualms about breaking the Non-Aggression Principle even using their own private police to do so and as a result the Society would find itself either in the midst of effectively a gang war between rival corrupt police owners or in a war between police forces owned by the corrupt and those owned by the non-corrupt with the question of who comes out on top being determined more or less entirely by who has the strongest force. And I think that the most likely ultimate result of that (assuming the survival of the Society) is that that Society degenerates into a world where the Rich are effectively unaccountable for whatever they do including violations of the Non-Aggression Principle while everyone else would simply suffer under the rule of said rich people. I would posit that in practice Anarchist-Capitalism would be little more than a dystopian plutocracy.

[r-e]

The main problem with a lot of ancaps is that they live in ancapistan in their head. The LP is a joke and is dismissed by most libertarians. The only pragmatic libertarian movement is the Free State Project in NH.

[rhysknight]

"License to drive" is "contribute to our collective ownership". If libertarians were honest they'd end up pretty close to mixed economy, the state being the logical conclusion to shareholding of commonly held resources and services

[camelloy]

I have no problem with libertarians, in the Milton freedom sense. They make mistakes and have a flaw in their assumption but at least they don’t make a fundamental mistake about human nature like the ancaps do who, I assume, desire a purely night makes right society.

[xanadeux]

Would be cool to see you go more in depth on this. Enjoyed it. The word libtard would work so well for those staunch anti-drivers license dudes, if it weren't already taken. Maybe Libnoramuses

[anormalguy]

" the original Ben Shapiro"
Bruhhh

[Chase-piyx]

I am not a libertarian, however I am an economist. I am trying to steelman you as hard as possible here. My main issue is you aren't addressing the criticism you set up. When you set up your argument about irrationality, you are claiming that there might be areas where we are predictably irrational, which causes some market failures. I'll grant you that, so I agree we should be attacking areas of the economy were market failures are being caused by irrationality. Here's my issue with your argument, you then claim that 401(k)s are good because it gets rid of irrationality, but you are just assuming we are irrational in terms of savings. This is something that you have not shown. I don't know if we are irrational in terms of saving, and if we are, to what extent? No one knows. Without that point, your argument becomes a traditional economic argument which puts us back into the realm of arguing about the costs of the policy (I.E. The taxes lost and consumers not getting what they want) vs the perks of the policy (I.E. an Increased saving rate and people who are more prepared for retirement).