THE PRICE OF FREEDOM | Lawrence W. Reed


there’s nothing about Liberty that’s automatic or guaranteed there’s nothing about it that says that just because you’ve had it your kids will have it government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody that’s why we need this strong authoritarian leader that you know will bring us back to the origins will bring us back to what our founding fathers intended under socialism you have the greatest potential for the abuse of power for those who are politically connected to use power to their advantage if you don’t want a revolution you have to live by the rules but the rules are wrecked the last item is about my health Fiat of pistachio no Warren Street American ski economist president fund economics chorus Lydia yet very mission premier Avoca Mamiko prayer in the church family can scoop pilots kukaku Roboto does not provided libertarians let our stability resign your only option especially our Iranian rial reason Thank You Lawrence for coming Thank You McHale please tell us about the fund and what she do and what are your greatest achievements okay I’m president of the foundation for economic education it was founded in 1946 by the late Leonard Reed no relation to me the purpose is to educate and inspire young people high school and college age in particular in ideas of individual liberty free markets and personal character and we do that through a very robust website fee fi e dot org and also through seminars that we host all over the country all over the US but also in other countries as well we have free online courses we’re very active in social media every single day we post four or five or six new pieces we have 70 years of material archived and easily searchable it’s a treasure trove of free-market ideas going back decades what is your interpretation of Liberty what is Liberty according to to your front Liberty to us is the absence of the initiation of force it means that force ideally is confined to retaliatory instances where someone has violated someone’s rights rights to life contract peaceful Association and then force must be used to repel that violence otherwise people should be free to make decisions live with the consequences of them to map out their own personal lives as long as they do no harm to other people do you think those ideas are popular enough today in today’s society and if not why so well they’re certainly not as popular as I would like them to be whatever they do become that popular we can close down the foundation and consider our work having been done but even then we wouldn’t do that because you have to constantly educate for the future for the next generation I think there are a lot of temptations that people face everyday that draw them away sometimes from ideas of Liberty there’s a temptation to get something through government at other peoples expense that may seem more more quickly acquired than through peaceful voluntary means hard work investment as well more so some people are drawn to that some people don’t have the character to speak truth to power or to avoid using their connections to power to get something at other peoples expense some people just don’t understand basic economics they may have good intentions but they fail to comprehend the fact that government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody and there’s always a trade-off if government gives you something it’s only possible to the extent it can do something to you or to someone else so it’s a constant educational battle always has been and what would you call the biggest threat to the idea of Liberty the biggest threat to the ideas of Liberty I think is the erosion of character when people allow their personal character to fall apart when they become say dishonest less committed to the truth when they become arrogant and condescending and think that they can rule over other people that they have the knowledge necessary to run other people’s lives when they cease to be responsible when instead they point the finger of blame for their own shortcomings at other people and say well you owe me a living or you must bail me out or you must give me something I’m entitled to it when they allow their character to erode in that fashion and they take on those kinds of destructive mentalities it’s very harmful to Liberty I don’t think a dishonest society or an irresponsible society or Society of people who don’t respect the lives and property of their fellow citizens that society cannot be a free one and what would you call like the biggest issue to solve libertarians today I mean what is one issue that you think hinders the advancement of hinders the popularity of libertarianism among people today well I can think of a couple and I’m not sure which one I would put as more important but one certainly is corporate welfare mm-hmm there are a lot of people who are sort of superficially opposed to things like free markets or capitalism because they think that those things mean corporations or business people using their political connections for personal advantage those of us who understand and are trying to promulgate a different perspective we’re trying to get people to understand know we’re opposed to that – that’s not really free markets when somebody uses politics and their political connections the force of government to disadvantage their competitors to get some sort of subsidy we should as libertarians oppose that strongly as much as we oppose subsidies for anything else so getting people to understand what real free markets are and the crony capitalism art a part of that is a big challenge it’s raw drawing a lot of people to socialism because they they hear the message of Bernie Sanders who says I’m opposed to big companies using their political connections and they think I’m for that when they really need to understand that under socialism you have the greatest potential for the abuse of power for those who are politically connected to use power to their advantage so if you’re opposed to that you should be for free markets not for any kind of socialism so that’s one issue I think another at least in America is immigration that’s an issue that has divided a lot of people and unfortunately there was a time in America when almost all of us regarded the individuals as a great resource as when people come to America we used to think that they brought culture and they brought diversity they worked they added to our society in so many ways but the welfare state today has so confused the issue but a lot of good Americans who are sympathetic to immigrants but what has caused them in many cases to be skeptical of more immigration is they see immigrants coming and then getting benefits of some kind no I think that’s overdone if statistics tend to show that immigrants don’t use public services anymore than Native Americans do but still it’s complicated the issue unfortunately and we’ve forgotten many many Americans have forgotten the importance of a vibrant culturally diverse energetic enterprising Society of independent hard-working people wherever they may be from but you can’t really blame them for that because the issue is not isolated from the welfare state that actually exists as really the the outcomes of the immigrations that they see yeah are not necessarily as positive as they would have been on the free market exactly right I don’t mean to suggest that they don’t have a that there’s not a kernel of truth in their argument there is just the the welfare state so confuses the issue I just wish that we could reduce or eliminate that and then people would see more clearly the value of people coming to America not for any kind of government provided goodie not because of any political party trying to demagogue them to join their party or vote for them but rather because they want to work and contribute to society that’s exactly the argument in your reactionary is used in the populist use in Europe as well as in the u.s. to advance their agenda is that they’re saying that you know we have a welfare state and we have the immigrants who sort of leech off you know of our wealth because every citizen sees himself as a you know having a stake in the government that they’re paying taxes to they also see themselves as privileged and I don’t feel like that’s entirely wrong attitude because you know the Constitution protects American citizens not in people the whole world yeah and so the government exists for them even though there may be disagreements about whether it should be as big or as pervasive but it exists to serve them and not some other people around them and that’s perfectly legitimate I understand that they’re the ones paying taxes they are the citizens they have say and in what the government does because the government imposes conditions and taxes and what-have-you upon them the problem here is one of government grown too large I would like to see it small enough that we don’t have to fight over it because it’s such a tiny portion of our lives that it’s it’s not worth fighting for over-over I agree with you completely but other means to achieve that goal in current society and what are they I think the only means ultimately is through education and that is by convincing people of the sound arguments for less government and then by their subsequent behavior they will help us deliver less governments so you don’t buy the argument that in a democracy government Oh government only grows and never shrinks well that’s certainly been the trend most of the time Thomas Jefferson put it well when he said the tendency of things is for government to grow and for the individual to retreat something to the effect it’s kind of perverse argument that the radical right makes today is that they’re saying you can’t protect Liberty through democratic institutions precisely because democratic institutions sort of follow the will of the masses and the will of the masses will always be to demand more welfare to the tragedy of the Commons basically and that’s why we need this strong authoritarian leader that you know will bring us back to the origins will bring us back to what our founding fathers intended and that’s what happened in Singapore you know they had a leader and he sort of installed the market economy on do this on Singapore my point is that maybe that’s inevitable that’s the logic of you know of a Republican isn’t that it won’t get so dysfunctional then people start to look for answer in the individual yeah well I mean that may be the case that may be what happens over the long term but I don’t think libertarians should focus their attentions or their energies on trying to find the right authoritarian figure who will deliver Liberty to me that sounds a little incongruous and of course there’s no guarantee that even a good person that you think you can trust with power we’ll exercise it properly once you give it to it genitals are just I think more likely that he will not or that over time he’ll be corrupted by that power I think we have to focus on ideas and let the chips fall where they may does democracy actually allow for us to move the society in that direction well you know I don’t want to suggest the democra democracy is some kind of guarantor of of Liberty of course it’s number one saving grace or it’s number one positive principle is simply that it allows for change to happen without violence that you can vote for those who will give you something different but it’s no guarantee that that difference will be a positive thing you could vote yourself into slavery it’s funny to hear that because that’s the kind of logic that Vladimir Putin uses in Russia when he advocates you know for there to be no change and he well obviously we don’t have a democracy in Russia it’s a working democracy but his argument is that you know if you want if you don’t want a revolution you have to do to play by the rules not the rules are rigged a much bigger level than in the US but in the u.s. they seem pretty much written as well you know you disagree with that Oh increasingly I think yeah the people that you might think wow there’s a man or woman of character they would do well if it were in public office but they say things like that’s dirty business why would I want my name dragged through the mud I’m going to do something else so you end up with the worst of both worlds bad people running big government so basically libertarian hopes are such that there will be this corpus of politicians who will come to power and decide to give it away I know that sounds fanciful but I don’t know what the alternative is I mean how do you dismantle the state you either rip it apart overnight through some sort of violent revolution with almost every assurance that the result will not be positive for liberty or you dismantle it peacefully at one brick at a time because you’ve done your work and you’ve educated people that that’s the way to go so they support the politicians who will deliver and they discipline the politicians who won’t deliver that do you think the power of education is stronger than the power of incentives and because in your other essay that I’ve read and the incentives matter who might be in trouble you you describe pretty much what uh what I’ve been describing right now is that instead the incentives are set up in such a way that it’s in everyone’s personal interest to behave the way they behave and the kind of selection that yours own among the people who go into politics is distorted to such a degree that you know no libertarian no and no honest person you just go through yeah well education and incentives are both very powerful tools in fact part of our education process has to be to get people to understand the power of incentives that itself as an educational point that we should support a kind of system in which the incentives move people in the right direction toward respect for lives and property where the disincentives to steal or to use fraud or violence are powerful and one of the great virtues of the free market is that it tends to align incentives in directions that lead to mutual benefit across society in a free market where you can’t use the government to get something and other people’s expense well then you’re left with the alternative of having to produce to produce for consumers having to please your customers because there’s no alternative that’s where the incentive lies but I think to get their education is indispensable and what happened to the American universities then yeah American universities I shake my head and sigh because to a great extent many corners of academia that’s where the problem is today and I think a lot of that is because universities are no longer dependent so directly as they once might have been on actual paying customers on achievement that’s right and through such artificial apparatuses as tenure you know we tend to reward for a lifetime poor performance I think they should be there should be a lot less government involvement in incentives that’s that’s been the source of so much corruption that’s why today you’ll almost never see a university academic on his own initiative going out to talk about the virtues of less government sometimes they do it through maybe a privately funded Center that might be on their campus where they have some degree of autonomy but as agents of the state employees of the state in to a great extent they become spokespersons for the state they work for the government and they want the government to get bigger surprise surprise it’s my feeling and that’s the outsider’s perspective obviously is that the biggest shortcoming of the American libertarians is that you’re very reluctant to go into politics and there hasn’t really emerged a person who would personify your ideas that’s why Ron Paul for example was so effective for a while at the time he was like this beacon of hope for the fresh face and the fresh face yes but he’s like what 77 now so and we’re still when we’re thinking about libertarian politicians we’re still thinking about Ron Paul yeah and I feel like that is actually 81 or 82 that’sthat’s just yeah that’s insane he’s been like maybe the fresh face for the past 50 years yeah and there hasn’t been someone like him since that and to me that seems like a big problem yeah I would grant that I mean I would love for there to be someone who is of such solid character it’s such great ability to articulate these ideas that people in great numbers say wow this guy has some answers or this this woman this man whatever it may be yeah I’d like to see that happen but by the same token I I don’t want to overdo or overemphasize the importance of politics in our lives it isn’t everything I mean it’s important but this is where we disagree okay do you believe in fact it yeah I believe that the politics shape our life more than any thing else really and you can work hard you know you can do your best if the politics are not right you’re gonna fail oh I don’t disagree with that I admit that politics is very important I also admit I wish it worked and I certainly wish the best for those many people who for whom politics is a their cup of tea and I say well good that’s fine that’s you then there are a lot of ways in which you can live a good life especially if you keep your character high but for those who do focus on politics yeah I wish there were more who were more principled articulate persuasive but the time will tell if we can produce those kinds of people the American experiment was actually funded on this it’s a political project yeah and all the success that the u.s. had stems from this from the few very good people you know who who did what they did who who were politicians who created that framework yeah but even they would be the first to say that’s all it was it was a framework the most important thing was that it it was a framework that allowed people to do their thing and that’s where the greatness of America would be it will be not in politics we wanted to make politics such a small corner of our lives that it liberated people to do far greater things in civil society in business and so forth so I one of the things I applauded about the founders is they realized that politics isn’t and shouldn’t be the central focus of our lives but the only way you get there is a you have to get your hands dirty that’s right yeah if somebody has to get involved and get in there and and dismantle it and you have to also hope that there will be the political consensus among people to support that because if you if you have the right people the right positions but they’re not representative of the public at large the good they can do will be undone by the next guy so it still comes down to a mass popular education and understanding of Liberty so that those people in government can do the right thing you get away with it so my understanding of the situation is such that the the socialists and the Democrats will the in a matter you know have this product that don’t doesn’t really work and we have numerous examples of it’s not working but somehow they manage to to sell it to to the audience and why do you think it happens and why even the domestic examples like Detroit for example would happen to Detroit no lessons have been learned from that mm-hmm oh I wouldn’t say no lessons have been learned I lived in Michigan for 30 years and I think there are a lot of people that she can still vote Democrat down oh it’s a little bit of a swing state to it I mean I mean they saw what happened but you know the outside of Detroit itself the rest of the state is much more sympathetic especially the west side of the state to ideas of liberty and free markets then Detroit is okay so maybe the question is how can Detroiters who have been so damaged by leftist ideas still be so supportive of them well half of them have left the city so apparently you know that it was once a city of almost 2 million I think and now it has 700,000 so there are a lot of people who apparently didn’t quite agree in Detroit with with those ideas and they left leftist the statist perspective has an awful lot of short term appeal it oftentimes you can get people to forget the long run are not even considerate if they can get something in the short run and that is often what leftists are selling they’re selling security for the foreseeable future we’re going to give you something now they don’t tell you what that might mean down the law in the long run and our job is often to explain to people that there are a lot of things you can do in the short run that seem to be beneficial but that are harmful in the long run I mean it’s like going to a party the bartender who says here have another you know that’s hard to resist if you know that for the moment it’s going to make you feel better it’s going to make the party a lot more fun okay he doesn’t say here have another drink so that tomorrow you can have a nice nasty headache our job is to try to convince people that a little character and self-discipline now is going to be of more benefit to you in the long run then this short-term stuff that momentarily makes you feel good but then saddles you with a lifetime problem but this brings about the the the game theory dilemma thing is that while refusing to use a certain instrument to your advantage you just basically surrender it to your opponents I do think that refusing to use a certain populist rhetoric to win over the support is self-defeating still yeah well why not turn that around and say to an audience you know I’m tempted to use the same kind of populist rhetoric that large audiences seem to like these days I could do that with you but let me tell you why that that compromises in my belief by my moral standing let me tell you why it’s more important for me to speak the truth to you at least whether you’re successful or not you can go to sleep at night knowing that you didn’t pander to the masses you didn’t compromise on principle you didn’t offer something that was you don’t know do you think your hand during all the masses is necessarily a bad thing that’s a very good question if you’re pandering in the form of offering them something at other peoples expense that’s a bad thing but if if you can appeal to their innate desire that most people have to be free of arbitrary forceful interference in their lives if you can get them excited about living independent lives in which they’re in charge and some wise guy in the distant capitol city isn’t running their lives for them maybe you could call that pandering but I think you know our side probably needs to use a little bit more passion and emotion that getting people to appreciate Liberty it’s powerful stuff it’s what makes life worth living I think our side lacks a clear understanding of who the enemy is and that’s where Trump did a really good job at creating this idea of establishment and that’s why he was elected president and I think libertarians are in a very good position to do the same kind of a maneuver oh yes and to attack the establishments but establishment but for whatever reason Trump did it and libertarians never did well perhaps we should do more of that you’d have to ask each individual libertarian who may have run for office why didn’t you employ that tactic more if I were running for office I certainly would I would make it an anti-establishment campaign I would point out that the one of the greatest enemies to prosperity and our liberties is the unholy alliance between elitist bureaucrats and and those with political connections in the business world I would I would cash you know that I would try I would say look every dollar of corporate welfare is a dollar that’s taken out of your pocket I would use that issue if I were running for for something that’s a kind of populist appeal but the kind of populism that some people use certainly there is a libertarian populism the Bernie Sanders employs is a very destructive I mean it’s it’s appealing to envy and and using government to steal from people I certainly strongly object to that kind of populism but the reason why Bernie Sanders succeeds a succeeds in his rich rhetoric is precisely because we see this corporate welfare and we don’t see politicians from any party objecting to it the the stimulus was voted in by both parties yeah yeah well I know that there’s been plenty of people in the Republican Party who espouse Liberty but then when it comes to voting on important things like bailouts they’re they cave to the crisis of the moment and I lament that but there are some exceptions I know you’re gonna ask me now who and I realize they’re few and far a number I’d have to really think about that but I’m not an expert in you know how do we breed the right politicians all I know is that if you ever do get the right ones it’ll because it’ll be because somebody worked on people when they were very young imbued them with ideas of Liberty ignited their passions for that cause and set them on their merry way funnily enough I think libertarians are much bet position to fight for actual political influence in Russia than in the u.s. because in Russia we very well understand that government and the kind of system it created is the enemy and there’s no future there but I think American libertarians are still suffering under the illusion that you know they can work under the existing system bring about change and I became skeptical about that recently maybe there has to be some substantial crisis in our future that helps us get our message across maybe so it’s the old argument of the frog in the pot you know if you put him in when the waters lukewarm and turn the heat up slowly he may never jump out but you drop him into a pot of already boiling water he jumps out right away it may well be I don’t know this for sure it may well be that Liberty ideas will not truly be successful until there’s some crisis that awakens the conscience of people I don’t know I I’d rather work to see that happen without a crisis mm-hmm but either way it seems to me my work is is no different it’s you still do the best you can on the with the youngest of people so that the right ideas are in place whatever the future circumstances may bring so going back to your essay about fall of Rome are we Rome then because there’s a lot of people a lot of people clearly see that there is a problem but there’s no obvious solution to that problem and the fate of the Cato is not that is a fate of a failure not a victory yeah well of course we have something in our day that Cato and Cicero people like that defenders of the Old Republic didn’t have in their day and that is an awful lot of history 22.2 of an awful lot of economic understanding and literature that we did that they didn’t have so I’d like to think maybe our fate doesn’t have to be the same as theirs we can point to our the 1500 years since and what we have learned and escaped the same fate that fate that they suffered but there are a lot of lessons no question about it from the the course of the Roman Republic both Rome in America arose in the first place in a rejection of concentrated power both America and ancient Rome recognized early that putting so much power in the hands of a monarch or central government was harmful to the liberties of the people so they dispersed power created representative assemblies and respected basic rights to a greater degree flawed though it was then perhaps any Society beforehand but when they lost their understanding and appreciation for those principles they lost their liberties and it’s the same battle today we have to point out to people there’s nothing about Liberty that’s automatic or guaranteed there’s nothing about it that says that just because you’ve had it your kids will have it it’s it requires that we constantly recommit ourselves must of the courage to defend it because the world is full of people not only overseas but within our midst who will happily take your liberties from you if you give them the opportunity it’s a never-ending battle do you think it became easier to defend Liberty after the Soviet Union collapsed or it actually became harder because you lost this you know very obvious enemy yeah I think in the in the immediate years after the fall of communism it was easier because there were so many people on the Left who had been holding up the Soviet Union or socialized economies of Eastern Europe as some kind of example see you know that ridiculous thing I don’t know it was at the time and we recognized that but there were plenty of people who thought they were good examples so in the immediate years after the downfall of the Soviet empire it was easy for us to say aha told you so see look what happened ecological economic moral and spiritual nightmare after decades of the concentration of power but you know memories have faded and now we have younger generations who have never experienced the Soviet empire and it’s it’s forgotten quarter in their history book so it’s like in many cases we’re starting from scratch again and to educate people young people in something that yeah 30 years ago was easy to people of that day to to use as an example of our ideas but now we have to educate upcoming generation to never experience the old Soviet Union well I really wish to share your optimism and I’m quite optimistic myself but my optimism directed towards the I’d say towards more radical ideas I think that just talking about good things is not enough I think we have to do something you’re doing an important job but I wish more people stood up and became agents of change instead of just you know transmitters of those ideas I’d like to think that you and I are in complete agreement on that and I think that we will see more such people to the extent that groups like fee are successful at educating young people about these ideas some of them will muster the courage to go forth in very dramatic ways but it’s the ideas that will propel them and that’s what we at fie work to try to make them appreciate awesome thank you very much for this interview spicy burstows material mmm gasps dr. Lawrence Reed president fund economics cover Aditya stuffy I keep a piece which is McConnell bracelet II Bitcoin estimates radio the Novick stage thank you very much Florence thank you Michael appreciate it yep and we’re done great [Music] I’m little sick right now my sweat ready I will flash out of them [Music]

100 thoughts on “THE PRICE OF FREEDOM | Lawrence W. Reed

  • Выпуск на английском, не забудьте включить субтитры! // UPDATE: Нда, я только что умудрился их случайно удалить. Буду сейчас заново писать, кошмар. UPDATE2: НОВЫЕ САБЫ ГОТОВЫ.

  • Я послушал фоном и все понял. Теперь я тоже могу бить боржоми из бокала.

  • Выскажусь с точки зрения марксизма. Вообще основная критика капитализма заключается в том, что капиталист владеющий средствами производства (например фабрикой) приобретает материалы (например дерево) и нанимает рабочих (которые вынуждены согласиться, перед лицом голода) выполняющих работу над материалами которая увеличивает стоимость и создает конечный продукт (например стул). Конечный продукт, который по сути состоит из слияния материалов + работы, рабочие отчуждают капиталисту за зарплату которая ниже стоимости проделанной ими работы, что бы капиталист мог перепродать этот продукт по реальной рыночной цене и получил прибыль. И так, я отдаю себе отчет, что я пишу либертарианцам и вы можете не соглашаться с тем что капиталисты таким образом систематически присваивают результаты труда рабочих накапливая капитал и в итоге создавая монополии с которыми маленькие капиталисты конкурировать не смогут (кстати, Адам Смит предупреждал об опасности монополий, и считал, что налоги должны быть выше для богатых), по этому я решил представить, без пергибов, на основе фактов которые у нас есть, что будет если Россия станет либертарианской, вот парочка мыслей:
    Известно, что в России есть огромное неравенство, по этому показателю мы даже обгоняем США, 1% самых богатых Россиян владели 36% всего богатства (WID database) в 2014, а в 2015 уже 42% (новых данных пока что нет, но тенденция явно останется той же). При этом мы все знаем про олигархов, которые "честно сами заработали" проведя с государством приватизацию. Теперь они хранят деньги в офшорах, там находится сумма, эквивалентная 75% годового национального дохода. Кроме того мы знаем, что в России плоская шкала налогов (кстати в ЕС и США прогрессивная и живут же как-то), низкие или почти отсутствующие налоги на наследство, богатство и корпоративные налоги (повторюсь, на западе не так), в плане налогов мы ближе к либертарианскому идеалу. Я думаю с этими фактами тут никто не будет спорить, по этому наложим на них либертарианские реформы:
    В центре либертарианской идеологии неприкосновенность частной собственности, по этому про штрафы, санкции или тем более про пересмотры итогов приватизации даже не может быть и речи. Абрамович, Сечин, Дерипаска и другие спокойно выдыхают. Дальше, либертарианцы отменяют налоги – "ведь налоги воровство" (однако замечу, что воровство было на стадии присвоения капиталистом труда рабочего), и это очень хорошая реформа. Для Абрамовича, Сечина, Дерипаски и других, теперь им не надо вообще платить налоги. Я даже не буду говорить про платную медицину и образование которое станет недоступным для бедных и менее качественным для всех остальных 99%. Я не знаю как бедный или инвалид будет лечиться от рака (в среднем качественная химиотерапия стоит $30k а операция $40k)? Видимо никак не будет. Но я скажу, что низкие налоги для богатых, а уж тем более их отсутствие ведет к колоссальному расслоению общества и дефициту бюджета, и это не шутки. Такая экономическая система не ведет к свободе и демократии, она ведет к неравенству, это очень выгодное устройство общества для ультра-богатых людей, которые получат доступ к почти бесплатному (за еду) рынку труда, будут освобождены от налогов и регуляций (смогут загрязнять природу например или снизить безопасность условий труда рабочих). При этом бизнес по природе своей очень закрытая и авторитарная организация, корпоративная структура ближе к фашизму, а не демократии, бизнес будет совершенно неподотчетен людям. "Проголосовать рублем" – очень наивная мысль в век маркетинга и рекламы, я совершенно ясно понимаю, что я не могу повлиять на корпорацию вроде Apple или Facebook.
    Таким образом, если вы на входите в 1% самых богатых людей и ваши деньги не в кипрских офшорах, то призываю вас познакомиться с левой мыслью. Марксисты тоже верят в то что государство исчезнет. А Китай, Совок и Корея – это просто тоталитарные государства, ничего не имеющих общего с настоящим марксизмом. Если интересно, то погуглите для начала Piketty (он кстати даже не марксист, но у него интересно про неравенство) или пишите мне, я посоветую с чего можно начать знакомство с левой мыслью.
    Всем удачи!✊

  • Не знаю, то о чём они говорят – какие-то банальности право. Понимаю, что грех иностранного гостя не поспрашивать, да ещё и такого, но незнающие английский – вы тут навряд ли что-то теряете.

  • Спасибо, Светов, за интересное интервью. Правда, было бы неплохо делать перевод, а то не все российские либертарианцы могут в английский.

  • Как обычно ламповое и интересное видео,спасибо вам,Михаил

  • Бле, гайз, просто эмэйзинг. It's a rare pleasure these days to hear an interview like that. Lawrence is rather persuasive and seems like a really likable person. I'm in love with the way he's speaking. There's not a single filler in his speech, you know? After watching the video I am left with nothing but a wish to have an uncle like that. I bet he's a great journalist. I surely intend to get a grasp on more of his works. Михаил, просто заебумба в этот раз.

  • Ребят, извиняюсь за тупость, но объясните, что такое эстаблишиенд

  • «Жаль только — жить в эту пору прекрасную
    Уж не придется — ни мне, ни тебе»

  • Достойный разговор на равных. Спасибо за контент и отдельно за субтитры.

  • Спасибо, что не накладывали русский перевод!
    Update: да и вообще спасибо за такое классное интервью с Лоренсом Ридом! Очень вдохновляет.

  • Это замечательное интервью, ни одного лишнего слова! Всё очень точно, лаконично. Лоуренс, конечно идеалист. Образование хорошо, и в то же время борьба за власть ещё важнее.

  • SVTV, Посмотрев это интервью,я понял почему леваки и статисты-этатисты все еще у власти ,а класс-либ и либертарианство все еще за задворках истории (не только в США,а вообще во всем мире),Светов спрашивает у президента FEE (а не у случайного работника FEE) -"леваки зло-зло,ВУЗы левацкие-левацкие,свободы пропагандировать нужно-нужно,большое правительство плохо-плохо,в политику идти нужно-нужно,так почему же лишь Трамп делает все это,а вы в этом время сидите на попе ровно",а вот ответ – "эммм,ну вы знаете надо то надо, но я чет времени на это не нашел",хех,вот и ответ на то – "почему леваки и статисты-этатисты все еще у власти ,а класс-либы и либертарианцы нет",молодец Светов,дави этих балаболов статистов,поэтому любые критики Трампа ,это неудачники,если вам не нравится Трамп и его решения,так чего же вы сами не стали президентом или почему вы не избрались в сенат,кст, либертарианцам почему-то нашлось место лишь в РФ,где полный вакуум власти,но ни в "свободной" Европке,ни оплоте демократии и всех свобод (США),им места почему-то не нашлось ,кст, вполне успешные класс-либы есть еще в Армении (где тоже был вакуум власти),вот и думайте,а что дала нам эта демократия (я если что о всеобщем избирательном праве,что придумали соц-демы, а не о личных свободах),вот так вот.

  • Я блядь не понял нах ? Че все на английском епта? Походу придётся мне топать к параше телевизору. Там все понятно

  • Выпуск шикарен. Спич у гостя просто бесподобен, легко воспринимается на слух. Спасибо за вашу работу !

  • Нужно делать озвучку. Субтитры это препятствие для просмотра.

  • < Социализм наиболее приятная среда для злоупотребления властью
    Ахуеть ребят, да мы походу при социализме живем!1!

  • Выпуск должен был бы закончится кавером на Джонни Кэша в исполнении Рида

  • Это очень круто, делай пожалуйста в том же ключе. Интервью с зарубежными гостями это вообще не занятая ниша на Ютубе, мне кажется это вполне может стать форматом 2к19, как в свое время Дудь. Могу за себя сказать точно: я бы ещё смотрел, но так никто не делает.

  • Зачем смотреть это интерьвью? На 00:0100:05 даны выводы касательно абстрактной ситуации, но легко приминимы к рф.
    Валить
    Нельзя
    Оставаться…

  • Где молодые либертарианцы в америке? Двое которых Михаил приглашал выглядят как часть системы с которой рассказывают что борются. Может быть это и не так, но сидя в пиджаке и галстуке с каменным лицом пытаться убедить что вон те другие парни в пиджаках и галстуках с каменным лицом плохие, а мы знач. хорошие( тем более когда он говорит об обучении молодого поколения), это какой-то маразм. Хорошо что Миша в жилетке.

  • "Светов что-то рассказывает"
    "Угу,угу,угу,угу,еа,угу"

  • Прекрасная беседа, такой приятный и воодушевляющий собеседник.
    Спасибо, Михаил!

  • Здравствуйте. На данный момент я школьник, хочу быть политически грамотным и разбираться в данной сфере. Но доступной и понятной информация очень мало, к тому же в разных источниках – разная информацию. Подскажите пожалуйста, где я могу узнать о политике доступным и понятным языком и к тому же чтобы информация была точна. Мне будет достаточно, хотя-бы узнать с чего начать обучение и откуда черпать информацию. Спасибо за внимание.

  • Увы, образование не панацея, потому что оно не меняет человеческой природы. Умный и образованный – еще не значит ответственный, трудолюбивый или свободный от эгоизма.
    Люди выбирают профиты в краткосрочной перспективе, предлагаемые левыми и этатистами, не только потому ,что не понимают, что в долгосрочной перспективе это приводит к плохому, но и потому, что те, кто предлагают благо в долгосрочной перспективе никогда не говорят о том, какое конкретное время займет этот путь к благу. Мало выбрать путь к благу – на нем еще нужно удержаться. А удержаться сложно, когда ты не знаешь сколько еще идти до своей цели. А без конкретно поставленного времени на достижение люди более склонны к разочарованию в любой идее, потому что у каждого человека свое представление о долгосрочности. Для кого-то долгосрочная перспектива это "в следующем десятилетии", а для кого-то уже следующий год – весьма долгосрочная перспектива. И вот тут начинает играть роль избирательный цикл: люди выбирают "хорошо сейчас, но плохо плохо потом" потому, что они знаю, что это плохо может и не наступить, потому что через условные четыре года они могут изменить решение. Поэтому идеи, которые про "сейчас ничего предложить не можем, но в долгосрочной перспективе все будет збс" не пользуются популярность – они просто не выживают столько, сколько требуется для их реализации. Если люди не увидят существенных плодов выбранного курса в рамках одного избирательного цикла – большинство всегда примет решение сменить курс в следующие 4 года. По крайней мере в работающих демократиях, а не как в России. В работающих демократических системах люди не склонные терпеть долго ради иллюзорного блага в отдаленном будущем. И это не вопрос ума или образованности – это вопрос прагматичности, потому что человеческий век короток. Люди будут больше симпатизировать сторонам, предлагающим благо в долгосрочной перспективе, не тогда, когда люди станут более умными и образованными, а тогда, когда эти долгосрочные перспективы не будут им стоить самого дорого, что у них есть – времени жизни.

  • Содержательный разговор, коснулись перспектив и методов. Нужно побольше таких конструктивных бесед с единомышленниками

  • Отличный выпуск! Было бы очень здорово увидеть топ книг, которые помогают понять происходящее, повышать уровень своего личного образования.

  • идеи свободы, свободного рынка и индивидуализма необходимо прививать своим детям с самого детства, иначе следующие поколения будут ждать рабство, крах и нищета.

  • 21:30 а потом массы просто забудут о падении Детройта. Об этом перестанут говорить. В учебниках истории смягчат формулировки и притупят углы. А то как же не защищать систему? Это всё как всегда завязано на ценностях. Историческая память, здоровый социум, безопасность, свобода и швободка. Никто же не ориентируется в мире важного и не важного. Вот если бы можно было научить людей самостоятельно выбирать эти ориентиры, а не слушать авторитеты. Просто преподавать людям свободу может оказаться недостаточно.

    25:00 Интересно. Это только у нас в стране люди (некоторые) не пойдут голосовать за такого политика, потому что в интернете скажут, что будущая власть не может агитировать против "той же самой власти" как это сейчас и происходит?

  • 3:32 "некоторые люди просто не понимают азов экономики"
    А это правда, что экономическая наука тоже промывает мозги людям, заставляя их думать в категориях отношений связанных с государственным контролем и с контролем крупных банков и корпораций? Существует ли некая настоящая экономика и экономика системная? Если это так, то это же огромная проблема не чета непониманию азов массами!
    16:46
    На сколько же тяжело осознавать, что вся эта груда истеблишмента находящаяся у тебя на шее является горсткой шулеров. Дело не только в том что они работают на государство, но и в том, что жить с этой мыслью не так уж комфортно. Я так понимаю, что общество США в высшей степени общество "манипулятивных" людей, чьи убеждения не зиждятся на осознаваемых ими аксиомах и ценностях.
    26:54 Идея о воспитании политиков это идея Платона. Его академия была создана с этой целью.
    19:56 "Политика не должна становиться центром жизни"
    Если понимать политику в широком смысле как её (кажется :З) понимал Аристотель, в том смысле что сбить цену на базаре это тоже политика, так же как и запретить торговаться на том же самом базаре, ТО политика при любом раскладе остаётся центром жизни за исключением совсем особых случаев.
    Политика это самое важное в жизни гражданина включённого в общественную жизнь. Проблема ещё и в том, что это сфера этики – не политики, не экономики. Был бы у нас иисус христос, но у нас только куча специалистов.

    18:50 я слышу слово "fine" Пипец какой осторожный и непонятно ради чего и кого. Какие же это деструктивные модели: кто-то принимает решения по твоей политической воле голосовать за этого человека, а тебе "fine".

  • 26:00 опять же Нэвэльный, блэт, почему-то обращается к зависти, но не к ответственности.

  • Мега крутое интервью! Спасибо, Миш , за проделанную тобой работу. Идеи из твоих интервью созревают и прорастают в головах наших граждан и эти правильные идеи прорастут в правильные мысли, которые перейдут в грамотные действия по трансформации сложившегося мракобесия из-за вынужденного невежества масс

  • Спасибо Михаил! Это очень важный, концептуальный диалог. Наложите пожалуйста, на видео, звуковой перевод на русский язык.

  • Очень достойный, вдохновляющий собеседник. Такой, кого хотелось бы назвать равным в его годы.

  • Очень предметный и информативный диалог получился, круто, посмотрел на одном дыхании

  • А мне стало как-то грустно от видео. Ожидал от такого гостя услышать ответы, которые станут для меня какими-то откровениями, а получилось как-то наоборот. Быть услышанными они хотят, чтобы либертарианские идеи становились популярными, но в политику они не хотят, заигрывать с массами они не хотя, популизм им совесть будет грызть, ну а что тогда? А ведь их там даже не давят за политическую активность, не сажают за митинги и т.д. Сложилось впечатления, что они считают, будто либертарианские идеи настолько хороши, что сделают всё за людей. Но разве так бывает?

  • Уважаемый Михаил, огромное спасибо за великолепный диалог и потрясающего гостя! Получила огромное удовольствие! Спасибо!

  • На мой взгляд, перевод местами слишком экспрессивно окрашен, поэтому его точность теряется, но в целом хороший.

  • Кстати, говорят, что если лягушку кинуть в кипяток, то она скорее всего умрёт сразу же… 🙁

  • 25:30 Язык тела выдаёт истинного фаната рынка, смотрящего на своего единомышленника

  • Thanks for this video! It is very interesting to see an interview with libertarians from other countries. I made a repost of this video on my facebook.

  • Ребята, помогите понять чем агенты отличаются от проводников (последние пару минут видоса).

  • Не совсем верный перевод на 3:43
    Он говорил не "steal" (украсть), а "take" – взять, в фразе "государство может дать лишь то, что само взяло у другого".

  • Желаю смерти всем любителям свободного рынка и прочим правым отбросам 🙂

  • Светов! Когда митинг против закрытия интернета по последнему закону?

  • Я не понимаю, каким нужно быть человеком, чтобы послушав Лоренса Рида и Светова или им подобных, и почитав статью Сурова про "Развитой Путинизм", поверить Суркову.

  • I just loved the discussion about the Liberalism, Freedom, and etc. I am from Brazil and I am impressed with the Venezuela Economy Destruction. I used to be in Venezuela before and now we just have an incredible destruction in the Production Chain, in any Market Segment. I just loved the interview. Congratulation. I am in favor of Freedom and I do see the situation under different principle as for example: Privatization x State Owned Company. It dependes on the country and its moral. The state owned company in South American is victim of our Politicians who destroy it with bad policy and setting up inside it the bad guys, the relatives, the indication as directors, etc. After doing this bad stuff they came to the public and say: see that a problem with state owned company, it is always a problem. This is just a Demagogic stuff and if you go to the Norway and make a public to the people to sell its state owned company oil you would neve get a public approval. Why? Because it is very well adminstrate. The problem is not be private or state owned company: the problem is the Efficiency of Business, good product, good public services, nice price, and that's it. I am sorry as you know my mother langue is portuguese but I am trying to make my point in English. I hope I did.

  • Ох мистер светов вери гуд интервью ай синк, итс вери понравилось ту ми

  • Сингапур никогда не был фримаркетом, хватит присваивать его в свою либертарианскую копилку, в которой ничего по-сути и нет.

  • Как вы поняли что социализм самая выгодная среда для злоупотребления властью?.
    Как передача средств производства в гос и или общественную собственность + равномерное распределение ресурсов и равенство создают среду для злоупотребления властью? Что за бред.
    И наделение большими полномочиями правителей это не характерная черта социализма.
    Свободный рынок от злоупотребления властью не защищает. Экономический режим определенного типа не защищает от злоупотребления властью.
    Товарищи. Не ведитесь на глупую демагогию, обращайте внимание на логические ошибки!

  • "Либертарианский" перевод: "government takes" – "правительство украло" и т.п.

  • РФ до сих пор социалистическое государство -70% экономики контролируется государством, всей страной содержим эти госкорпорации, даже роснефть уже субсидируем. На одну парашу тудей сколько бабок уходит! Так что ждите, уже скоро!

  • Перевод бы в виде текста, или видео с озвучкой, было бы очень хорошо.

  • Такой типичный лапуля-дед АмерикОнец в гостях)) Голос у него как из фильма. Кароче лойс)

  • Хотелось бы еще увидеть англоязычный формат выпусков. С люстрациями

  • На французском/японском тоже зайдет, по крайней мере стоит того, чтобы взглянуть

Leave a Reply

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