My Youtube Channel is Getting Pretty OK
My Youtube Channel is Getting Pretty OK
I’ve had a Youtube channel for years, but never did much with it. Until now. Original content is still sparse, but I’ve now assembled playlists of over 100 videos I’ve shot over the last quarter century.
Start with Most Watched, Fun Debates, and Cartoons! I’ve also got playlists for each of my four main books and my Bet On It podcasts.
Rounding out the collection are two catch-all categories: Freedom! and Caplan and Candor. If I’ve missed anything, or if you’ve got old footage for me to upload, just say the word.
I’m also open to requests to create other playlists on other topics. Tell me your dreams in the comments.
P.S. Here’s the latest video I’ve added, of my (in-person!) March 2020 debate on capitalism versus socialism against the University of Chicago’s Brian Leiter.
My Youtube Channel is Getting Pretty OK
You should put these videos on the main channel , almost nobody clicks through to the playlist
Question for Bryan:
Bryan's argument is that social democracy is bad because it harms the poor via immigration restrictions and building restrictions and presumably a million other regulations, and because it wastes the money it gathers by spending on non-poor people.
Leaving the first part aside, which is clearly true and I concede, is Bryan's view on the second part that spending on non-poor people is unjust, or not utility maximizing? Most people in society are consumed by one vice or other. The ur-cause of vice is lack of impulse control. Most people are consequently unable to assess risk (are innumerate) or unable to save for the future (have high discount rates). The welfare state's function is both social control (steering people to do things the state approves of with their money) but also to insure against the bad and predictable outcomes of people operating in a cognitively demanding society.
My question is: why is redistributing non-poor people's income back to them in essentially forced savings and a health care system bad? Would it still be bad if you could demonstrate that, say, social security improved human welfare, or is this a moral claim independent of results?