Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. Want to let you know if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And we want to let you know, no matter what walk of life you were from, we hope you feel welcome. And that goes for everybody.  Everybody, we're thrilled to have you with us and want to let you know as well about Modern Day Debate. If it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates to come. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, we are excited as Kay and Ariel will be debating the hot button issue, one of the greater hot button issues of the day. And so that little promo poster on the bottom right of your screen is for that debate this Wednesday. You don't want to miss it. So do hit that subscribe button and that notification button as well so you can see it alive. Now for tonight's debate, I want to let you know a few things, folks. In particular, we're going to have a very basic type of format. I think that's going to make it good. It's going to be a flexible 10 minute opening statement from each side. We're going to start with confite and then we're going to go to Tom jump for his opening and then we'll go into that open discussion in Q&A after. So if you happen to have a question, please fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with at Modern Day Debate makes it easier for me to get every question into that list for the Q&A. And we're excited though. This is the first debate of our new series called Woke Wars. So we're touching on some of the juicy topics of our day in politics and so it's going to be very fun doing that. So we are thankful to have our guests with us and they're linked in the description, folks. If you want to hear more from our guests, you can as their links are at the very top of the description waiting for you. So we are going to give them a chance to let you know what you can find at those links. Now confite has an interesting story too because in fact you could say Tom and confite have something in common namely they both actually used to debate on the old non sequitur show. So if you remember there was almost like a loosely speaking parent channel for us. They helped us get started big time and we are thrilled to have our guests confite and Tom jump with us. And so what we're going to do is we're going to hand it over to confite and say confite what can people expect to find at your link and thanks for being with us. Oh, thanks for having me.  I haven't done this in a while since non sec really closed down. I'm confite.  My links generally down below I run a podcast called Furries Get Breadpilled. Yes, I am a furry and we read anarchist theory and talk about it, which is always very fun. I also have a podcast where we're just about to start back up called Sig Marxism, which is about Warhammer 40,000 through more of a leftist hobby lens. And then of course I also on you on Twitch I have a history stream called Historiography where I tend to go over, you know, his topics in history and other stuff that I tend to like the most recent episode I did last Thursday was on Patrice Lumumba and some of the situation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So you know, I got a lot of stuff and I'm also I am almost done with my degree in history and I'm hoping to go to grad school and my focus is on like Middle Eastern history. So that's sort of my, my shall we say passion. Yeah. You got it. Well, we're thrilled to have you confite and we're also thrilled to have back Tom Jump, who also used to be on the old non sequitur show before he had that falling out with his dad, Steve McCray. We hope you're doing well, Steve. But Tom, what can people expect to find at your link, buddy? I am a shill for the Illuminati and lizard people. You can find my secrets of divulging into the lizard people culture and how we rule the world secretly on my channel. Tom is always up for a good surprise or I should say giving a good surprise. I want to encourage you folks, both of our guests are linked in the description. Those links are waiting for you. With that, we're going to get started. So confite, thanks so much. The floor is all yours for your opening statement in defending equity over equality. Yeah. Yeah. So to begin with, I think it is important that we lay down some definitions so that our debate doesn't get devolved down to bickering about different ones. According to George Washington University, equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and so and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. There's a terms of equality and of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are used interchangeably with equity and equality, but I want to make a note that equity and equality of outcome are not the same. Equality of outcome means that the outcome is mandated. Think, you know, Harris and Bergeron for all your Kurt Vonnegut fans. Equity is when the resources are provided to reach an equal outcome, but whether or not the one reaches it up is up to the person and their personal use of said resources. When dealing with issues of inequality in the world, generally speaking, equity is much more successful in bringing about good outcomes than equality. However, even equity is still just a band-aid still justice that that is the idea that systems of inequality themselves are changed so that the root of the inequality is dealt with is really what we should be striving for. This is sort of the root of the term social justice, which has become sort of taboo. Most cutters of the internet and become synonymous with like insane zealotry and virtue signaling over inane societal conditions. There are a few people that fit this stereotype, but they're far between. For me, the reason why I support equity and social justice is quite rational. I as an anarchist believe that no one should be denied basic necessities to survive simply because it is unprofitable to do so. That is my maxim. And so what does this mean sort of in the real world? Let's get down to it. Homelessness is a huge problem in America for one. In the city of New York, there is about 56,000 homeless people. And in stark contrast, there are 79,000 vacant apartments in New York City. The housing stock is available. Why is there homelessness in New York? It's pretty simple. It's more lucrative to leave apartments vacant so as to drive up land values. Leaving people out in the cold, as it turns out, is much more profitable than housing them. I think fundamentally this is a moral wrong. People deserve to live their lives in a dignified and fulfilling way according to however whichever way they please. And it's a travesty that more is not done to ensure this basic tenant. Another good example is food. We are told that overpopulation is a problem because people cannot be serviced with enough food. This is patently false. A 2013 study shows that at least 5,935 kilocalories per pound of crops directly edible by humans are grown alongside 3,112 kilocalories per pound of vegetable matter eaten by other animals, but not directly digestible by humans. Given that the required intake is only around 2,353 kilocalories, we produce enough food right now to feed the world four times over. Why don't we logistics? It's not profitable to transport food to places in central Africa that don't have like rail systems or other things. It's not profitable to build those things. So it's not done. That study also points out that, quote, it is clear that social inequalities, which give rise to excesses in insufficiencies in supply, distribution and availability exacerbate the sustainability challenge, not least by enhancing food wastage and placing a portion of the population outside of the easy reach of micronutrient fortification and supplement programs. If anyone's lived in a rural area, you know what I'm talking about. They generally people like FedEx and like DHS won't deliver to rural areas because it's not profitable to do so. The USPS will because they're not driven by the profit motive. I think we all know where I'm going with this. We can look at other specific examples that affect black and brown people as well as ones that affect poor people. But the answer is clear. The main cause for the most egregious types of inequality in the world is the profit motive. Whether it is American health care or world peace, the profit motive must be abolished if you want to have morality in these industries. So we want to see justice. The profit motive can be good for non-essentials and luxuries, but when applied to basic human needs, it becomes extremely predatory. Like, how much are you willing to pay to not be homeless, to have food? How much are you willing to pay to have your appendix removed, to have water? These are prices that are unavoidable, so people charge whatever they want. That is why we must, as a society, come together and achieve justice in these areas. And the way to do that is to ban scalping middleman who profit off human suffering. Since it mostly happens to do with money and historically people of color lack familiar wealth, this form of justice affects them the most. I could go on about the very specific issues that black and brown people face or, you know, poor people face as well and the intersection of them. That's sort of, by the way, intersectionality. That's what that means. It's the idea that, you know, race and things like that intersect with economic status and poverty in order to create inequalities. And, you know, recognizing that we can, you know, see inequalities and address them equally or address them in a just way. So in conclusion, equality is good. Equity is better. Justice is the best. And that's my time. Thank you very much, Khan. Fight. And we'll kick it over to T. Jump. Thanks so much, T. Jump, for being here. The floor is all yours for your opening statement. Thanks, guys. Interesting opening. My position is that if we look at the quality versus equity debate, there's usually this like a little logo picture represented on the Google, the Google image. It's a picture of a tall guy, a medium height guy and a short guy trying to watch a baseball game. And they each have one box and that's equality. And then equity would be to take the one box from the tall guy and give it to the really short guy. So the medium guy has one box, the really short guy has two box and the tall guy has no boxes.   We'll know you should probably take the boxes from the poor people and give them to the scientist because the scientist can make more boxes to help thousands of other poor and sick people. The problem is that justice and balancing out the amount of resources we have for everyone who needs them to have a happy life doesn't represent the real problem, which is nature. Nature is killing everyone all the time. That's nature is the cause of inequality. Nature is the cause of injustice. It's not people, it's not economics. Economics is what we're trying to do to try to overcome or to fight against nature. So we try to allocate resources to people who are going to make more boxes so that we can try to overcome nature. It's not just we just give out the boxes to try and make everybody happy. It's we give out the boxes as an investment to people to try and get them to make more boxes. We want the scientists, we want the researchers, we want the people who are going to make progress and fight against nature so we can have more boxes. Like there's some people who need boxes. We need farmers to have boxes. We need scientists to have boxes. We need the military to have boxes. We don't need the poor people to have boxes. So if you have three boxes, they're going to the science for farmers in the military and the poor people don't get any boxes because we need those other three things for the entire society to stay alive. The poor people, like if they die, it's sad, it's immoral, it's unjust, but they don't, they're going to destroy the economy if they go away. Whereas if we don't put enough boxes in the military and somebody else has more boxes in the military then we lose and everyone dies. So there are certain things we have to fight against in reality that require us to put boxes in places that are unjust because reality isn't just nature isn't just it's incredibly unfair, incredibly immoral. And we need to balance that by trying to put the resources we have, the boxes, into places that can do the most to fight against reality that produce the most productivity in our societies without causing the detriment. Economics is not easy. There's more ways to cause an economic system to fail than there is to succeed. There's very few economic systems that do succeed and thrive throughout time. And so changing those and making significant financial changes to the way we run economics is incredibly risky. It's like, if you're blindfolded and you're sitting on the edge of a cliff, take a step left, take a step right. Like, no, you got to go small, small steps. Any big steps are huge risks to the economy. And so the systems that we've built, capitalism and resources are designed as a motivation system that keep people motivated to keep the economy going. That's what economics is. It's just a way to try to get people confident in the system so that they will invest in the system. That's the entire point of economics and government. It's just you want people to be a part of this system and to try and build it up to keep it going. And if you don't have that, then you get economic collapse, you get revolts, you get all kinds of destruction of the economy that can't last, which is extremely common. It's very easy to destroy an economy. And so using the capitalistic system which has been proven to work while incredibly immorally, it does work. And it sustains governments for long periods of time. And so we know that system works in this horribly immoral world to try and fight against the things that nature is trying to do to destroy us. And even though it is unfair and we should try to pursue fairness, it's just not realistic. We don't have infinite resources. We can't just give boxes to everybody. We need to invest those boxes in the ones who can produce more boxes because we are constantly fighting against this nature that is trying to kill us and this destroying boxes every day.  I totally agree with it. It's just not realistic. We have this huge enemy to face. It's like we're in a spaceship called Earth and there's a limited amount of resources and we have to try and manage those resources as much as possible to sustain as much life as possible and to keep people working to make more resources. We can't just give these resources away to people who might need them to survive because everybody else also needs them to survive against this horrible enemy which is nature. So I mean, even though it's moral to pursue justice, it's not realistic. Like that's not what builds confidence in a system. That's not what makes it sustainable or what has not been proven to be in the past. And so it's better to invest in things like science and farms and military than to help the poor because there are some things we need to support life in this planet. And it's unfortunately that we can't provide for everybody but it's just a fact that we can't. And I'll conclude there. Gotcha, and thank you very much for that opening statement as well, Tom Jump. Wanna mention, cause I forgot to mention at the start, folks, we are thrilled to let you know that modern day debate is on podcasts and so I wanna let you know looking at the far right side of your screen, you can see just some of the many podcast apps were on. And so, hey, pull out your phone, find us on your favorite podcast app. And if you can't find us, let us know and we'll work to get on that podcast app. So you can listen to modern day debate anytime, anywhere. And Super Chat coming in from Steven Steen says, Tom, I have had a great quarantine together playing Parcheesy, taking care of our kids, James and Tioga, FaceTiming, Tom's dad, Steve McCrae, et cetera. So nice little Super Chat for you there, Tom. And we'll jump into the open conversation. So thank you very much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Yeah, well, I think the biggest thing is just like, you said, oh yeah, we need to allocate boxes to more scientists and stuff like that. We just, we don't. We allocate boxes to like, you know, random, you know, solid billionaires. That's what we do. We tend to allocate them in various ways that are not helpful. Like, you're right. Well, we spend 80% of the federal budget on healthcare. So most of it goes to helping poor and sick people. 15% of it goes to. No, a lot of that is bloat. You have to realize that a lot of that not only goes to, I mean, it goes to like social security. Yes, you're talking about a lot of it. Yeah, the efficiency of government doesn't matter. So government is inefficient and garbage. Yes, we need to fix that. But all of the inefficient system we have, 80% of it goes to help healthcare. It's 15% goes to military. Yeah, it's inefficient, but we should, yes, we should solve the inefficiency, but that doesn't change the fact that this is how we allocate money. We spend most of it to help sick people. I don't think that, I mean, we spend the majority of it to help sick people true. I'm trying to remember. I got to look up the. Federal budget? Yeah, I think you're talking, I'm trying to remember, because that's federally mandated. We have to spend that money. Yeah, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, yes. Yeah, and then those programs work. They help people and it really, I mean, not only that, but I would make the argument that it doesn't necessarily matter. Do you think that we should get rid of those programs and put them towards like scientific discoveries is the question? No, but I'd never said we should. Okay, well, I thought that you were saying earlier that you were saying that we only have a certain amount of boxes and we should give some to scientists. Okay. Yes, obviously. Okay. We do fun science too. Oh, I know. But we shouldn't take money from scientists who are healthy people and give them to poor unhealthy people to make their lives better. Like we should not be taking the money from scientists. We should, I think we should invest more in science for sure, but I'm saying we should not take money from scientists. We should not take money from military and give it to more healthcare programs because those things that we use it for right now, we need those. Those are important things. We don't need a big enough military right now. We can't even, you have to realize that like military is going away from, I mean, again, you have militaries that are super effective. Like ISIS has been very effective but they have almost no budget. They are using tactics that are much better than sometimes our military. They've been known to use drones and 3D printing and capturing T-55s and upgrading them and doing things like that. The kind of military here isn't important to the conversation. We need a military of some size with some level of technology. Oh yeah. That's not in debate. I'm saying that like- The particulars here don't really matter. Like how much military we need isn't the point. The point is that we do need a military and we do need to fund the military with boxes. And the military is just a bunch of healthy people that we're giving cool technology to. Like we shouldn't be taking their boxes because they're the tall one in the fence analogy and giving it to the short person because they need to have boxes. But they don't need, like some of these boxes are very superfluous. If you look at things- That point doesn't matter here. So I understand- Why doesn't that point matter is my question. Why doesn't that point matter? Because they should still have more boxes.  Should we take the box from the tall person and give it to the super short person? No. Like obviously if they're spare boxes, yes, we should take the spare boxes and give the spare boxes to everybody who needs them. But there is some amount of boxes that are not spare boxes. There is a necessary amount of boxes that need to go to the tall person. Even if the short person may need it more for their personal livelihood, the tall person needs the box. The military needs the technology to some degree. Now, there's obviously some superfluous stuff and we're not debating the superfluous stuff. I agree, superfluous stuff should be reallocated.  But the question is, well, should we still give the box to the tall person? Yes, there's still some boxes of the tall person needs. We need the military to have that. We need the scientists- I think like everyone has a basic, you know, necessity for life. We shouldn't deny anyone, you know, a right to an existence simply because, you know, they're considered non-essential or they're considered, I think human life in and of itself is something that we should value. You know, I mean- That's a good point. So let's talk about that point. Say we're in a spaceship, we have enough resources to feed 100 people, there's 200 people, who should we kill first? Well, here's the thing. The problem is that you're assuming that we don't have enough resources. I just, you know, I just recorded that study. We have enough resources to house people. We have enough resources to feed people. And, you know, we just aren't because it's not- That's the misunderstanding of how economics works. Like the reason we have those is because somebody built those houses and somebody built those houses because someone had the money to fund it and someone had the money to fund it because they were given boxes. So all of these things, the reason those exist is because someone had motivation to do it. And that motivation is the profit margin. Like this is a way to motivate people. Not always. You can, I mean- Again, this isn't 100%. It's not supposed to be always. This is the majority of how economics works is like you have some way to motivate people. That's the point of economics, the point of government. We need to motivate people to be confident in this system that we have which is profit margins and security usually. And those things get people to do work. We build buildings because we have confidence that it's worth the investments to do so. We build our houses here because we have confidence that we have security. So the greatest resource that is lacking is confidence. That's what makes economics so hard. You need people to be confident in the system.  So even though we might have enough food to feed everyone if we do that, if we decide to just start reallocating food and take it away from the rich people who funded the farms, who then stopped funding the farms because they don't have confidence that it's worth- No, that's not how that works. Don't interrupt here. So the whole point is that, yeah, rich people do run most of the government. Most of the things are produced by rich people. And if you get rid of the rich people, you get rid of most of the companies which produce most of the jobs. Like it's really hard to make a socialist system work. Really, really hard. Is it possible? Yes, there are co-ops. They have worked, there are many who haven't worked like the co-ops in Minnesota who had little gang wars all the time, hilarious stories. But the point is that we know capitalist systems work. They do produce confidence. They even though it's evil, I grant it's evil, it works. It's very good at sustaining economies and producing confidence and producing an amount of resources to sustain more lives than any other system we've ever tried in the past. So the point here is that if you decide to reallocate sources and take them away from the scientists and the funders and the farmers who need those resources to try and balance it out, you're gonna have problems. So this goes back to my question. You have, there is a limited amount of resources. We know for a fact there is a limited amount of resources. So how do you allocate those? Who are the people who you stop giving resources to first? And who are the ones who you prioritize with the resources? Are you trying to interest in the farmers or the poor people? All right, let's hear from Khan fight for a few minutes. Yeah, I think just a couple of things. I'm trying to remember exactly what you said. Just the whole thing is, I think that we were, you're operating basically on this premise that we have such scarce resources that we have to, that the system is just already, that we already allocate resources. No, I'm not saying that. So, sorry. Okay, okay. Okay, I'm just trying to make sure that I have your argument down right so I don't misrepresent you, okay? I think that some of the things that we talk about, like, yeah, sure, what are the biggest problems with capitalism and things like that is that it doesn't effectively give people resources. It doesn't give resources to the scientists. It doesn't give resources to the people that necessarily need it. What it does do is give resources to people that are most cutthroat. Why do you think that there's a lot of people on Wall Street and stuff like that that are rich? It's because they were more cutthroat and more willing to stab people in the back and cut out the system and take advantage of the system as referenced in the 2008 financial crisis. We know that it is some people's MO to just take advantage of the system. And I think the main problem is that I think we should be focused on a collective effort. We need to be focused on something that instead of just simply fighting against each other, we need to focus on something that is building up ourselves as collective, as a collective.  I don't buy the argument that nature is, or that human nature is competitive. And even if it was, right? Let's grant that it was. We've changed human nature before. I mean, talking about going from hunter-gatherers to agriculture and civilization, we've changed human nature before. We can change, one of the best things about humanity is we can change how we can change nature. And that's really something that I don't think we talk about enough. And I think that also just simply saying that, well, it's the best system that we have. Capitalism is most certainly not the best system that we have. We have better systems. And we have better ways of distributing resources. And my whole point is like, I wouldn't agree with you if you were like, oh yeah, if we didn't have enough resources to make it so that there was, if we should fund scientists or whatnot than anyone else. But the whole problem is right now, we have people who are like, we have Russian oil oligarchs who have 50 boxes and people who have none. And the whole point is like, one we can do is break down the fence, which is what justice would be in this scenario. And the other would be take some of the boxes away from the random Russian billionaires. I mean, there have been speculation that actually Vladimir Putin is one of the most wealthy people in the world cause Russia has a lot of oil money. Turns out a lot of other places do as well like Saudi Arabia. They don't use it to fund like, there's a lot of poor people in Saudi Arabia. They don't use it to fund all those people.  Like this is very, I think you're saying that like the superfluous stuff is a corner case, but it's not really, it's more of the mean. If you don't, a lot of the superfluous stuff, I mean, again, the issue is, is that if we didn't want superfluous stuff we could easily just build trains to some of these communities and to be cheap, it'd be easy and you'd be able to get people there but it's just not profitable. So therefore we let these people die. And I think that that fundamentally just saying, well, we have limited resources. We don't have that limited resources. We don't have like limited enough resources where everyone is like on the verge of death because they only have one box. Now we have plenty of resources in order to do this. The argument is not necessarily that we don't have resources. The argument is that these resources are allocated in ways that hurt some and enrich others. That is the problem. And I think that when we look at how... That doesn't address my point. So the resource here isn't the money. The food and the money aren't the resource I'm talking about. All of those things are produced by people. People who, the resource that matters here is confidence, people's confidence. Are people going to be motivated to work to do the effort? That's the biggest resource. And that's the hardest one to get at all. That's the one we're the most limited on. It's how do we convince people to invest in this system and not steal or break stuff or take things and do what they want, not to revolt? That's the biggest resource. The answer is just a social contract.  Yeah, but the social contract has destroyed most societies without history. This is not an easy problem. We live in a society that has a social contract. What are you talking about? You're not listening. So most economic systems have failed throughout all history. Most have many people dying. The economic systems that have the least people dying right now is capitalism. That's the best one that's worked for most of the world for the most time. Most other systems have lots of dead people. So the problem here is that... I mean, one of the biggest things, the reason why capitalism has been propped up is just simply because of a lot of dead people. The issue is, is that I think also one of my biggest things I have here is that we're treating these things like in a vacuum. We're saying that, well, capitalism and these systems simply just fail on their own out of their own merits. And that's not necessarily true. There is plenty of times when people tried to do socialism and they were killed. Indonesia, look at Argentina, look at... I mean, Venezuela is a good one. Cuba as well. This whole thing is that it's not necessarily that capitalism is the best system. It's the best system at making sure that other systems don't arise. I mean, this is the same thing that happened when we went from more feudalist systems to more capitalist systems. The feudal lords did not want to give up their power. So there was a lot of killing. And that's the sort of thing that ends up happening. And I think that we're not... I think that this whole argument that, well, simply because capitalism is around, therefore it's the best system. I don't think that that follows logically. I don't think that that's a very logical way of looking at how these systems go because you have to realize that we don't live in a vacuum. There are other... We can't create the perfect economic system because there are real world effects. And fact of the matter is, I mean, especially when we're talking about socialist countries and whatnot, after World War II, the US controlled something like what was 80% of the world's wealth. So they were able to install capitalism in a lot of places that didn't have it. This is the same... I'm not following how this... This doesn't seem to be addressing my point. So you agree with me that if there's a limited amount of resources, like if we're on a spaceship, we only have enough to feed 100 people, we should prioritize the scientists. You said you agree with that part, right? Yes. Okay. I think what we should do that, but what I'm saying is I sort of reject the premise that we even need to do that on Earth right now. I just don't think... That's a separate point, so that wasn't the point. So the point was just the spaceship analogy. With the spaceship analogy, you agree. So moving forward, how do we determine if we have enough resources or not? What is the metric that we use to determine if we have enough resources? Well, the metric that we would use, I mean, we have, again, it depends on the study. This study that I linked does killer calories. Generally, people need about 2,000 calories a day. So we can make sure that we have... I mean, obviously sometimes if you wanna be a bit more decadent, we can have more, but we produce a lot more than two killer calories a day per person. So we have that amount of resources there. And the way that you determine this, I mean, it's pretty empirical. We have, again, homeless people in New York. We have enough bills... So your answer was the amount of food. The amount of calories produced is how we determine if we have enough resources. If we have enough food, specifically that resource. Okay, but there are other resources, right? So even if we maximized food and balanced out the food for everyone, that could displace some other resource that just kills a bunch of people, right? Maybe, but it depends. Like again, we're already producing all of this food and I don't know necessarily what you're getting at. Are you saying that there could be some nebulous resource that we don't know about that somehow connected to food? Like if we're talking about water, maybe water, where if you're talking about like fertilizer, sure. I mean, the whole point is that we already produce and I'm not following what you're saying. So if you maximize one resource, there could be another resource that's important that you're not considering that if by maximizing this other resource, you end up killing lots of people because another resource was required. Like I'm not naming it yet. Just saying hypothetically, it's possible that maximizing this one resource of food isn't the one we should be looking at. There might be others that we should also include here that maybe we shouldn't maximize food for everyone. Maybe we should prioritize this other resource. I mean, we do that on a case-by-case basis. That's not an argument against- You're right. It's not an argument against anything. This is just, I'm giving questions. So the question is- Well, yeah. I'm saying that question is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't, I mean, we can sit here and say, well, what if we, what if this, what if that? I think, all right, I'm trying to represent your argument.  Like that's bad, right? Yes. So obviously maybe we should give some more people more food to make them, you know, go to work. Like if they're not going to work if they don't get a burger or whatever and we should probably build up enough stuff in that system so they get enough happiness that they're going to keep working and keep producing food, right? And even if that means we can't feed everybody because now, like if we tried to feed everybody and most people were unhappy and we just stopped the economy stopped completely that would be bad. So we need to give enough stuff to make people happy to motivate them to keep doing the economy stuff. I think I understand what you're saying now is basically that all these resources fuel the resource, which is to say confidence. Yes, sort of, I agree. There's lots of access to the lots of things we can do it more efficiently. But the point here is that it's not just about feeding everybody that's not the resource. The food isn't the resource we're talking about. We're talking about confidence. We're talking about people doing work. The resource that is the most scarce is people doing work to combat nature. That is the biggest resource that is the most rare that we need the most of and to get people to do work takes more than is just the minimum required. You don't necessarily, I mean, again, like you don't necessarily need a profit motive for this and we could do that with, I mean, the whole point is that what we would need for something like that, if you, let's say if you went to work for, I mean, this is actually covered by Kropotkin and Conquest of Bread. If you went to work, right? And you were guaranteed to have all the luxuries that you wanted.  Yeah, sure. Yeah, exactly. That's the whole thing. And that's my whole argument is that we have the resources in order to make that happen.  And that is the problem. What do you mean you have the resources to make that happen? No, we could not get every human being a Lamborghini. We do not have the resources to do that. We don't have, like if we separate all the resources out to each individual, they would have essentially less than the average American. I don't think so. I think that, I mean, less than the average American. Well, you also have to realize that that number by averages is skewed because of the fact that there is a lot of, like generally a lot of very rich people in America. Well, I'm just like, I'm talking like the mean or the modian, whichever version you mean. You probably want one medium. That's perfectly fine. That average is still higher than the world average by a significant margin. So if we just took all of the resources in the world and equally distributed them to every human being, most people would be in America would go down. People in America would not be happy with this. Yeah. I mean, the whole thing is that when you try to do justice to people, I mean, I don't necessarily, so you're saying that that's enough to sway confidence. And I would say, I mean, the whole point is also just like, I'm trying to process this. I see what you're saying with confidence. I'm sorry, my mind does this sometimes. Totally fine, take your time. Yeah, yeah. I just don't want to misrepresent your point. Well, my main point is that we need to include that as a resource. It's not just about the food. It's not just about the amount of money or Lamborghinis. That confidence thing is a resource that we need to include in this equation. We have to be able to produce enough confidence in people to invest in the society, in the economy, to make it continue to grow and to produce food and securities and military and all the things. Well, I mean, the economy growing doesn't necessarily mean more food. That's not necessarily. Those are separate topics. So food, economy growing, military, science. Well, I don't think that, I mean, we've seen now that most people's confidence is not affected by the state. Well, it kind of is, it depends, but like the issue is right now, the economy, I mean, the economy is up, that we have record unemployment, like almost as bad as a Great Depression. And like, that whole point is that that doesn't inspire confidence in people. And like, when we're going through recessions like this, which capitalism tends to do, it tends to have cycles where you go through recessions, where wealth is consolidated. And- When I say economy, I don't just mean the stock market. That's not what I mean by economy. So economy is like, including the work and the production and making stuff. It's infrastructure, all the things there. We, what I can do is give you a chance to respond, confite. But I do want to mention, we do also have a juicy super chat. I wanna, we were trying tonight to maybe like interweave some of the super chats in the discussion so that they're not all clumped at the end. And so I do have one that you guys might get a kick out of, though I could be wrong in terms of where you'd stand on it, confite. This- What is this? Read it. This person, the Batman says, confite should, black people get the vaccine, I assume that they mean for COVID, before whites for the purpose of equity. I mean, it doesn't really matter that much. You want, like this is a health thing. If you want the whole population to be done, so you want the most at risk people who are elderly and people who have infirmities to get the vaccine. The issue is here is not necessarily that, yeah, you wanna basically focus on people who are the most at risk when you're targeting people for like vaccines and we're giving up people appropriate aid.  I don't think that that's really a good way of solving any problems. Cause again, this is a one-time solution. This just creates, you know, this creates equity. Sure. This doesn't create justice. It doesn't fix the system. It just means it's a band-aid on the system. And I don't think that that's a very good idea just because it's simply, it's just not a good way of doing like things like affirmative action or like reparations, right? You wanna do things like reparations for basically using that money in that capital to invest in like education networks and doing things like investing in infrastructure in inner cities and, you know, all other kinds of things like that. That's what you want to use them for in order to fix system. But you don't wanna just be like, oh man, we'll just give black people things cause that doesn't really help anyone. Yeah, I don't know if I like the questions in the middle. It kind of loses the flow of the conversation. But so my main point was that you do recognize that as confidence thing, this is an important resource. Oh yeah, I think that, I mean, yeah, human confidence is an important resource. I just think that there are other ways to inspire confidence other than simply the profit motive. You can have other ways of making people. I mean, we have in history done that. Turns out survival is also a pretty good way of inspiring confidence. It's not, I mean, we have other ways of doing it. And I think that we can, you know, fundamentally, we can structure society in a way that does keep that confidence resource and is more just than capitalism. I think that's the whole point is that we can do that like right now, we wanna do it. Wow. What would produce that confidence? I mean, what would produce that confidence?  For each according to their means, each according to their- At a lower rate than the average American.  I mean, you also have to realize that like people, some people in America will have enough money, right? Sure. So everybody in America would have enough money. It would just be lower than the current amount they currently have. Not. I mean, some people would increase. I mean, that's how average is. Well, yeah, yeah. So obviously, but since it's below- I don't think it's less. I don't think that that amount of money is less than the median. We have to realize like how much of it is consolidated like at the top. It's billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars in- Sure, sure. If we take all of Jeff Bezos' money, we can give every human being or every American about three grand or every human being about 40 bucks. Yeah. It's much better than sitting in Jeff Bezos' money. I mean, a lot of it's not sitting in his account. It's locked up and stuff. But I mean, still- It's stock prices. So he doesn't have any of the money. It's a stock price. Oh, I know. That was stock. I know. Just hypothetically speaking, I was mostly talking about that. You're correct in saying that, but I think that we really just like, I think also just we tend to, this whole idea of confidence, right? That people, if we invest in certain people that they'll build up confidence in the economy because they make the economy grow, I don't think that we invest in the right people right now. We don't invest in those people that are going to do, they're reinvest in people that tend to have the most returns for shareholders. That's typically how you invest in like a capitalist system. You want to get that return. When we don't invest in people that aren't going to give you that return. But I'm saying that why don't we invest in those other people? Because they can give us good returns like on a social level.  And then they'll go and work and they'll do all of the other kinds of stuff. They'll also do, I mean, you have more consumer spending, you'll have more. Yeah, I totally agree that our capitalism is broken, but I'm still an advocate for capitalism, just capitalism with regulations. And so I think that, yes, you're right. Our current system is garbage. There's lots of crap to it that needs to be fixed, but I wouldn't advocate for socialism. I'd still say a kind of capitalism would still be preferred, just not as garbage one as we have today. So I think that capitalism is good overall. Are you advocating for something else? You said you were an anarchist. Yeah, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. I think that society is best organized in a way that is basically a bunch of labor unions and you still have markets and stuff. I think that's the biggest thing. Forgive me for interrupting, but just before we go into kind of economic systems on a broader level, which I'm open to though, I do wanna try to steer us back if possible in terms of whether or not any particular practical on the ground ways in which we might try to institute equity and then, or Tom, your counteroffer. This is literally what we're talking about right now. So the question is, is equity versus equality? What system would you implement? Because we have to include the boxes we're talking about to try and redistribute the equity and equality, include confidence. So we've agreed that confidence is one of those resources, one of those boxes we need to include. So which systems can accurately balance those box systems while prioritizing the scientists over the poor people can balance those boxes correctly while including confidence? I say capitalism, what system can he say can produce this equity versus equality distinction that we're talking about? So that's- I would say also- Fair, if you wanna explore it now, hopefully we can talk about more applied like on the ground type scenarios as well. Oh yeah, I mean, I could talk about this like with, in response to more of a sort of the... Let me formulate my question. Are there any, like that's one question. Well, there is, there is places where you have confidence in a government that is not capitalist and how they keep that confidence is keeping people employed, keeping making sure people have roofs over their heads. Cuba is a great good example of this, even though they have a lot of problems with food shortages and that does affect confidence. That's not just because of communism that has to do with the US blockading them for 50 years. That's the big thing is that they don't give, the systems don't exist in a bubble. The whole reason why Cuba is doing poorer than other places right now is because of the fact that the US gave them economic sanctions. It's the same thing with places like Iran. Iran for instance, as bad as the IRI is, I don't support them, I don't like them. They're better than the Shah and they produced much more, you know, better outcomes, you know, better education, better social spending and whatnot. And the only reason why the Shah and stuff was kept in power was because of oil wealth, because they were giving people money to the Americans, doing things like buying into the F-14 program, doing things like purchasing all other kinds of American expertise and hardware and they were doing so at the expense of people who were starving and it didn't produce good outcomes. It didn't make their society better. They didn't flourish. The whole point is that they're not investing. Like even in military stuff, when you invest a lot of money into military, it doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to be better and it definitely does not inspire confidence. Like you just look at Mexico. Mexico spends an inordinate amount of money on the military and their people does not have enough confidence. I should say- The military isn't about confidence. The military is about stopping other militaries. So those are two- Yeah, that's fair. Okay, I think I see where you're going. Yeah, but if we just look at all, there are tons of socialist countries. There's like 50 different socialist countries right now, but none of them are like any of the European Western countries. If you look at the most developed, most secure, safest places in the world, none of them are socialist. They're all capitalist or democratic. That is by design, by the way. I wanna say that a lot of these socialist nations, again, that's not because of the fact that socialism doesn't produce confidence. You're looking at the outcomes right now in a historical bubble and saying, ah, well, these outcomes, therefore, they're, you know, it's just a product of the system. When the reality is a lot more nuanced. I mean, we, the United States had made a very concerted effort to overthrow a lot of governments and killed a lot of people. Again, look at, there's a good book that came out like last year called The Jakarta Method. That was all about how the US government traded people to- We couldn't conquer China or Russia. They're the two biggest communist nations in the world right now. There's lots of communists- Well, well, Russia isn't communist. Russia is like neoliberal, like capitalist hellhole. Like that's the reason why Putin has all this money. If you're saying Russia is communist right now, I don't, I, that's just not true. That's actually one of the problems is that in communist nations, which do start off with that kind of equality standard, there's always a displace of power. Somebody gets more boxes and then they start to abuse that power and become whoever, winning the tournament. Yeah, I mean, what you're talking about is the issue with, I mean, that's the reason why I'm an anarchist is because I want to abolish this sort of class hierarchy. Yeah, that hierarchy is bad. Yeah, and I think that hierarchy kind of undermines socialism. It's harder to maintain that kind of hierarchy without a super-extinuated displacement of power going to somebody at the top who then abuses it like crazy. Yeah, you don't necessarily need that under socialism. Again, with anarchism, you can just get rid of that. I don't think anarchism works at all in these days. It's not, well, anarchism, first of all, isn't a state. It's sort of like a non-state.  As a location, I mean, look at Rojava. Rojava's doing decently well and it's the middle of the Middle East and they have women's rights.  They literally have had, what is it, queer liberation armed forces fighting against ISIS in the middle of the Middle East. And that's a very big accomplishment. It's hard to do things like that when you have everything against you. Yeah. I mean, I'm not saying it's going to fail with 100% certainty in every case. I'm saying it's really hard to do. Like capitalism is not that hard to do. Most people could do capitalism and have a successful system for a while and maintain that power balance to some degree, which is good. So it's pretty easy to do capitalism relatively speaking. It's really, really hard to do anarchism relatively speaking. Well, I think that necessarily that's sort of a fallacious reasoning. Just because something is hard does not mean we shouldn't try to do it. Well, like if failure results in lots of deaths, it didn't, I think that is pretty good argument.  That's- Russia or China? Well, I mean Russia and China, yeah. When you're talking- Is this dealing with the same kind of idea of going towards this socialist goal point and then it was abused out of control? I mean, that's kind of the problem is that starting with this anarchist system, yes, that can be fine, but it's easy to take advantage of that system, gain control of the system. It's anarchism, it's hard to gain control because there's no central eye. There's no like, you're talking more about like Marxist-Leninism, like problems of Marxist-Leninism. That's really what you're talking about. Or like Maoism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism. Well, I see the same thing with anarchism because essentially all humanity started with anarchism and then somebody got a bigger gun or a bigger stick and then started to conquer everybody. So to a certain extent, yes. But I mean, at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that we can't go back to something like that. We can't, that people are just so, that there isn't going to be some sort of balance of power. Like you're talking about the monopoly of violence right now. Like you're talking about how states tend to have them. Leviathan, yes. Yes, yes, Hobbes is Leviathan, yeah. I don't necessarily, I think that it's hard to, Hobbes is Leviathan is an interesting point that I mean, I've grappled with this a lot myself just in my own head. I think that it tends to be, you're going to have some sort of monopoly on force in order to maintain the current social order. Generally that tends to happen, but... Wasn't that antagonistic to anarchism? Isn't that kind of the... It is antagonistic to anarchism. And I think the whole, I think what we should do, honestly, is that if you have a monopoly of power that is not exactly a monopoly, if you have it very, very spread out and you have it very decentralized, I think that would be better. I think that would really, because it would produce, not only it would mean that no one could like... What would you mean? Was that like militias, something like that? Kind of. What do you think? Have you seen, I read Stephen Pinker's, I think it's the better angels of our natures where... Oh, God, don't talk to me about Stephen Pinker. Because I think his argument is extremely compelling that this state organized control of violence has increased the confidence level in countries by a significant margin. This has had such a huge positive impact on building economies, of having the state monopolized violence, that I think that is a very good thing to have, that that's one of the things government does extremely well and that getting rid of that is a very bad thing. I mean, the whole thing would be that I don't... I have a lot of disagreements with Stephen Pinker. I haven't read better angels of our nature. I've read things about better angels of our nature and I don't really... I'm not really compelled by that argument. I don't necessarily think that we need... It's just because of the social system that we have now tends to have work. I think one of the biggest things we were looking at in this debate is this idea of, well, this system works or it doesn't work. It doesn't... That dichotomy fundamentally doesn't really map all that well onto reality. This whole... I totally agree. I would say that there are definitely socialist countries that work. It's not 100% failure rate. No, what I'm saying is that we're thinking about this the wrong way. That work versus not work is a bad way of looking at how economies and states function. What you should look at more often is utility. Utility tends to be something you want to look at more than work because work is very vague. Utility is something you can measure. I mean, like working versus something like what you're doing. No, no, no. I mean utility. I mean, what kind of outcomes do the state produce? How does it produce those outcomes?  What does it produce as far as with competence? That's utility. What does it produce as far as natural resources? That's utility. Oh yeah, yeah. Absolutely, I totally agree. But my argument is more that like the rates of success versus the rate of failure. Like if we tried a hundred countries with a capitalist system and a hundred countries with an anarchist or socialist system, how many are going to have a positive outcome and save lives? How many are going to have a negative outcome and lead to somebody abusing the power and taking over and getting a bigger stick? Well, the problem is we don't know. There's no way of knowing. I think there is. I think that's what I'm saying. I think there's a pretty reliable way we can look at the past and see, well, which systems have had a more successful route that more countries have tried this and succeeded, more countries have tried this and failed? We can probably map it out pretty clearly. And that's why most economics are pins to lean capitalists is because it has been demonstrated to work to some degree. Most economics leans capitalists simply because that's the system we have now. I mean, during feudalism or mercantilism, you would have people who were mercantilist economists or economicists. I mean, most scientists are physicalists for the same reason because it works. Well, I mean, it just works now. That doesn't necessarily mean that there's not a better system out there. Oh, yeah, there's absolutely more discoveries we could make. I grant there's going to be a better system than capitalism that we're going to discover in the future, but we need to discover it first. And I think to do that is we have to try it on very small scales. We try every all of these new systems on small scales, not implement them on a government scale. I would definitely be not advocate for trying anarchism. That's what an anarchist communit does. Like again, these are very small scale operations if you look at them and they tend to work decently well. Some of them and most of them. Some of them, yeah. I mean, you could have problems with them. If you're looking at like historically speaking, the more utopian socialist experiments in America, they tended not to work because of a number of factors. I'm trying to remember talking about, oh, what was it? It's not Heaven's Gate.  Yeah, that's what I'm saying. No, it's not Heaven's Gate. There is like a town that they tried that was more utopian socialist that ended up failing because people didn't necessarily work. And the reason why they didn't work was because they were basically not getting enough resources out of it. The whole thing is if you work and you wanna get resources, I think the biggest, I mean, do you think people, I think people should be paid. I'm a guy who advocates for the labor theory of value. I think that value is created by labor and people who labor should get most, if not all of their value. I mean, I think that's a fair assumption. Well, I would agree with that in most part, but I also think that people who produce confidence are also doing a significant amount of work there. I think that that confidence metric is the most important. So military- Well, yeah, that's a type of labor, like sort of emotional labor and other kinds of stuff is, you know, it's work. You have to put effort into it in order to produce an outcome. Well, I'd include those kinds of confidence makers like Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos, wait, wait, wait. So when I'm talking about confidence here, I'm talking about people who are, you look at them and say, ah, that's really cool. I'd like to be like them or I'd like to work for that company or I'd like to invest in that company. So those kinds of heroes, to so to speak, produce confidence. That is a kind of work. So that, I mean, I wouldn't necessarily, that's sort of like marketing just in general. Like these people are not good at like, these people are good at marketing. I think that honestly, marketing. Would you not, you wouldn't count that as a kind of work? No, I'd say it's a certain kind of work. I think that it's overpaid is the issue. We're overemphasizing marketing by being like, oh yeah, look at this confidence. It doesn't produce as much confidence, I think, as you think. I think it produces a lot less confidence in certain people. And certainly like, I don't think that, you know, if someone, if I walked up to someone on the street and said, hey, if I shot Jeff Bezos tomorrow, would you be more confident in our economy? You know, I don't think they would say, oh no, I love Jeff Bezos. No, I don't think that he produces a lot of confidence in this economy because of the fact that he has a lot of wealth. That is sort of the main problems under capitalism is the fact that he has just this excise amount of wealth and he's not doing anything with it to help people. Right, I mean, I agree that our current system is broken, it's way too unbalanced even with Bill and Melinda Gates. I think, yeah, I think you're right. I think would you be more in favor of like, Keynesian economics in a certain sense? Like you don't like, well, the current system right now we have is like neoliberalism and that's a very, you know, free market, no regulations. Keynesian economics is much more like think FDR, think stuff after the 1940s and 50s up until the 1970s. Yeah, I'd definitely be more in favor of that. I'd still be like a halfway point in between that and today. I wouldn't say I'm leading more towards the right than that, but yes, I think that's a good policy. I think the New Zealand policy that brought them out of poverty was really good. I think that one works. Singapore's economic policy, I think is really good. There's a lots of them that are like a midway point between our just broken capitalism and the still like kind of good capitalism. I could see where you're going with that. And I think that honestly, if I had, I mean, of course the reason I think that you're like, like again, because it produces better outcomes in the system we have, yeah, I'd rather be under like Keynesian or like what you're talking about more of a hybrid system because it produces better outcomes. But I think we can go even further beyond and produce even better outcomes than that. Just like even in terms of like resources of like confidence and whatnot. Well, that's where I think where our disagreement is, I'm afraid that those systems would actually have the opposite effect. I think that the failure rate is so high on those systems even though they can do that in very rare cases that it's better to go with the systems that have been having much higher success rate that have been demonstrated to affect much better outcomes at a much more reliable rate like in New Zealand Singapore and those kind of countries. Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment but I think the issue is we have the problem of hidden information. We don't know, we can't go to every single timeline in history and see exactly what exactly happens if we change one thing. We can't experiment on history. That's why it's so hard to have these discussions because there is no control. There is no like point. And I think that honestly, I think that even looking at history I think that you're a little bit incorrect because a lot of this has to do with how, I mean, it's not necessarily inspiring confidence it also has to do with fear. These governments produce, I mean, a lot of very hyper capitalist governments produce a lot of fear in order to make people work. Yeah, fear works like confidence.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that's not a, you don't want to do that. We shouldn't like say that. Yeah, that system works, but it produces bad outcomes there. And that's an interesting debate point too. Cause like would you prefer Egyptian slavery which inspired confidence and had worked for thousands of years versus some kind of dictatorship like Russia or something. Like it's, they're both bad. I mean, they're both bad, but which produces a better outcome. This is sort of what I'm talking about utility is sort of like the aggregate of all the best outcomes. That's sort of what I'm looking for when I look at like an economy or a system of governance. And like Egypt did not produce a lot of good outcomes. Soviet Union had a lot of issues, but it produces better outcomes than like Egypt because they had at least some public housing. Like that's like kind of a thing, but we can talk about, I mean, the USSR for a long time and all its failures. I'm certainly no fan of the USSR. One of the major issues was simply that they didn't get rid of a lot of the old Russian ways of thinking the diversification of like the Baltics and places like Ukraine really led to their downfall. Because again, I mean, we want to put it in this language. It didn't inspire confidence when the USSR started to fail. Lithuania was one of the first ones to go. And that's the reason was because they were basically imperialized. They didn't have much confidence in the government because they were, you know, taken over. And I think it's a big failure of the USSR. But- I would agree with that for sure. I think also we can look at other places in the world and kind of see that sort of confidence deficit, if you will. We see this in plenty of places. Even capitalist ones. Like Chile recently. The, they had a privatized social security program that I don't know if the program was recently abolished. I know that they recently changed the constitution from Pinochet era constitution, which was, you know, hyper capitalist, basically Chicago boys, neoliberalism all the way. And they, you know, change that because that system did not produce, you know, again, if you wanted to put in this language, produce enough confidence. Well, yeah, absolutely. There's definitely lots of examples of capitalism failing too. But if you tried to calculate the amount, like just the amount of countries over the past two to 300 years, who were capitalistic and who had positive utility and negative utility versus the amount of countries who espoused being socialist or anarchists who had the same, like, which one has the highest percentage of success? Well, I think the issue is, is that also we're not taking into account, you know, outside factors. Again, the reason why like, plenty of socialist countries fail or like, for instance, with, even countries that aren't socialists that just want to like nationalize their resources, the CIA tends to interfere and try to do things with them. That's tends to be, I mean, I studied. Absolutely, you're right. But that happens in every single economic system everywhere in the world. They do the same thing with capitalist nations.  So that's an important factor that you have to incorporate into your system. But I think that that doesn't necessarily mean that we just shouldn't try it at all. Well, in some cases I would.  That guy's gonna kill a lot of people if you do it. So that is a factor of resources you also have to consider. I think that that's- How are the other governments going to affect you if you try this? Well, I think that that's kind of fine to think about in like a real politic sort of way. But at the same time, I think that being bold is the only way in order to effect change. If your people want it and you want to do it, you shouldn't be bullied into not doing it simply because other people don't like it. I think that that's a bad way of going about it. I think that produces bad outcomes. I think once we have an artificial intelligence and there's no more militaries, yes, that is a great idea. Everyone can be free. But I think that because- AI is not gonna replace militaries, but okay. I think it's gonna replace pretty much everything. We're gonna become pandas, but different topic. Well, that's like a post-scarcity society. Like that's sort of like what, you know, stateless classes society, that's the goal of communism. Yeah, absolutely. And once we get to that point where we do have a abundance of resources and do whatever we want, yeah, we essentially will have a kind of communism and I'm happy with that but I don't think we're at that point yet. I think that's sort of where we fundamentally disagree is where I think that we do have the resources to do it. We just don't have necessarily the means. We can easily go to places like this right now. We just choose not to, I think it's a problem. All right, I think we've both outlined our position pretty well. Yeah, yeah. Gotcha. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent it too much. One thing that definitely still curious to hear within one of these systems, let's say within a capitalist system, you had heard one of the questions earlier from the super chat. One thing I was kind of hoping would be touched on because we could have just debated capitalism versus anarcho from the start. In terms of the equity versus equality debate, the practical on the ground type ways of attempting to carry it out. When I see the, I could be wrong, let me know if I am, but when I see the cartoon that Tom mentioned in terms of the boxes that people are standing on, I don't usually perceive that as that people are saying, hey, we ought to have kind of this anarcho or socialist or whatever else type of moral or type of economic system in place instead of capitalism. That's not usually what I, that's why I'm kind of saying like, I'm willing to grant that on, hold on, I'm still talking, Tom, so be quiet. So I'm willing to grant that basically on a high, like this kind of, you could say a second level, you could think of it that way and debate it. And that's why I was okay with exploring it. But I'm asking like, are there any type of on the ground type ways that this cartoon might be referring to that might be carried out? Can you give an example James? You just don't seem to understand it. You don't seem to understand that right now, it's your turn to be quiet. So thanks so much, you're on mute, but are there any kind of practical examples that are worthy of debate or are there not any kind of ways in which? Again, like the way, I mean, a lot of this goes with, especially like with equity or like justice, usually these things start with like investment in schools and things of that nature. And you don't have to do that like the socialist nature. I was just saying that I think the reason why it went there is because fundamentally there's a lot of inequalities built into sort of the system that we have now that I mean, I believe that we can do without and that's sort of my position. But I think that we can also, I mean, under the current system, yeah, we can definitely make changes that will have good effects right now, have good equity.  The issue is that with affirmative action and whatnot is people always forget the, a lot of, especially corporations forget. Could you spell it out?  No, yeah, yeah. But I'm just like, what are you talking about? Can you give the details of like? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. So, just investment in public education in area. One of the biggest problems that we have today is that taxes, specifically property taxes fund schools.  If you're in a good neighborhood, you have a good school. And that shouldn't be how it goes. You should have, you know, we should have access to good schooling wherever we go. And I'm saying that we have the wealth in order to do that. We just don't allocate it correctly. Well, that would be equity, not equality, not equity. So equality was everybody should have good schools. The equity would say we should reinvest more money in the really, really poor schools right now and forget the... Well, I would say that I would agree with that. We should, you know, the most poor rundown schools need the money the most. That makes no sense. You know, you don't fix something that's already working and just, you know, throw money at it. Well, is it working? Or do you think, because I think most schools are still pretty bad in general? Yeah, most schools are pretty bad. I mean, I've gone to... This would go back to my analogy with the scientists. I think that we should give one of the boxes to all of the schools and just keep building up every school together instead of trying to invest in the sick schools. We should still invest in the ones that are trying to build up and learn and innovate in schooling to try and learn better methods and then try to take those methods and apply to all the schools rather than investing in the poorer schools. Well, I think that investing in the poorer schools does the same thing. If you bring them up to a certain level, you have all the schools doing that. And that's sort of the point is that if you have something that's working and you have, you know, enough investment in the school, you have, you know, good outcomes. I mean, this is sort of what we see, you know, people in higher and neighborhoods tend to have better schooling opportunities. And they do more things with that, like you said, doing science and doing whatnot. The issue is we should invest in poorer schools because they don't have that right now. They don't have that level of competence or confidence really in their school system. And that needs to change. And that's the sort of infrastructural change we're talking about, especially also just investing in like black neighborhoods, like streets, like infrastructure in this country hasn't been updated since the 1950s, like Interstate Act. It's really bad.  That's the sort of, that's that. We both agree that infrastructure is terrible, education is terrible. We need to fix all of these things. But the question- I'm saying we fix the worst parts of it first. And then we go to, we don't just invest in the good parts. Well, that's the part where we disagree. So I don't think we should just invest all we can to fix the worst parts. I think it's better to spread out the resources to all of the parts and focus on the ones that are doing the innovation and making the progress. Well, that's sort of what led to the system in the first place. Like you're basically saying that like it's okay that some, like I fundamentally disagree. I don't think that that's a good way of producing better outcomes as a society because yeah, you'll have a certain class of scientists, but why not do that for every single school? So we have a bunch of scientists, not just like a couple that are really, really good.  And they will build together in order to do something because a scientist that's extremely good, one scientist that's extremely good can make one mistake and can screw up.  Oh, it's because innovation is mostly done by the people at the top. So you know, yeah, that's pretty much always, especially in high level sciences and education, you need a significant amount of resources to try new stuff, to see if it works and to have the resources to test it. That usually most innovation is done significantly by the people at the top. That's not the same as people saying people at the top. That's more of us just saying, you need resources in order to do it, which I would agree that you do. But the issue is, is that that research at the top, again, those people aren't at the top. Those people are just, you know, they're at the top of their field, sure. But as- Well, take in the school's example. So if we have the most successful schools, for example, and you give them money, they can then take that money to invest in things like engineering classes, which high schools mostly don't do, or other kinds of trade school classes with most high schools don't do. So they invest in these other kinds of things that other high schools don't have because they have excess money and excess teachers. And they can then say, this program worked really, really well. We can implement it in more schools. And so they've innovated. They've created a new system that we didn't have before to teach people new things at a better high rate. So why can't you build an engineering school out of poor school? They don't have the money to do their things we already teach. Well, we give them money. So first they have to build up all the things we already do to get to that same level, and then they need more money to get the innovation. Whereas if we just get the innovation, we can then apply the innovation to other schools. So it costs 10 times as much to try and get the- Even doing that, that investment still will produce some sort of innovation, just like by virtue of the fact that you're pouring money into it. I think that that sort of- They're just gonna be doing all of the stuff that we've already discovered in all of the other schools. Not necessarily. Pretty much. Not necessarily. That's significant to a significant degree. Like again, most innovation is done by the people at the top of every field. The ones who have all its previous technology already. It's not like giving poor people or people who don't have the same level of education, they're gonna discover something new. That's incredibly rare. Most innovation is done by people who already have all of that information.  It's because they don't have the money. And we should just give them the money and they do it. Well, that's the problem. If we can make an innovation tomorrow by giving the money to a rich person or we can wait a year and give 10 times as much money to a poor person to get the same innovation, we need to give it to the scientist. We would give the- Here's your issue. You would have to realize that it affects more people. So we would have 10 new innovations if we give it to the poor school. Think about it. What? Like if we give it to the rich person, we'll have 10 more new innovations. If we give it to the poor person, we'll get one innovation that we could have gotten 10 if we gave it to the rich person. You got it back. No, no, no, no. When we're talking about schooling, it's a group of people, right? You're not just giving it to- Well, I mean, innovation here, I'm talking about the schooling system itself. I'm talking about the teachers and how they teach the children and what's the best teaching system. So if we give them money to the schools who are the wealthy schools, they can then innovate the teaching system and make a better system. But to have the teaching system- I just don't think that works in reality. Even then, why shouldn't we just have like a, you know, I think that like we live in the richest country on earth. We should have the most, we should invest in our education and have a baseline level of education for everyone. Like even talking about teaching and innovation- That's the basic quality. I agree with the quality, but not equity. Well, I think that we should, we should invest more into the places that are poor because they need it more. And that's where I think, well, no, I think we should invest equally and give it to poor people as much as we can, but also invest in the scientists, the ones making the innovations that's important too. I don't think we should like take the box from the scientists- I don't think there's only so much you can do with innovation with like teaching. Like I don't necessarily think like, especially with this thing. Like what, I mean, what exactly are you gonna do? We're running up against a brick wall in a certain sense. I don't think that like giving more money is gonna produce more innovation.  You're producing it, you're going up to a certain point and you can always have more innovation, but your sort of innovation is slowing down because there's a, you know, a finite limit on, at least in our current system, how much, you know, how effective teaching can be. What kind of innovation is going above the current limit? So you're right, there is a asymptotic limit that is the average. And then innovation is how you break past that limit. That's what innovation means. Well, I'm saying that there's even a limit to like how much innovation you can do. You can't just innovate forever. Why not? What? Because there's material like, you know, there is material limits on the universe. That's the reason why you can't. You can only make an engine that goes, you know, so fast. You can- Sure, sure, but I don't think there's, we've come anywhere close to the accurate limit of how to teach kids stuff more effectively. Like, I think there's significant innovations that we can make in that field pretty clearly. I don't think we've come close to like that. Yeah, yeah, there is, but again, actually those innovations are not going to come from investing in high schools. It's going to come from investing in colleges. That innovation has to do with education of teachers and whatnot. That doesn't have to do with public schools. How to teach high schoolers is usually invaded by high schools, not colleges.  So yeah, like high schools do innovate with these things and shop classes and wood classes and training classes of all kinds and different kinds of class dynamic systems and different kinds of things you teach them. These are tested in high schools and you can see the results in the grade scores and how those kids do in the future. Like, yeah, these are tested in high schools. We literally test the system on the kids and see how well they do. That's how we do innovation in high schools. It's not just you go to colleges and you get them to write a paper. You, the- Oh yeah, that's- Write a paper and get funding to give the money to the schools. So the schools can then do innovation and test to see how they work in the high school. But I think that like also like just, that innovation can only go so far. We can, there's only a certain amount of ways to cook an egg. You know- We're gonna get to the point where we can literally like teach kids 20 languages by the time of high school. I think that is a possibility. So I think there's still a significant amount of innovation. Well, again, like why wouldn't you wanna have, you know, why wouldn't you wanna, why are you putting all your eggs in one basket? Why not just spread them all out and try to cover as many bases as you can? Yeah, sure, it might be more expensive for, you know- Quality, I'm good for equality. So I'm good of giving money to everybody to see which ones can innovate, but equity, not so much. I still wanna give the money to the kids or the schools that are rich because I want them to try to innovate. Because- They already have the money and infrastructure to do things. They already do good things. Why not? Why give them even more? I don't understand that. They don't need it more. Because if they have excess money, they can innovate more. They can try more stuff. They can't innovate like that much more. Like I think you're really over overstepping like how much they can innovate. I don't think that's like, like I went to like a fairly wealthy school and like I was fortunate enough to do that and it was a public school, but there's only so much you can do. And I think that like, if someone is like a poor kid who's like literally starving and has to go to school in order to eat, we should give money to people, you know, there so that that person doesn't have to grow up in poverty and can get a good education. I think that's a fundamental human right that you should, you know, care for people who are downtrodden because it's no fault, it's not the fault of the eight-year-old kid who like, you know, is there that he's there and investing in, you know, schools that work or schools that are already doing well or have good test scores, just it doesn't end up giving good results. Well, I think this is exactly analogous to my original example.  Like, no, I don't think we should take the box from the scientists. I think that we do need to give those boxes to the scientists, to the rich schools, so the people who can test stuff because they're the closest to making innovation. They're the ones who make the most innovation at the highest rate. And so it's- I value human life over innovation. I don't, I reject this whole thing where it's like, innovation is the greatest thing in the world. No. I totally disagree. I think that innovation saves significantly more lives than anything else ever. And so innovation like- So what you're basically saying is that, innovation will cost some lives now, but innovation will do worse. That's sort of what your argument against socialism is. Your argument is that the ends justify the means now, but in socialism it's bad. Investing money to save a million lives tomorrow is better than saving one life today, for sure. Norman Borlaug, I would give every penny to Norman Borlaug every single time because he invented a genetically modified week that saved millions of lives because he gave the money to him instead of feeding the people in Africa at the time. Okay. I think that, I mean, also at the same time, like I think also with just like justice and I'm trying to formulate a response, I'm sorry. I think that we can honestly do, we have enough resources to do both though. We have enough resources to not only give to people in Africa, but to do all these more things. And while we're doing, giving those resources to people in Africa, we can't innovate with that money as well. It's not like you could only innovate at the top. We can incentivize places where you can innovate as well. There's other places like that. Right, but again, innovation is mostly done with people who already have all the past knowledge or the most technology because most innovation requires some new kind of technology that they don't have. You can't innovate in science unless you have a large hedge run collider, for example. But I mean, that's the disagreement is there. Is how do we determine if we have enough resources to do this and not collapse the economy? Can we just decide to, we're going to reallocate resources to save all these people? Will that have an advantage? That'll boost the economy because it increases the amount of spending money people have in the amount of free time that they have.  I think you're thinking way too linearly about this. And I think that this is sort of like the great man person of history where history is made by great man and sort of created. How does sending food across the world give people jobs in America? What? Well, you have to work with the logistics of that. You have to, if we're talking about infrastructure, if we're talking about sending people across the world, people have to go there. People have to manage that. People have to learn sort of skills about logistics that they can use elsewhere. They can, you can do all kinds of scientific tests on this. So for example, we're taking some of the stuff that we produce in America and we're giving it at a cost to other countries, which means we get less money. And so that less money that would normally go to being paid to people's hypothetically, if people were not, CEOs were not incredibly corrupt, the money they would make would go to the workers in America, but it doesn't enough. Well, that's the problem is that- But you're suggesting we take the resource, the stuff we have. No, no, I'm saying that, like again, I don't think that this idea of capitalism that you have really ever existed. I think that the issue is, you have this whole idea, well, we take it from the workers, but right now we have these big oligarchs that are just doing something. If we didn't have that, it'd be good. I'm not following. So America as a country produces a set amount of food and you're saying, we take that food, which rich people pay more for the food than poor people do. Like if you buy a burger at a really fancy five-star restaurant, it costs a lot of money. Yeah, because that's a markup. I literally used to work in those places. Yes, they buy the same hamburger from you do from the store and then charge you $50 for the little garnish on top, for sure. But the same amount of food, they pay more money for. So you make more money for selling this food to the five-star restaurant, which goes in the garbage, but that money that you just sold or you got from selling it, then goes to your employees. No, it doesn't. This is trickle- trickle-down economics doesn't work. Well, I mean, literally some of it does. It doesn't- Some of it does, sure, but it's not enough.  Just give the food to them. Just give them the food. Why not? Different topic. But so again, my policy is, I think there needs to be a pay cap for CEOs and shareholders based on the number of employees they have, but different topic. So I agree that there needs to be re-regulation to make more of the money CEOs get to more of the workers. I agree with that. But if you were suggesting we take that food and instead of giving it to the five-star restaurant, we give it for a cost to Africa to feed the African people that money that was going to the employees is now gone. Yeah, I mean, I don't think necessarily that like, that is the best way to do it. I was just saying food to Africa is like a hypothetical. That's not my, like, I would say focus on like, like if we're talking about like policy here, I would say focus on domestic stuff first and then do international. Like, yeah, that's fine. I think that's... I agree with that, for sure. Yeah. With that, we will jump into the Q and A. Thank you for humoring me, fellas. And we are wanting to remind you folks, thanks for being here and our guests are both linked in the description at the very top. So with that jumping in, appreciate your question. We got nasty Steven Steen's already. Thanks for that, Steven. And Co2Metal, thanks for yours. Why don't these debates get date stamps? We may do that. Thanks for that idea. I appreciate that. And Immortal Sirens, thanks for your donation. And Flat Earth Guy for James, appreciate your support, Flat Earth Guy. And Mike Billar says 200 people and enough resources to feed only 100. First thing that gets fed is T-Jump's chair. Thank you very much, Mike. And next up, Sphinxter of Doom says, simply looking at the available aggregate resources ignores the cost to create them. Redistribution without regards to costs disincentivizes production leading to fewer overall available resources. I think that's for you.  Generally, if you compensate someone more, they're going to produce more on a certain extent. So the whole point is like, you just compensate them more. I mean, this is how subsidies work. Like this is just like, we've had the corn subsidy like that for the long time. That's why we're producing a lot of our foods because we have subsidies. Subsidizing it just. Yeah, and sugar, yeah. That does produce bad outcomes on a certain extent, but if you wanted to feed people or if you wanted to end hunger, you could do it, just subsidize them. Got you, and Sphinxter of Doom strikes again, says quote unquote, if you work, dot, dot, dot, means people who don't work won't get any part of society. Getting the luxuries you want is a profit motive, profiting from labor. I'm for a UBI, by the way, so I don't, I wouldn't agree with that. Next up. Yeah, I mean, I'm for a UBI as well. Gosh, you and Chris Gammon appreciate your support. It says both of you are making great points. I can't decide who wins. In a couple sentences, make your best argument. Thank you. So maybe in two sentences, each of you, this is the tiebreaker for Chris, if you're just, each of you in just two sentences, make your best argument in your computer. So I think our analogy of the schools was really, and the scientists were really good. So I think that a better society is going to be produced by producing equality and giving some of the resources to the scientists who may not need it for the quality of life, but we'll use that for innovation, which can then be applied across the entire society. And I think that's a better system than an equity-based system where we take that money and instead of investing in the innovation of the scientists, give it to try and benefit the quality of life of the poor people. Well, I think that for me, it would be that an equity system would be preferable simply because you would have, yes, your scientists would not get, you would get less funding, but you'd have more scientists. And that is always good because those scientists will produce more innovation and they can check the other scientists to make sure that they're not doing something that has bad effects. And that is sort of where the innovation comes from. Gotcha. And Stinger of Doom responded. So let me, I just want to be sure that I have these in the right order. So I promise I will come back to that speaker of doom. Oflamio says, what is your opinion on agorism and counter-economics? I am unfamiliar with agorism and counter-economics. The idea that all exchanges are voluntary, something like that. No, that's not true. No, that doesn't make any sense. Like, there's plenty of things that are involuntary. If I didn't have to, I wouldn't pay for trying to like live or like have a surgery done because I don't voluntarily say, oh yeah, I'm giving my money to you to make sure that I don't die. No, I just don't want to die, period. I think that's, it's like it's pretty involuntary to force me to pay that. Gotcha, and thank you for your question. This one coming in from Stinger of Doom strikes again, says the LTOV has long been debunked. It cannot be reconciled with marginal utility or time preferences without becoming the STOV in all but name. STOV? Yeah, I'm figuring those out myself. I'm trying to remember my economics here. I'm a bit rusty. Oh, God. Yeah, I can't remember. But I think that has, I think that that person's probably an economic student and they probably, that would be an interesting discussion to have, but I can't answer that right now because I've not made my area studies history not economics. No worries. You were right. Stinger of Doom is actually trying to get on for a debate and has been for a while as he is a big time into economics. And Oflamio, thanks for your other question. They had asked, I'm looking up LTOV and STOV. I'll try to find it for you. Like stove, like the word stove? No. Just... No, STOV, I think V stands for value or something. I'll look it up. I'll see if I can find it. But Oflamio asked, can... Oh, so he said labor theory of value, subjective theory of value. Oh, gotcha. Oh, that's what's still... Okay. Subjective, it's like, I'm not the biggest fan of like a purely labor theory of value kind of way. I think that honestly, subjective theory of value does have a certain thing to it because again, you can just, if you labor to make mud pies, those mud pies are not gonna be worth anything. But I think that also there is some inherent value to how you produce a source for the better made-up society or something that is considered to be of value. And that value can't be subjective. It also can be, you know, material. Like there's a reason why things like oil have value. It's cause they're used. It just depends. I think that I'm more for a heterodox view than just simply one or the other. I think that both of them can be, I think they both can be synthesized. Got you, and thank you very much. Sphinter of doom who striked... You muted James. Oh, no. James muted. I can't hear you. Let's see here. We'll now abuse, okay, now hopefully it's back now. Sphinter of doom strikes again saying the box's analogy ignores who potentially owns the boxes or whether the number of boxes is immutable. It's a crude analogy at best. He's probably right about that. I mean, the whole, my whole thing is, I actually saw one that had to do with equity and injustice where it was, if the analogy is everyone has a box, justice would be replacing the wooden fence with the chain link fence. So you can see through it. Juicy, and this is sort of... And Elizabeth, thanks for your question. Says, T-jump will never be an innovative box maker. No boxes for T-jump. You have no idea how much I enjoyed reading that, Thomas. All right. It makes me curious. Sphinter of doom, thank you, says the problem is a lack of school choice where schools have no reason to be responsive or innovative to demands with existing funding. More investment is just pouring money into an inefficient system. Yeah, there's lots of garbage systems in schools. I think that charter schools are actually kind of a benefit in some ways and that there's too many labor rules regarding schools that takes too much to fire bad teachers and that you can't discipline kids effectively. There's tons of terrible garbage with public schools that needs to be fixed. Well, I think the charter schools are like the exact opposite way to do that is that just produces gentrification. That's all that does. The rich people who are able to go out of there and have the resources to go out and the biggest issue with charter schools is actually busing. If you have a bus system that goes to a school, if your mom works all the time and you can't go anywhere else, you gotta use that bus system. But if your parents are rich and you have a stay at home mom or something like that, then you can afford to be driven to a charter school. And that's sort of like the inherent live school choice. I think that it really just is a gentrification supercharger. It doesn't really address some of the financial inequalities or like really fix the system. It just basically obfuscates it and says, what if we had just like his other school over here? Then you can choose to go do it. I think we need a baseline education in this country if we want to succeed. I think that that's reasonable. I think you're muted again, Mike's broke. Thanks for that heads up. I think it's- Oh, there we go. Okay, next sphincter of doom said, the best way to not have innovation is to guarantee funding regardless of innovation. No, science, like most sciences, there's garbage that mistakes. I mean, the innovation is rare but we still fund it anyway because there's some innovation. So innovation isn't like a common thing. It's a very rare thing. We guarantee funding for scientists because the innovations they do make are really awesome, even though most of them don't make many innovations. Next up, Mike Billars says, T-Jump, do you think the same amount of money, say $100,000, do you think the same amount of money given to a poor and rich school would benefit each the same? No, again, I think that the money invested in the rich schools are meant to make innovation. So it's gonna do something completely different. In the poor schools, it would be used to gain the things the rich schools already have, like books and more teachers and more food or whatever. And so it would benefit the stuff we already know about. Whereas in the rich schools, it would yield new stuff that we don't know about. That's the point of the innovation. It's gonna be used to do new things that we haven't thought of yet. Whereas in the poor schools, it's gonna be mostly the stuff we already know about. I just don't think that like, I think you're really overvaluing the unknown here. If we have a known value that we can make people do good or we can have some unknown value of innovation that we don't know the value of, but it could be the best thing ever. I don't think that you just automatically pick the box that is the mystery box. You gotta go sometimes with, honestly, even if you wanted to invest in these schools, like I said, there's only so much you can do. There's only so much you can do by just pouring money into something. I think that we should, if we have a baseline level of knowledge in this country, people will be more knowledgeable, then they would be able to do more with that. Not necessarily just innovate like once or twice with like some esoteric way of teaching, but doing better things with their lives and being more productive members of society, staying out of things like drugs and gang wars and stuff like that. That is really where it happens. That is really important. And keeping people off like that also gives benefits like making sure, like that'll mean that you can cut police forces down because people are less incentivized to do crime if they're not for, depending on the amount of crime, what we consider crime, but you know. I think science innovation done the most by a significant margin to benefit human lives by such an unbelievably significant margin. Innovation is like the most important thing in the world. I think, again, like I said, I think human life is better than innovation. Well, Flamie, oh, so sorry that I missed your second question. This is from earlier, they had said, confite, why do more companies structure themselves like oligarchies and autocracies than communes and democracies? It's simple, it makes the most money that way. It makes the most profit that way and you're able to siphon the most value out of your workers, so the rate of profit tends to fall. And when you have a structured, you know, what that basically means is that every single year, you know, you might make like X amount of returns this year and that's great. And then you'll make a little bit less returns even if it's more than last year, nominally that rate tends to go down given just naturally. And if you're an oligarchy or something like that, what you can do to artificially inflate that rate is cut the people down below you off.  All that money, I mean, or like bare bones at jobs, that really is where that comes from. So it's the way of essentially making the most money for people at the top because they have the most money to invest in there and then they wanna get the most money out of it. It's not like benefiting society in a certain way. It's technically morally neutral but it tends to lean on like morally just immoral because of the fact that it just, because of the nature of it, because it is exploitative. I mean, if we wanna go like in a content sense, it's using people as the mere means. I think most companies are started by individuals or a small group of individuals. And so they're the CEOs of the company and they usually rise to take most of the money cause they invested in years for nothing to try and build this company up. And they usually like to pay themselves more cause they own the company and did all the work to start it. I would say also doing all the work is a little bit of a fallacy because there was a lot of companies where people have, they just have lots of money so they just invested random stuff and they can fail over and over again in a lot of these businesses. You're much more likely to, if you're rich, to just make a ton of businesses and see whatever sticks on the wall and then later do whatever and then say, oh well, I just had this one business and I invested everything in it. It's like, well, that one just tended to work. Poor people don't have that advantage. They can only maybe start one business. Next up, Svincter of Doom says, CEO pay is a red herring. You could redistribute the CEO pay of a Fortune 500 company to the workers of that firm and it is pennies more an hour. Well, yeah, CEO pay is like Jeff Bezos gets paid like 80 grand a year at his CEO salary. All his money has come from his stocks. The problem isn't the pay because they don't care about the pay. They care about the stock so they don't have to be taxed until you take them out and there's a lot of ways to avoid that. So yeah, the pay isn't the issue. It's the stocks. The stocks are a way to avoid taxes and to make significantly more money without having to do anything. So the issue isn't necessarily the pay. It's the stocks. Juicy, end. I agree with T-Jump and I just wanted to say, and that's why I just like capitalism. Very juicy. You hoard. Thank you for your super chat set. I love you James. I hope you have a good week. Appreciate that. That means a lot. And thank you, Lewis Ramiro, who says, confite, did you take into consideration the level of skill in risk management as a factor when thinking in outcomes of productivity in return on investment? If yes, how did you take it into account?  I'm sorry for the audience. My brain works through a little bit too fast and I put random things in there in order to try to put something out there. But one of the things that we do is we really overemphasize the amount of risk and overvalue that. Like there is risk in starting a business. You can fail and that is true. And I think that people should be rewarded for trying to take that risk and doing things like that. But I think that it is when you're talking about people that have like shitloads of money, you're able to fail more often and therefore, you can afford to do it. So a lot of these people who have like, if you're like a mom and paw shop and you don't have a whole lot of money or generational wealth, the issue really is generational wealth.  But if like you're the son of some billionaire, you know, your business can fail like 10 times and we see this all the time.  You'll just fail, but you fail upwards. And that's sort of the issue is that not everyone can fail upwards. Gotcha, and thank you for your question. This one coming in from Sphinxer of Doom. He is bringing the hammer down. Here he comes again. He says charter schools are admitted by lottery primarily and minorities are over represented in charter schools. I'd have to see that data. You'd have to show me that data. If you can show me that data, I'd be happy to admit that. And we can talk about, you know, what that means exactly, but I haven't seen that data before him. Gotcha. He's actually right, because most charter schools are instituted in poor states. Most richer states can afford private schools. So they don't need charter schools, but you're right that charter schools do discriminate in the way that they operate to disenfranchise poor students in some ways, but mostly they harm the teachers because they get rid of the unions. Yeah. That's the thing that most people argue against charter schools. But I think that's a good thing. I think it benefits the teachers. You can fire bad teachers and get rid of bad students much more easily than in the unionized public schools. The collective bargaining is a huge way of, you know, I think that like you can still get fired if you're in a union. Like that's not necessarily a thing. If you do something that is a fireable offense, you can get fired.  Like that's, I think that's a good thing. And we've seen teachers unions in this country do very good things. There is a West Virginia teachers union strike in 2017 that was able to get more resources for, you know, impoverished kids and also help, you know, people. I think that that's really a good thing. I think that unions are, you know, good. That's why I'm a syndicalist. I like unions. Unions are good. Well, I disagree because of the tenure thing about those teachers not being able to employ new or teachers who might be better. There is some problems with like that. But I think that it's overstated to the point of not necessarily, that's just a problem with you can tweak unions to make them better. You shouldn't just like throw the baby out with the bath, I suppose. Next up, Sincter of Doom Relentless says scientific innovation. I'm gonna get some of this money, James. Sincter of Doom is funding this entire channel. So yeah, Sincter of Doom is a regular and he's hugely into economics. And he says scientific innovation is being funded for innovation and with competition, schools are not. I think again, we overemphasize competition and everything. The biggest thing that really leads to innovation is adversity, not competition. So if you look at this, a great example of this, I'm a huge World War II nerd. I love World War II planes and stuff. Prior to the 1930s, there was a lot of competition in aerospace industries. But the issue was there was not necessarily a whole lot of innovation because of the fact the status quo that was there was being upheld by people who were making these whatever planes. You have things like the booster buffalo, you have things like the F4F. What really started to get people to really look into jets because jets were a thing in like 39. People just didn't consider them to be anything because they were like, eh, it's not that great. What really considered them to be a thing was the adversity of going to a war and testing it out. If you have an innovation that's all well and good, it doesn't matter if there is a, if there's nothing to like really institute that innovation, the institutional factors will just keep the status quo because it's easier. And like, again, with jet engines, the jets would not have been such a big thing in like the 50s had World War II not happened. Gotcha, and thank you very much for your question coming in from Red Aims, odd, said was too late to this one, but if by equity you mean attempting to force equal outcomes, then how is it possible to maintain freedom? Well, like I said, equity does not mean equality of outcome. It just means that you have the resources in order to do what you want and what you need. That's all that necessarily it means. Like the state is not, if equity is investing in schools, quality of outcome would be like mandating people don't graduate from school until they have a certain, a certain level of education. That would be a quality of outcome. Gotcha, and thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from long time, he's been here for a long time. We love him, Spart344 asks, for both, do you think that the equity policies of South Africa have been successful and how is confights system any better? No, it's been horribly unsuccessful. I think the ones he's referring to is where the South African nation started to take white-owned farms and give them to black-owned farmers and it caused a destruction of all the crops, signature food shortages. So that had a negative adverse effect because they took the skilled farmers who had been doing it for years, took the farms away from them, giving them to unskilled farmers who didn't know how to do it well and it destroyed all the crops. But I don't know if that's equity as much as it's just thievery. I don't think, I don't know if those would be the same.  I think the issue there is, again, a lot of equity and sort of like justice, you really want to focus on education.  The issue is they just didn't know how to run it. You don't just give people stuff and then say, oh, well, you know, we've achieved justice. Justice is a lot more different than that. You need to focus on the underlying systems and it's not just redistribution period.  That's the sort of thing. Juicy and Silver Harlow has brought the hammer down. He says, T-Jump, giving them money to the rich school won't increase innovation in teaching. It will expand their football program. Yeah, I think that we spend too much money on sports and it's stupid, I agree. More money in science, less money in the sports, for sure. Juicy, and thanks for your question, this one coming in from Augmented Space says, can you ask Khan what the difference is between a furry and a therian? Okay, this is easy. Therians generally believe that they are an animal.  That's pretty much all it is. Therians like, I have like a psychological belief that they are an animal, furries do not. Furries just like anthropomorphic art. You learned something new every day. Thank you very much, Eminent Reflection. Appreciate your question as well. Says, sounds like both sides are arguing. Equity is the better goal, but differ in whether it's possible. Is that accurate? Yes, that is completely accurate. Like if we had infinite resources, equity is great. I think like my model, the best of all possible worlds, gives everyone equity for sure. We just, the problem is we don't have the resources to do it. I think my criticism of that is just that I think that we do have enough resources to do it. We just, you know, there are systemic factors that make it so we can't. You got it in a Ryan Price. Just two more questions. Ryan Price says, for confite, why should a part-time cashier have as much access to resources as someone with two full-time jobs? I don't know exactly what they're talking about. I mean, in an ideal system, you can have like one full-time job. If you're talking about, trying to talk about like unions and whatnot, part-time work is a very, you would have to do some sort of like partial ownership of a share of a company for like part-time stuff. Full-time work would be a little bit different. I'm not exactly sure what they're asking there. I think that's what they were asking. But yeah, I mean, I think also just like underwrecking social assistance and whatnot, I think that like having a luxury market, like if you work more, you should, if you work more than you need to, you should get more. I think that's fine. Like that, but it shouldn't be, if you work more than you need to, you get food. Like I think that's immoral. I think that's bad. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question. Robert Boll, good to hear from you, says, can you ask both of the guests how education should be funded and how much should be invested? I think that that was probably covered. You guys feel good about that? Or is there anything? No, I think he's actually right that the way that education is currently funded based on housing prices is completely garbage. And we definitely need to toss that out and give more of a voucher system. I really like the voucher system, the big libertarian, what's his name, forgot his name, but the voucher systems, the libertarian voucher system, not the Republican one, the Republican one is garbage, but the libertarian voucher systems work significantly better than the housing systems. Gosh. I think it does work better, but I think we can do even better than the libertarian system. I do agree that I think the libertarian system is like better than what we have, but a lot of things are better than what we have, so. You got it. And sphincter of doom. I love debate call-outs. Basically an offer more so, but he just in the last second said would either debater be for a part two of this debate, two V two style in the future. Sure. Whole baby. I mean, I'd be down. I am not the best, my focus is mostly on, like I said, history, but I've always down to get schooled in economics. I can try to rate up the next debate, so I'm sure. That would be epic. So we hope to host that. That could be a lot of fun. And thanks, Ryan Price, for your positive feedback. Said good debate overall, thanks. And well, we have to say, folks, sorry if we didn't get to your question, but just to let the speakers out of here on a decent time, you wanna say thank you, everybody, for hanging out with us. Thank you so much to our guests who are linked in the description. Folks, if you wanna hear more from our guests, or it doesn't have to stop right now, you can go to the description. And at the very top, their links are waiting for you. So thanks, everybody. I will be back in a post-credits scene in just a moment to update you on upcoming debates that we have going on. And so thanks, everybody, for hanging out with us. And thanks again so much to our guests. We really do appreciate you, both ConFight and T-Jump. All right. Thanks, everybody. And I'll be right back in just a moment. That was epic. Huge thank you to our guests. Seriously, we really do appreciate those guys. They're linked in the description, so you can hear plenty more where that came from. We, that was a fun one, you guys. That was really, that was really, like that was great because it was so friendly and it was, I just really enjoyed it. I haven't seen the whole debate yet with Darth Dawkins the other night. I tuned in, by the way, I heard my boy Oliver Katwell told me that Converse did a great job, which I love. Converse absolutely does, I couldn't agree more. So I am thrilled that that was what I had heard about it. And Converse as a moderator, he's fantastic. And we love Converse and we love Carissa. They both do great. But I am curious, because I looked at the video and I'm pulling it up right now. I was encouraged. I saw, I was like, wow, it was like 400 likes? That's great. Way to go Converse. And I was like, whoa, 100 dislikes. I don't know the last time we've had 100 dislikes on any video. And I know, I don't know. I know it's not because of Converse. I hate to be biased, but I have, I mean just, because it has nothing to do with worldviews. I just get along well with Mark. So I doubt that it's Mark that caused the dislikes. And you guys know that last time, the reason that, I should say that this time, the reason that Converse was moderating, I don't know if you know, it was because Darth insisted that someone other than me moderate for his debates. So we basically, I was like, okay, but so basically, I don't know, maybe it was Darth, I don't know. But Ryan Bryce has gotta go take care of James. Thanks buddy, appreciate you. And yeah, we're pumped you guys about the future. I do appreciate all of you guys' love and support. You guys are awesome. You make it so fun. Punch out 24 says fun times. I like this channel. I'll definitely come back for more debates. Thanks buddy. Seriously, that's encouraging. It really does mean a lot. And yeah, getting to say hi to you all in the chat. Tuss Beatbox, good to see you. Megan Satanus, good to see you again as well. Larry Letts, glad you're here buddy. Thanks for dropping by. And Felix Rodriguez, thanks for being with us buddy. As well as Douting Thomas, King101, Mega Dude Man 21. Thanks for hanging out with us. And Mega Dude Man says, it was Darth. Thanks for your ratin' him out. Yeah, but let's see, what is it? Eminent reflection, good to see you. Dak, glad you made it. Donald Chronos. And Lacob Eunice, thanks so much for being with us buddy. He said, didn't Darth say he's not debating again? Well, it's okay if I'm not moderating. Darth is okay with it. Oh, Woody says that Darth was on surprisingly good behavior. Oh, that's good. And I'm glad to hear that. And then Boiled Pizza, good to see you. And he says, you promised James that you would find me interlocutors. You know, it's funny, Converse, anyway. I love Converse, we love him. Theo, let's see, Fernando Gonzalez, thanks for hanging out with us. He says it was not, it just was, it was just not the same without you James. Thanks, Fernando, I appreciate you buddy. That means a lot. I was like, oh man, I didn't get to be there. But yeah, it's true. It's so hard to not, when Darth gets riled up, it's hard for me to not laugh. General Balzac says, CC looked a little tired, but always enjoy him subbing in. Oh yeah, I do love it. And I hope he's not too tired. He works hard and we love him. And Megan, let's see, Megan, good to see you. Big Don says, hey James, good debate as always. Also recently joined the Discord. Thanks, Big Don, I'm encouraged by that. That's encouraging. And I have to be honest, I have to warn you, Big Don, I'm embarrassed to say that I still haven't learned how to use Discord. I'm sorry folks. Like I really have tried. It is a hard platform. I used to think Twitter was hard compared to Facebook, which it is. But it's not like Discord. Discord is like another beast. It's almost like they make the platforms harder so that boomers like me can't figure out how to use them. Yeah, it's very sad. But let's see. We also have hanging out with us tonight. Good to see you. And the George said, thanks for being with us, buddy. Glad you're here. And also, yeah, I'm pumped. Albert Bitcoin, of course, is here. And yeah, I think you're right, Woody, that Darth does like CC. He likes Converse. They've got a good relationship. And that's good. Like I'm happy that that works. Like that's cool. Like I love CC. Like he's a great guy. And Carissa is a great lady. And we are hoping to have Carissa back on for a debate soon. So hopefully that works out. But hey, we'll figure it out. But yeah, I am pumped to see you guys in the chat. Daniel Kazmer, thanks for being with us again as well. And yeah, let's see. Hashtag JamesTheBoomer and the George said is right. Joseph Sekovik. Sekovik, thank you for being with us, Joseph. We hope that you're doing well, buddy. Joe Ollert. Glad you're here, buddy. Said, I get you have an obligation to read super chats, but in relation to this debate, shouldn't you read none super chats, questions to be equal and or equitable? Yeah, you know, that's a tough one where it's like, if I, well, for one thing is, we wanna respect the time of the debaters. That honestly is actually a challenge.  So like I like being here, but it's kind of like the debaters we usually tell them, like, yeah, it's probably gonna be an hour and a half, maybe two hours. And so it's like, sometimes there are nights where it's like we could go for so long and it's kind of like, sorry guys, we can't read every question, but, and the George said, says, beta! And Robert Bull, good to see you, says, me too. I'm not sure what you're referring to. What are you saying? Skillmaster says, James Four O'clock in Germany pulling through the night. Wow. Well, thanks Skillmaster for being with us in your late night, my friend. We hope you feel welcome. We really do. And I hope that this community and feeling welcome and feeling invited, I hope that it makes you feel peace, despite the, not a great night of sleep. And perhaps it'll help you feel good for sleep. There are some channels that I listen to when I wanna go to sleep, like, and so it's like, it just makes me feel, it just makes me feel like rested. It makes me, it means a lot.  Let's see, he says, anytime someone says to join it to connect, I guess I'm not going to connect.   Like, I'm really thankful for the people that do the work on it, like, cause we have moderators and they, I hope they enjoy that, I don't know. We are not in, I'm not entitled to anybody's help. So if the moderators like on discord were all, if they all left and I hope they wouldn't do it cause I hope it's a joy, but I would never blame them. If they were like, hey, James, like, we're out of here, man, you handle the discord. I'd be like, hey, I can't blame you at all cause we're not entitled to anybody's help. And so I do, I am appreciative and I do thank those people who help us on discord. And so MegaDudeMan21 says, James, you always make these debates better. Thanks friend, I appreciate that. I feel a little bad for being so hard on T-Jump, but I shouldn't. The reason is he was interrupting me, okay? If he wasn't starting to talk while I was in mid-sentence, I would be okay with it. But that's the trick. The funny thing is nowadays, sometimes it's funny, maybe this is what you guys would call gaslighting, cause I, you know what, sometimes when I used to be in the dating game, and I'm still kind of in the dating game, but I'm kind of taken, but sometimes like if a girl, a lady would cut me off, and I would say, oh, excuse me, I'm still talking.  And I'm like, you're the one that cut me. You were the one that was interrupting me. All I did is stop you from doing that. Why am I the bad guy? So I don't apologize to Tom, but we love Tom nonetheless, even though he's not getting an apology at all. So, but seriously, I do love Tom. So we really do appreciate Tom. Tom has helped so much with this channel. Like he's been, he's a fun debater to listen to. I agree with that. I 100% agree with that. And so I actually, and we, you know, you've seen that I've like traveled with Tom and stuff like that. If you've seen the pictures on like, I think I posted like one or two pictures like on Twitter, probably not enough, but I've got like an Instagram that Coons James, basically my name backwards. And let's see. It has like a picture or two of me and Tom traveling. So we have a good relationship. We might fight a little bit like brothers because sometimes I'm probably a little bit too easily triggered by Tom. I love Tom seriously, I do it. And I love, I love both, Con fight I love as well. Like I appreciate him. And so we appreciate the debaters like they're the lifeblood of the channel. And so Larry Lutz says, you're welcome. We try to keep the discord civil. That's right, Larry. You're one of the moderators and thank you so much for doing that. I hope it's fun. Like I, and I'm like seriously, I try hard and a lot of people offer ideas on how we can improve the channel. And I, and I agree. There are ways we can improve the channel or the discord or Twitter, maybe even the podcast. All those things. And it's like, it's not that I don't care. It's that it's so hard.  I just do this cause I enjoy it. Like it's, it's a fun way to blow off steam and just be engaged with something fun when I'm not doing work. Cause the doctor, it is like, it's grueling you guys. I'm not trying to like get sympathy or something. Like, but it, but it is, it's pretty hard. It's tiring in terms of the schedule. And it's so hard for me sometimes to kind of go move beyond what we already do at modern day debate. So I hope you guys don't think that I don't care about your feedback. I'm so sorry if, especially if I've ever asked for your feedback and then not used it, that's pretty lame on my part. So I do apologize if that's ever happened. But sometimes I just get unsolicited advice like, hey James, you could fix this. And I'm happy to get it cause it's good to know. Because that way when I do have more time, I can make those changes. That's the hope. I don't know if I can take all of them immediately, but I, but that's the hope. But a test beatbox says James need to bust out the band hammer to make an example out of someone that's so true. Should we, oh, I've tempted to do it to poor Albert. Like poor Albert Bitcoin. Oh, nasty guy. I think it'll show you if I hide Albert, right? Let's test this. Albert is a bot, everybody. He's not a real person. I know that sounds mean, but he's not a real person. He's a bot. So if I hide him, which I just did, I just clicked hide user on the channel. Oh, okay. Yeah, you guys can see it. So basically it says message deleted by moderate debate. So I'm gonna unhide him. Don't worry. We love Albert, you know. He's a, there's an old joke from Elvin planning. I love it. For some reason it made me think of it, but it's the old joke about solipsism, where there was a professor who was a real life solipsist.  They're like kind of what you're experiencing, but they're not real, and you're the only conscious mind experiencing things in the world. And so, but anyway, Elvin planning has said he went to a philosophy department and he visited, and what happened was, he met a real life solipsist. They're like, oh, you don't know Fred? He's a solipsist. And he's like, I didn't know that there were any that really existed, because it's obviously a pretty out there view. And they're like, oh yeah, you want to meet him? And he's like, it's my only opportunity. Well, absolutely. And so, you know, he met him. And then at the end of when they met him, or I should say when they introduced planning to the solipsist, they go, yeah, we try to take special care of Fred, you know, here, because, oh, if he goes, we all go. And I just loved it, but it was really, it was good. But, Radim's odd, thanks for being with us, said, James meant to say I love the channel, accidentally hit enter. Guess I love you too, though. I know you're a busy guy, but would love a bit of feedback from my emails whenever you have time. Oh, I'm so sorry that I missed your emails. I'm serious that I'm sorry that I missed them. I've been trying to catch up, and I've been doing a decent job, but not a good enough job yet. So, do you have the same email address? Let me know, just so I can be sure that I've actually seen it. Radim's odd. Is that your email? Let me just type this in. Let me know if it is, because if that's the name associated with your email account, that helps, that makes it easier for me to find it. But, and then, I'm excited to have more woke debates. They're always fun. You guys, it's a blast. Oh, I just found out one of my students has COVID. That's not, that's bad. And that's, hopefully she's okay. Where is Radim's odd? Albert, the bot, Tespidbox says, but I meant in a debate just to show what happens if someone interrupts you. Oh, yeah, you're right. Yeah, yeah, that's funny. Um, yeah. I, yeah, that's funny. I like it, Tuss. And lack of unices, hey James, you could give me, let's see, 50 bucks bit of advice. I don't know if I can offer you advice that is worth 50 bucks, but I can try. What's on your mind? Said you're all imagination until proven otherwise. I'm confused. It must be a joke. You're making a joke based on the fact that I mentioned that I told that solipsist j