Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "The Rubin Report" channel.

  1. jas wats ... have you ever seen how a real democracy with a voting system 100% free of voter AND election fraud works? Come to Denmark, and I'll show you. No voter-ID needed.
    1
  2. MuahMan Oh no! ... You are completely without history.
    1
  3. MuahMan Well... then enlighten me. Do we agree that a thinker like Edmund Burke is one of the foundations for conservatism. What did he think of the emerging liberal thoughts at the time of the french and american revolution?
    1
  4. jas wats ... prejudice is easier than facts, eh?
    1
  5. jas wats So - apart from you not liking that I say it's relevant to compare Trump to fascism  - what makes you classify me as "leftist"?
    1
  6. That would be great - although Bernie is not a Marxist.
    1
  7. Not a Marxist
    1
  8. rich5562000 ???
    1
  9. Ronin Garrison I don't believe anyone said that.
    1
  10. So ... right after declaring that the harsh critique of Trump is "hysteria" (Tell that to Sam Harris) Dave and Andrew agree that it's "the others" who have the problem of thinking their motives are rational while everyone else's are not. Riiiighht,.... * sigh * ... this is getting ridiculous.
    1
  11. Scottie NNN Unfortunately there's a chocking number of science deniers amongst libertarians when it comes to climate change.
    1
  12. George Christiansen Because: “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”  ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
    1
  13. George Christiansen Actually.... I started many years ago with too much patience and a belief that these kind of people would respond to reason.
    1
  14. Maxime Laneville Nonsense... And it's not a weak comparison. I'm not even the only one who have made the observation that the pattern in science denial is the same. Try ask Eugenie Scott of National Center for Science Education.
    1
  15. George Christiansen "Beyond this, there is also the possibility to be entirely reasonable and yet entirely misinformed." As Richard Dawkins said: "“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”  ... the same goes for climate science denial. Except... in this case we actually know some people are motivated by the latter.
    1
  16. Scottie NNN "You see this with well meaning people in the left too." Sure ... but as a libertarian, trying to base my world view on reason, I can explain why it happens on the left. ;-) It must be a basic principle that if you believe your ideology is the right one it must be because you think it can solve every problem the real world may throw at us. If you find your self resolving to science denial to avoid having your ideology face a problem - you've lost. This goes for creationists as well as climate deniers.  - and it goes for Yaron Brook.
    1
  17. George Christiansen "Being reasonable and being right are not the same thing" Sure ... ... tell me: Do you regard Ken Ham or Kent Hovind as "reasonable" and/or "right" ? "Science is a process/methodology not some collection of knowledge" I know. "The conclusions made via this process are overturned all the time..." No they are not. Cutting edge research, yes. But established science is very rarely turned on its head. Einstein didn't invalidate Newtos laws. He just showed that they are an approximation of a more general theory. You also don't just go out and overthrow the theory of evolution. (That would take something like JBS Haldanes Precambrian Rabbits). Even though the creationists will (precisely as the climate deniers) argue time and time again that "It's only a theory" and "not proven". And the same way with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming which is also established science and has been so for many years now.  
    1
  18. George Christiansen I don't need to justify not trusting this guy to be reasonable and objective to you. If you are gullible enough to not be skeptical about his bias, then it's your problem.  
    1
  19. George Christiansen To have serious conversations about issues like this, I need to be able to trust the the other part is actually interested in listening to reason (especially when he makes that a cardinal point) and does not engage in dogmatic behavior  - that he is actually interested in progressing understanding. So if I need to be skeptical about someone in that regard, it's enough to be dismissive about  the value of his input. - yes. "You should probably apply some skepticism to yourself. You've certainly inspired me to." Fortunately I don't need the acknowledgement of people who think they can dictate my personal criteria for trusting 3rd party. ... be as skeptical as you like.
    1
  20. Dave... Please have Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center on - for a libertarian who actually applies reason and science to policy.
    1
  21. It's fascinating to see these reflectins play out in an american context... because...they play out in European context to, even though the political landscape is completely different. I probably have to see more of Carls videos.
    1
  22. +Ernie Leon Guerrero I tried it to ... 5% wrt. Johnson. Reading his answers, I think he has simply not thought libertarian ideolgy through. For instance... we disagree on global warmning. ... I would be prepared any day to defend a fee-n-dividend carbon tax based on libertarian ideology.
    1
  23. Jesus! ... Well ... I don't recognize the University she describes from my time... and I doubt this phenomenon has reached Denmark. Universities are not just about "ticking the boxes" and job training. They are actually for people interested in the subject. But if universities have become so alien in the UK (and US/Canada) I can fully understand what she says about teaching "Climate Change" in Universities. ... but some anglo-saxon humanities departments going of the deep end in that regard really don't change the facts about the natural sciences.
    1
  24. "I am religiously obligated to believe it if it is true". Well Dennis ... then you seem to be a sinner wrt. both evolution and climate science.
    1
  25. I really have to question whether 10 minutes of a climate science denier is "The battle of ideas". Is it also a "battle of ideas" listening people thinking that the world is only 6000 years old? Does it really make sense to take scientific questions out of the scientific method and try to resolve them in an "battle of ideas" framed in a setting of political or religious ideology?
    1
  26. ***** Yeah... I've also wondered why Bernie actively used the term, since it has so much baggage in the US which has nothing to do with social democracy. But I guess he's a principled man and just want to be completely honest ... regardless of how many are too ignorant to understand the meaning.
    1
  27. GrayFates It would be a much easier world if the general political ideologies (liberalism, conservatism, socialism...) had very well defined original meanings every where. ... but that's not the case. Nobody is "redefining" the terms. They've just all come to  mean a wide spectrum of things. So - today - you have people calling them selves "conservative liberals" (and "liberal conservatives") and "social liberals" ... all of which would have been oxymorons at when these things first began. It's not our fault that "socialism" split into several different branches.
    1
  28. ***** ... as a classical liberal my self.  Anarcho-capitalism is just as utopian as communism. However... it seems to be very popular these days amongst libertarians to have anarchist tendencies.
    1
  29. fab006 "True, except Bernie doesn't want Denmark, he wants Venezuela." I'm afraid you'll have to document that claim with a quote.
    1
  30. fab006 An answer to your 3 posts above: 1) No you didn't. There was no reasoning. You just postulated he wanted to do away with free markets venezuela-style. 2) More undocumented claims. I can't take such claims serious unless you provide references and documentation. But I know of at least one case where people had claimed the same as you just do - namely the Interview he gave about Nicaragua where he mentioned Castro. I've listened to the entire interview and such claims are taken out of context. He doesn't side with Castro. The topic is whether US intervention and regime change is a good idea. And he explains some of the reasons why it's not. For one thing, the US government constantly misjudges the reaction of the local population of where they invade. From Cuba to Iraq. 3) Not a very specific quote you gave there. So I read the entire article. You do realize that that article is a primitive smear job from one how wants to portrait Bernie as a Marxist and not a Social Democrat. - right? I could find ONLY ONE argument in the entire article which actually related to any of Bernies policies and had some truth in it and was not just to fabricated prejudice of the writer - and the was the argument about the size of the capital gains tax. ... and the comparison to Denmark was not entirely fair. Yes, the marginal capital gains tax in Denmark is currently 42%, but it has been higher. It's actually lowered a bit each year currently. Also ... There's a lot of other details about Danish tax which are different. We have a 25% VAT. ... To my knowledge Bernie does want to go there... so he find the revenues in different ways. The Danish tax system is changing constantly, so just because he hasn't got the exact same sources as revenue as we have it doesn't mean he wants "Venezuela" ... come on... don't fall for that nonsense. Wrt. the single payer healt care system and the claim about "centralization" , the author of the article conveniently switches from talking about the Nordic countries to just "Europe". We actually DO have a completely centralized health care system in Denmark. The author is simply wrong. Now, that doesn't mean that you cannot in addition buy private products, but to my knowledge Bernie has in no way proposed to ban private providers for offering service in addition to the national system. I regard that article as a bunch of nonsense... Actually ... it's absurd to read an article trying to convince the reader that "socialism" is not "liberalism" when the word "liberalism" has lost it's meaning anyway in the US and the author seems to deliberately want to conflate all kinds of socialism. Going back to the original meaning of "liberalism" (as we use in Europe - classical liberalism) ... OF COURSE socialism is not liberalism. ... I should know. I'm member of a classical liberal party. I'm not a socialist. ... but I care about FACTS. ... and I see were few in what you present.  
    1
  31. fab006 "Question for you: does Bernie want to do away with large chunks of regulation in the US?" That's a very broad question. Regulation is many things in different areas. Before I answer ... can we agree that the Nordic countries hardly can be said to in general have less regulation than the US. So not wanting to do away with a lot of regulation in the US doesn't suddenly make your goal "Venezuela" and not "Denmark". That's a non sequitur ... Anyway ... to my knowledge, Bernie wants to legalize Marijuana - which is illegal in Denmark ... so there... he's already more liberal than Denmark.  
    1
  32. German Realist Neither of your 2 unsubstantiated claims make any sense to me.
    1
  33. German Realist 1) I can't see how race matters. 2) I can't see why the size of the population matters 3) Denmark doesn't have plenty of natural resources. 4) You didn't always have that debt. It's simply bad excuses. And your last comment is an entirely different problem.
    1
  34. German Realist 1) There's probably a world in which that makes sense. 2) Tell that to be Belgians. 3) You obviously doesn't know anything about the Danish/Greenland relationship. ... or the current state of Danish oil. 4) It's not a rule that the US should have debt. nonsense... pure nonsense...
    1
  35. German Realist You know... you would probably be easier to take serious if you could formulate an argument without name calling.
    1
  36. divineslaughter Thinking it's a good idea to talk about political issues like this DOES NOT mean that you also agree with the often stupid immigration policies enacted. Unfortunately, we have a political party in Denmark  (DF) which has a pretty idiotic approach to solutions. Not just regarding immigrations, but also - say - the law banning knifes. I definitely do acknowledge that there's something completely broken in the Danish system when well integrated educated people are deported, but career criminals are not. We just had a few cases of good students being thrown out - it's insane. Many of those laws are anything but liberal. I'm a member of a liberal party with a clear agenda to abolish the 24-year rule. BUT! Acknowledging that the system is broken and that there are illiberal laws resulting in stupid situations, does NOT require you to think the Swedish way of making the topic taboo and not talk about it is a tolerable alternative. Actually - I would claim that if more political parties had been willing to approach the issue openly without deamonizing DF (by calling them not-house-trained), then we would have been more able to find workable solutions which didn't result in you having to live in Sweden. But the result of all the deamonizing has been that voters who think the topic needs to be addressed have flocked to DF because they were the only ones who listened. You see the same in Sweden now, with the rise of Sverigesdemokraterne. So - I acknowledge your problem and agree that it is wrong, but don't tell me the public discourse climate for this topic in Sweden is a better solution. ... Having such a topic be practically taboo will only make the situation explode at some point.
    1
  37. divineslaughter Well ... as long as the left wing in Denmark (R,S, SF, E, AL) refuse to acknowledge problems and talk about real solutions, unfortunately all the initiative is left at the idiots in DF (who recently stated you should go to church to be real Danish). !??!?! But lately, there has been some waking up - even in SF. I would hope that it would be obvious to everybody that nothing should prevent a Danish citizen from marrying a foreigner and living in Denmark ... but as long a the left keep ignoring actual problems, DF gets to call the shots and we will not see prober working solutions respecting basic liberal values.
    1
  38. +Anthony Brian Logan That's nonsense... libertarianism is in strong opposition to conservatism (at least in Europe)
    1
  39. Ryan Coulbeck I actually think a more in depth reflection on the principles and origins of the ideologies is needed to get a better understanding. Not only of what the ideologies actually represents, but also who misunderstands them, how and how much. One need to read up on people like Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine and the differences between the left/right spectrum in the US and in continental Europe. There's too much misunderstanding going around. ... on "both sides" ... (although I hate the one-dimensional political spectrum concept)
    1
  40. Except - in terms of topology, the truth is not somewhere the middle. The earth is neither flat, nor a donut ... it's topological equivalent to a sphere.
    1
  41. SuperAwesomeVidya ... "Not sure it's comparable, climate change denial isn't a fringe belief in the US. A huge percentage of Americans doesn't believe in it. I think it's worth debating." Sorry ... explain this to me... is physics somehow different in the US than in Europe?
    1
  42. Cameron Llewellyn It hasn't ... and it's also not what the current investigation is about... though Alex (and those who put it under the headline of "free speech") would like you to believe that.
    1
  43. insidetrip101 "Sure, he wasn't the one actually being prosecuted" Exactly ... it's perfectly reasonable that the AG subpoenas others to collect evidence during an investigation. Whether it's logical to subpoena specifically Alex, - I don't know - since Alex wasn't really active at the time Exxon was doing the stuff they are investigated for. ... but don't go out calling this a free speech issue. That's nonsense.
    1
  44. insidetrip101 "I agree, but not even Alex was saying that his free speech hasn't been violated." I was actually hinting about that Dave might have gone over-the-top putting this under the free speech headline. "He did say his privacy had been invaded, ..." Yeah... He can tell that to all the Climate Scientists who have been harassed by FOIA request ... lately be Lamar Schmit. "he is saying that his privacy was invaded was because the original investigation against exxon mobil is violating the free speech of exxon." Was the RICO investigations against the Tobacco Industry a violation of Phillip Morris' free speech?
    1
  45. insidetrip101 "But, second, these people are receiving public funding, and have a duty to be held accountable" And Exxon has laws to abide by as well. "I don't like to comment on actual judicial opinions without having actually read the case;" But you are obviously doing it in the case of Exxon "And then you accuse him of "anti-science" wrong-think because he wants to bring up an issue about fundamental rights--simply because you disagree with the politics of the speaker." That's a blatant strawman. I've never accused Dave of being anti-science. I've accused Alex of being a science denier ... and I've been very explicit of why - and that was not the reason. You are not coming through as honest here. Exxon is being investigate on two accounts: * Failure to meet its obligations to inform its shareholders and the financial markets. * RICO violations, just like the Tobacco industry. You'll have to argue that the Tobacco case was wrong to argue against investigating Exxon at all.
    1
  46. insidetrip101 "There has been no judicial opinion written about this..." How on earth would you ever be able to reach a judicial opinion on a case if you were not allowed to investigate it because people thought it was a "free speech" issue if you did? And please don't play the victim card. You brought forward a blatant strawman about what I had said ... I have the right to point that out.
    1
  47. Daylan Hammer Let me inject here that as much as one would have wished there in general was a way to hold those spreading misinformation accountable, we have to realize that (unless you are religious) the only ones who can hold them accountable is their grand children, when they once ask them: "What were you doing when all this played out?" Since this is how free speech works. Companies like Exxon, how provably knew better, and deliberately misinformed of their product is maybe another issue. If this can be shown to be like the Tobacco situation there probably is a way to hold them accountable. But that is not a free speech issue.
    1
  48. aCycloneSteve ... it's kinda of a premise isn't it... if you are going to start out by fertilizing a conspiracy theory by calling institutions like NAS ond Royal Society for "political organizations", then  the rest of the discussion about what they say is rather pointless isn't it? Abraham Lincoln could just as well have not created the NAS... they would tell him any objective information anyway.
    1
  49. aCycloneSteve ... tell me how that not just become an excuse to reject any message from the scientific community which you don't like
    1
  50. Daylan Hammer As a (geo)libertarian, I will have to object. The "don't force me at gunpoint" is an anarcho-capitalist talking-point. ... though admittedly, many who call themselves "libertarians" seem to be flirting with anarcho-capitalism. Anyway ... it's a basic tenet of classical liberalism that your freedom extends only so far that it does not interfere with the equal freedom of others. Denying science to hide that CO2 emissions is actually interfering with everybodys lives also goes totally against the spirit of classical liberalism of basing policy on reason.
    1