Description

In this episode of Office Hours, Isaac and TK debate the value of debating. Then they jump into answering listeners’ questions about how to know when you’re ready for something, if self-improvement is overrated, and how to explain yourself to naysayers. This week’s questions are: 1. What does it mean to be ready for something? 2. Is it ok if I’m happy with myself and I don’t believe myself needs to be improved? 3. How should college opt-outs explain themselves to the haters and naysayers? Praxis is a twelve-month program that places young people with startups to apprentice, learn, grow, and walk away with valuable career skills. Learn more at: http://discoverpraxis.com/ Apply now at : https://www.discoverpraxis.com/apply

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

I'm an entrepreneur, thinker, and communicator dedicated to the relentless pursuit of freedom. I'm the founder and CEO of Praxis, an intensive ten-month program combining real world business experience with the best of online education for those who want more than college.

discussions

  • Who would you like to see debate live on Liberty.me?

    Jump to Discussion Post 53 replies
  • Not too long ago I decided to ask a Scottish Socialist an economic question about the socialist system he advocates on his YouTube channel: “Due to the preclusion of exchange for goods of higher order, what is the basis for state officials directing the alternative applications of the factors of production towards thousands of different and changing consumer needs and wants of different urgencies in the least-cost manner for society at large?” The answer to my own question was basically going to be that state officials cannot have a basis for directing the factors of production due to the absence of the price mechanism, but as you can see in the comments section he didn’t really answer my question. As you can see above, he has now responded to my question with a new video, but after listening to it I cannot compile a sufficient answer to reply with in order to get him to understand where he is mistaken. http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=yN5_YWv–WA Can you tell me what point he is still missing?

    Jump to Discussion Post 6 replies
  • After reading Jon Beauchemin’s article ‘Practical Anarchy is All Around Us’ and comments to my question of the funniest/dumbest arguments against a freer society and it became even more clear how many of them are based in fear. Some like ‘muh roooads’ are fear of inconvenience or fear of the loss of freedom to travel easily, but for some reason the TSA is an acceptable invasion of privacy when flying. Which is truly surprising, since flying is also the answer the the ‘who would build the roads’ question. Answer: anyone, and who cares? We could fly!?! But I digress. It seems fear is behind almost every objection. One of the biggest objections being that the physically strong, rich and/or influential would have to much power, and a government must restrain them. Ignore for a moment that this argument defeats itself – we need strong people we have little control over to protect us from strong people we have little control over – and note what this fear really means. These people likely agree with us that they would like a freer world, but they are terrified that without government people as prone to lying as Pelosi might control a delivery company. Someone as vacuous and backpedaling as Boehner would run and insurance company.  Or someone as formerly popular as Obama might become an arbitrator of contracts. These are terrifying thoughts! Politicians would be in the market, and think of all the evils they might perpetrate then, you know, when you and I actually had to deal with them. Now while we know that the market would force these people to be relatively good actors(no one buys a shit-sandwich just because their competitor is a douchbag), most people have never thought this through. The reality of the situation is, the vast majority of our interactions with government are mostly just inconveniences. Violations of our rights to be sure, but imagine for a second you have not focusing on educating yourself about markets, and freedom, and your rights, but are a typical citizen. Imagine how terrifying an image it would be to have politicians running companies, charities, or preaching in your churches. Letting these sociopaths, psychopaths, and megalomaniacs run around outside of D.C. and state capitals is a terrifying idea. So how do we convince people that their biggest fear, is not of not having very limited(or no) government, but of having to interact with people currently in government?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply