So ok, I see your point. Many "Libertarians" don't follow a pure philosophy or ideology. In fact they appear to be contradictory in nature. Seems to suggest that freedom is only ok if it is your (their) freedom! Ok. But in making this vid. are you saying that Government is benign? Are you also of the view that Government is the true power in this country/world? Could it be possible that powerful people can work together to suit their own agenda and in doing so sell a lie to hide behind?
Your history & thoughts on libertarian ideology are wrong.This entire smear video is just a overbearing generalization with little to no facts to back it up.I am truly stunned that you not only moronically recall a side of a ideology that you have never placed yourself in,(like a near sighted herder guessing the pasture next doors grass's color is without ever seeing it) they dont all reject religion, only religions role in gov. Also it isnt our school of economics that fucked this country over.
@TheForwardGaze At first I did not know whether to pity you or laugh, but after checking your channel I do see you are mighty confused..so I'll just chalk this up to ill education, a distorted sense of reality and an overall lack of understanding of all of the philosophies you cited in the description of this video.
Read Plato and work your way forward bc you do get the government you deserve !
This video is a waste of time....AS IF just taking a few people on television that call themselves "libertarians" and attempting to discredit them actually proves some kind of universal point about the ideology as a whole....There are particular people from ANY school of thought that are probably "nut jobs". Have you read any Ayn Rand? Looking at your videos, you seem to advocate socialism, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN WHAT THAT DOES IN PRACTICE? Socialism has killed millions of people. You're the nutjob.
This foundation of all the arguments presented in this video against libertarianism are based upon the idea that humanity is incapable of judging itself.
Answer me this: If someone put a syringe of heroin and a gun in front of you, would you be likely to shoot up some heroin and murder someone? Probably not, especially if everybody else had a gun.
Despite the brittle foundation upon which this video stands, I applaud the fact that you at least allow comments and ratings.
Is it bad that I found everything the libertarians said in the clips to make perfect sense? Lol, I'm not sure what I was expecting from this video, but I did not expect to be sold on libertarianism! Dangit...now I've gotta do some deeper youtube digging on this mess.
Corruption and capitalism go hand in hand. But I think you are naively overlooking the power of money. Politicians, judges, officials can just has easily be bought up in a libertarian society has they can in a democracy - in fact more easily because they wouldn't be held to account by the electorate.You see all corruption as stemming from government - but a few people down the ages - like say Jesus or Jefferson - have seen too much money congregating in too few hands as a corrupting force.
Take the internet - a pretty good example of a free market that's become dominated by 2 or 3 big players. But now google and you tube are coming under pressure from corporations in the recording industry, Hollywood and TV to clamp down on piracy and copyright infringement. This isn't a case of government interference but rather a battle between powerful corporations. But of course once the internet is restricted - Libertarians will inevitably blame the government.
alan greenspan a libertarian ?? cenk uygor a libertarian??? LOOOL Are you cointel-pro? In the whole video you just distort the words, and try to manipulate the opinion. There's not left-libertarianism, it's an oxymoron, double thinking, you just can't at the same time be pro indivudals rights and voluntarianism and at the same time be a colectivist. there's no way. You wasted so much time compiling this video for what??' Make a joke of yourself?? What a loser....
@stronghold10a The video doesn't say that Greenspan or Cenk are libertarians. Libertarian socialists/communists have been around for 150 years. They organized labor unions, fought the Russian Tzar and Bolsheviks and the fascists in Spain, assassinated members of European monarchies and president McKinley, and blew up Wall Street in 1919 long before anyone had ever heard of anarcho-capitalism. They oppose capitalism because it causes inequality and authoritarianism. Oxymoron?
@TheForwardGaze "They're all here: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan,(...)" Your own words. Yes it's an oxymoron. Colectivism aka Socialism/communism is ruled by a principle of state force, state coercion. And that's the point that libertarians fight against, state force, the gun hold to your head, etc. How do you integrate the two ideas without using double-thinking?? It's not possible. You just can't be one bit for one idiology and another bit for the other. Cheers
@eirefrance If is that what you think, at least that corporations would be working their ass off to provide the best, and cheaper service, not buying out politicians, making regulations, and bossing you around.
@eirefrance Hey, you had it coming. You tell me that collectivism is entirely based on individual rights. Collectivism is all about centralisation of power in the hands of few, that will limit everyone else's liberties, to a greater "porpuse". I just use communist russia to give you an example, that your afirmation is totally wrong.
@stronghold10a No, you're talking about something called Stalinism. Collectivism is based on direct democracy, collective ownership of property and an 'equal' sharing of work.
@eirefrance You can call collectivism many things, from communism to statism, going through socialism, etc. If We really need a state, a very limited state in the form of a republic.
@stronghold10a If you think collectivism is statism, you're so wrong you may as well call it capitalism. Look, this conversation isn't going anywhere, but you should consider that just because you disagree with different things doesn't make those things all the same. People don't all believe the same shallow, cartoonish ideas you think they do just because they all disagree with you. Individuals have their own ideas.
@eirefrance We disagree in many issues but well, that's the world we are living in. We just have to open your perspective and see the whole picture. Cheers
@stronghold10a You have to understand that choosing what "side" or "philosophy" you follow has nothing to do with being open-minded. If you're calling collectivism statism, than you haven't opened your mind to learning what collectivism is. Don't mistake "thinking outside of the box" for open-mindedness.
@stronghold10a For instance, collectivism could refer to community based groups existing inside a state (Israeli Kibbutzim) or they could be completely anarchist and outside of the state (Christiana in Denmark) or they could worker-owned companies (I worked at one for 5 years). Democracy is collectivist. Collectivism means a lot of things and you're being the opposite of open-minded when it say it can only be this one thing.
@eirefrance We can have this debate for weeks. Libertarians are all about non-aggression principle. Gun or no-gun?? You can't have a collectivist society without phylosophy of "monopolized gun power". A collectivist sistem focus on the society, the group, not the individual. Over that you can debate about the different kinds of collectivism. But remember GUN OR NO GUN That's the question to ask.
@stronghold10a Tell the Israeli Kibbutzim they're there at the barrel of a gun. Tell that to the members of the Maryland Food Collective, Glut Food Coop, Mondragon, Twin Oaks Intentional Community, the Abode of the Message, etc.....
Once again, you are confusing things because you are only allowing yourself to define collectivism in an incredibly narrow and cartoonish way. Individuals cooperating of their own free will doesn't require a gun.
@eirefrance "individuals cooperating OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL doesn't require a gun" You said it yourself. You're not walking the colectivist path.... You're misinterpretating your own defenition. Every Man in SOCIETY works in a kind of a colectivist model, not collectivist per say, but though the invisible hand that Simth talked about, that by your own individual choices all society can evolve as group.
@stronghold10a No, I'm not misinterpreting my own definition. I'm telling you that collectivism exists outside of the libertarian definition of what collectivism is. Collectivism is, as the name implies, people collectively sharing ownership and work. Just because that definition doesn't put it in direct opposition with the libertarian non-aggression principle doesn't make any less 'collectivist.'
@stronghold10a The world isn't a binary code where everything is either Libertarian Non-Aggression or Pro-Aggression. If you opened your mind a little, you'd see that.
@stronghold10a You're not understanding what I'm saying. You can have your principle, just understand that just because it's YOUR principle doesn't mean people with opposing views don't also have that principle. Libertarianism is not alone in opposing the use of force.
@eirefrance c'mon... keyboard warrior, please... Hey you can oppose whatever you like. liberalism, libertarians, capitalism, free market, socialism, statism, etc. But having the same principle i can't understand how do you have an opposing view....
@eirefrance I'm not ignoring what you're saying. Resuming your words, your are saying that there are collectvist models that doesn't require the use of a gun to work. That they work through free will. I have nothing against that. NOw is that collectivism???
Yes, yes it is. That's what I've been saying all along. The entire point of collectivism is that ownership, decisions and work are shared. I suppose you could call Stalinism "collectivist" even none of the three things I mentioned are shared, but that certainly doesn't exclude other things.
I can't tell if this is satirical or serious based on the 'evidence' used against Libertarianism. Bill Maher? Ed Schultz? Talk about left-wing brainwashing...
"I didn't learn that in MY government class"
Of course you didn't, Ed, because school's don't want you to think for yourself. It isn't racist to believe the Civil Rights Act was poorly written. It isn't racist to think free market Capitalism, given consumer power, can more efficiently solve these problems.
@whedonfreak976 We have not had unregulated capitalism in the United States ever. In the 19th century we had a relatively free market. That is, to say, that there was minimal government interaction in the market. And, so, we prospered greatly. The standard of living increased tremendously. I cannot form an opinion over New Zealand as I don't know anything about that. I can't imagine that a free market would hurt them, though.
@leeknivek For the first half the 19th Century - slavery existed and then following its abolision was replaced by racial apartheid. The indigenous people were ethnically cleansed and Robber Barons openly murdered striking workers. So no wonder prosperity increased in this relatively "free" market - as massive land clearances- slavery - killing trade unionists tends to to be good for business.
@32peartree The key word was "relatively". In America, the so-called robber barons actually helped tremendously in the economy by innovating, continually lowering prices, and keeping workers satisfied - not to mention employing a large number of people. Rockefeller and Vanderbilt are just as much robber barons as Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Nobody was forced to buy their products - people did because they were good.
@leeknivek Slavery was not permitted because we had a relatively free market. Slavery was permitted because it always had been for thousands of years prior, and, WITH the free market, we ended up realizing that every man should have equal opportunity. Unfortunately it was later rather than sooner, but better late than never! As with women's rights, too.
@leeknivek Well a country can be enormously "prosperous" if it treats its citizens like surfs. I'm sure if you legalized slavery, child labor, grabbed land on a massive scale and killed union leaders it would be pretty hard not to make a profit - just like China is today. The trouble is those pesky little human rights activists keep on popping up - fuckin' do gooders, hey?
@32peartree Well, how prosperous was medieval Europe in relation to 19th century America? Slavery was legal there, too - as was child labor - and Unions? pff! The difference was that the labor was voluntary. The alternative to working in a factory for a wage is farming the land and just scraping by. Just as it is in most third world countries - they benefit greatly from sweat shops.
Of course, the slavery was not voluntary. But, the Chinese, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and others were not enslaved. They still worked for a wage and could afford to bring their family members over to America, too! And when they blacks were freed they also worked for a wage and did fairly well, too, didn't they? Aside from the terrible legislation that still held them back. But, that was from the government - certainly not from a free market!
@leeknivek Look you can make enormous profits by exploiting human resources that much is obvious whether that's in medieval Europe, the Gilded Age or today in China. But its all how you quantify "prosperity". Of course the Chinese communist party are using the greed of Western investors to go through the capitalist stage of production - as Marx stipulated - but Japan and Taiwan enjoyed their economic miracles without all the oppression. So this misery can not be excused economically or morally.
@32peartree So how exactly do you exploit human resources in a free market? Surely you could in a communist or socialist state - everyone is obligated to work. In fact, some even claim they have a "right" to work. However, in a free market, every transaction is voluntary. If you volunteer to work for wages, you cannot be exploited. If you've agreed to it - what's there to exploit?
@leeknivek In a society were you either work or starve this is not a voluntary transaction - this would be better termed wage slavery. Desperate people can be exploited especially in times of high unemployment. You yourself have probably been exploited - remember when your parents made you do chores because it was "their" house or a girlfriend gave you the run around. Of course you can leave your girlfriend or run away from home but, of course, life isn't that simple
@leeknivek I don't think unions existed in medieval times - and you contradict yourself - how was labor free in the 19th century when slavery existed - lol. I suppose black people don't count.
@32peartree Of course there were no unions in the medieval times. That was my point. They had slavery, child labor, and no unions. It was not until the free market that they advanced so quickly.
I did not contradict myself. Obviously you've taken two statements that I said out of context to try to discredit what I had stated. In my second paragraph I stated that all of the immigrants who had come were not enslaved, yet worked and prospered under a relatively free market.
@leeknivek Yeah but what about the indigenous people. There are always winners and losers. And immigration then, as now, is deeply unpopular - you should watch Gangs of New York. Of course capitalism is creative - but its been proven that development needn't come at such a massive social cost. Television, computers, cell phones and satellites were all pioneered without horrible exploitation.
@32peartree The indigenous people were mostly killed long before a free market existed. And, when it did, you have to recall that there was no law prohibiting others from killing them. Which isn't a product of a free market!
I have seen Gangs of New York. It's one of my favorite movies. What does that have to do with anything, though? The immigrants surely liked the idea of coming over here. Everyone else didn't like it because it underbid their current jobs. But, that's their problem.
@leeknivek You might want to return back to the days of the Gangs of New York - but i think most Americans wouldn't want to join you. But the world of Gangs of New York still exists today in third world hell holes of Latin America. So if you get rid of food stamps welfare, medicaid etc you're need all those precious tax dollars to spend on your gated communities. I really can't understand this scrooge attitude that's taken over the US - it seems the richer people get - the meaner they become.
@32peartree I'm not even relatively wealthy, really. I'm unemployed, never have had a job, and am searching desperately. But, that's besides the point, I would think.
Anyways, what parallels does Gangs of New York have with Latin America?
Getting rid of entitlement programs is a good thing. It's going to have to come about at some point or another regardless. Either they'll have to go bankrupt, or, we'll be smart enough to end then sooner when it'll hurt us less.
@leeknivek What parallels does Gangs of New York have with Latin America - watch "City of God" or just take a look at the badlands of Mexico. When the poor are left to fend for themselves they seek security in gangs and then anarchy and lawlessness soon ensues. If the likes of Ron Paul rip up the social contract America would start resembling Latin America. If you don't have a job and you are claiming welfare - remember - Libertarians would get rid of all state provisions.
@32peartree What pain and suffering of the 19th century? Aside from slavery, that is, because that would not be tolerable.
Even if there is unemployment, the market is always growing and will accommodate anyone willing to work at some point or another. Realistically, government intervention restricts that through regulation. Not to mention: is it really the government's job to ensure that people have work? No, it isn't. Nor should it ever be, despite what some people would like to think.
....we haven't had unregulated Capitalism for a long time, maybe never
Wall street was granted an infinite line of federal credit in the 1970's. That is the government deciding their market value, NOT the free market. Look how well that turned out. If you believe the banks were able to lend because of 'deregulation' you are severely misguided. They were able to lend at low interest due to the federal reserve meddling in the free market.
@TheBabolat91 No, it's not "racist to think free market Capitalism, given consumer power, can more efficiently solve these problems", it's just a bit naive.
free Austrian economics. vs. the American School of economics which promotes protectionism. libertarians proved over and over they are traitors. the other libertarians not mentioned Von Mises, Rothbard, and the other creators are Jewish. I was once asked to join this movement back when it was in it's infancy, and was even promised a job as a politician .
other famous libertarians are Larry Summers and Gary Gensler, as well as the notably famous Peter Schiff.
@32peartree I went to the RNC in 88 (New Orleans) with some important people, and was told what the message was. as time went on, I met many lobbyists, and was sort of pushed into a marraige with a Congressman's daughter (which was a friend and didn't like). the guy she married which I shall not name became a politician, divorced her, and married someone else who is popular in the news as a sensationalist. Is libertarianism/ Austrian eco a Jewish developed ideology? absolutely.
@LouieDaProtectionist Thanks for the reply - fascinating stuff - I wish you could be more candid but I understand. It does seem that all the ideologies now bestriding the political stage are anti-statist to some degree or other - whether that's anarchists on the left, liberals in the centre or neo Conservatives and libertarians on the right. None of them are calling for protectionism which all fits in with the agenda of globalization.
The Dictatorship of the majority should be kept at bay by a written constitution, a free press, free assembly and regular elections. Taxation and bureaucracy have been a part of human civilization from the very beginning - so I find it a bit odd you'd automatically deem them tyrannical. But if Libertarians wish to play by democratic rules - I don't have a problem - but if they start rewriting the constitution to separate politics from economics - then they are overstepping the line.
@32peartree I do differ with Libertarians on some points. People in developed societies can be afforded basic subsistence as compensation from the system that denies them the ability to head off into the wilderness and fend for themselves. This can be done though monetary policy without the need for thousands of pencil-pushing parasites administering the program. Monetary policy should be an automated function of economic activity, not tweaked each month by bankers or politicians.
@natlang1 If Ron Paul got elected he could get rid of your "pencil pushing parasites" under the constitution - but by the same token if, the Democrats get back into power they can re-instate them. The problem comes when libertarians might separate the state from economics - which is unconstitutional. Remember - the founding fathers didn't say no to taxation they said "no taxation without representation".
@natlang1 But you've actually hit upon another illiberal aspect of libertarianism - in that the people would not be free to head off to the hills and become hunter gatherers or subsistence farmers - as all land would probably be privately owned. So a sort of feudalism might develop outlawing anarchists and hippies has squatters. Unless that is you allowed some common land to be put aside - viz-a-viz medieval Europe.
This woman merely channeled a passage of thought, she was no prophet but she articulated an idea that encompassed reality and purpose within reality which entirely dismissed our needless values; religion, racial constructs and implored us regard things for their existing value; that understanding truth was achieved with a disciplined sense of reason and that our only purpose even as sophisticated animals was to make ourselves richer.
@WarriorOfWriters Bullshit - there are plenty people who don't care about getting rich. Some people are driven by money - but others are driven by the pursuit of knowledge or wisdom or beauty. If we were all motivated by getting rich - they'd be no ballet dancers, struggling writers or badly paid government scientists. Instead we'd all become stock brokers or criminals. What an horrible reductionist argument.
@32peartree ofcourse there would, ideally any artist wants to be original and must appease a demographic; no not all of us want to be rich, some of us just want to excel in our respective ambitions and be rewarded for it. It's not my dream to be rich but successful as a journalist and writer. I am working very hard to achieve that and I hope it makes me wealthy and famous.
@WarriorOfWriters But you would agree that being a writer isn't the best way of making money - if you wanted to get rich quick - buying and selling stuff is the better way. Besides, if money was the primary motivation - nobody would write difficult challenging novels - everyone would be trying to be the next Jackie Collins or Dan Brown. For a true artist the money is fine if it comes along - but its not the primary motivation - thank god.
@WarriorOfWriters And I'd contend that money is not the prime motivator behind most worthwhile human activity - its just we're told continually that its all about getting rich so we convince ourselves that this must be the truth. For instance, did Fleming develop antibiotics because he wanted to become a millionaire? Or did Einstein become a physicist because he desired a luxurious lifestyle? Some people are great at making money - they have their role - but they are only part of the story.
"Ultra Liberalism is an extreme form of economic liberalism. It is the view (sometimes called Minimal Statism or Minarchism that government should be as small as possible.Ultra Liberalist usually agree that government should be restricted to its "minimal" state function of government (courts, police, prisons, defense)."
Pinochet's Chili for instance - Milton Friedman's experiment in monetarism. And lets not forget free market Malaysia, Indonesia, South Africa, Singapore, Thailand, Egypt, Tunisia etc etc. When wealthy bourgeois elites come under pressure they nearly always opt for a police state to protect their dominant economic position. A Libertarian Republic would be no different considering Libertarians are anti democratic.
@32peartree It's pretty much the story of humanity. The reason why these political philosophies only exist in fantasy fiction is because they directly oppose human nature. It's common sense that under laissez faire capitalism that the lumber industry would like to own the forests, and what's stopping them from owning the stick frame construction industry? How could anyone compete with something that owns the resources.
Excellent video with very important points. Libertarianism is nothing more than a fantasy fiction cult, cut off from reality. They cloak insanity with words of liberty and freedom, but private tyranny rule, unaccountable private tyrannies with no limits, controls, regulations or ability for the people to protect themselves from them is a theft of liberty and freedom!! Capitalists themselves would never accept the fantasy fiction of Libertarianism, but happy to use them.
chairman of the fed as a libertarian? Perhaps the person who posted this video should compare what Greenspan wrote under the "influence" of Rand and what he actually did as chairman of the fed.
Whoever posted this has an obvious axe to grind against liberty and freedom. The bias in the video speaks for itself. I'm a Libertarian and I am not a racist. No race is my emeny but people like the moronic poster of this video are my enemy because they are deceptive for their own "selfish" reasons to feed their "greed" by keeping the sheeple in line. I'd be willing to bet the poster of this video benefits daily in one way or another from despotism of the majority.
@eyeorewolf Holy crap. You hit me with both liberty and freedom, those well defined words that mean the same thing to everybody. You're right. I hate them both and love the "despotism of the majority," although I prefer "tyranny of the majority," but kudos to your original phrasing. Don't forget to watch some of my other vids which should equally outrage you. Long live the sheeple and the crony corporatist state, George Soros, the international jewish conspiracy, and the NWO!
"selfishness and greed, not cooperation"...proving that you have no understanding of what Rand promoted. Rand said that everything should be a matter of cooperation between free parties rather than compulsion. BTW, for those of small IQ, Rand explained why, in the begging of this video why California's Proposition 8 was an improper action of the state. Sure, vote on public policies, but it's not proper for the majority to vote away rights of the minority, or vote on matters of rights.
"Let's make fun of immigrant people's accent's. It's OK if liberals do it, it's only bad when a conservative does it, because of course, liberals are incapable of racism and all conservatives are secretly racist."
So, I guess the poster of this video supports the mainstream media's view of society? Mike Wallace and Ed Schultz over Ayn Rand and Rand Paul (that's as far as I got with this trash)?
So people who advocate liberty are "insane" because they are criticized on tv by the establishment whore media?
I will be voting Libertarian from now on. We need a third party and more options. I would encourage anyone who considers themselves socialist to vote for the socialist party candidate. Lets end the two party system.
CONTINUED: Furthermore, labels are for idiots to argue about. That's why the globalists continue to coin so many labels for political movements; so idiots can argue about the split hairs and myriad other inconsequentals about it instead of discoursing rationally on the real issues that are molding our reality; (propaganda, brainwashing, conspircy, fascism) Now all of these are not so much creeping as galloping and we're STILL argueing and labeling!
I was steeped in (all of) Ayn Rand's books during my 30\sx-40s. There is nothing inherently wrong with her philosopy of reason. It is misused,as is most things in the hands of idiots.Her attitude toward socialism is right on. Her attitude toward taxation is right on.She believed in the the sovereign individual.Unfortunately, there are not many of those except the 1% which is ruling the world's herd of sheep.Not many people measure up to her philosophy; not even she did. She was human after all.
If you are FOR force, coercion, violence and war, then libertarians are in fact immoral and nutjobs. But, if you look at yourself in the mirror one day and realize that you want a world where your children can live in peace, all while having the MOST fair and nonviolent society, economy, and world then calling libertarians immoral and nutjobs is IMMORAL and makes YOU the nutjob. Pick!
Let me explain sth. to you commies. You can not simply lie on internet without consequences. With a speed of light you will be corrected and called on it.
Another thing is:
"Libertarians And Objectivists Are Nutjobs "
What kind of argument is this? It's ad personam - it essentially means you lost befor the fight even started:
MISES.ORG
TOMWOODS.COM
what else:
Peter Schiff debates David Epstein of Columbia University -- Nov 11 2009
Applying Economics to American History | Thomas E. Woods
2.(chiefly US) A believer in a political doctrine that emphasizes individual liberty and a lack of governmental regulation and oversight both in matters of the economy ('free market') and in personal behavior where no one's rights are being violated or threatened. Also 'classical liberal', akin to 'anarcho-capitalist'. - wiktionary
Your history is incorrect. Anarchism/libertarianism did not, in any way shape or form, originate from Communism. Yes, there was a split with the anarchist/Kropotkin faction within Communism, but Anarchist ideas predate Marx. You also conspicuously leave out American individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.
@handfetisch The video's not meant to be a detailed examination of history or political philosophy but a biased work of propaganda. I don't think the video specifically says that anarchism emerged from communism, but then I don't really feel like watching it again to find out.
I'm not sure about Spooner. I'll have to read up on him. But I'm pretty darn sure that Tucker, though an individualist anarchist, was a socialist and not an anarcho-capitalist.
So you don't think Libertarians should sit around and vote to decide that you can be racist if you want? And if the vast majority WERE libertarians and they voted this way that you would think it's wrong? And you would deny your freedom to be a bigot and ask someone to MAKE you not be racist so that you felt that it was an order coming from above you and that everything was right in society. Ok. That's your right personally to feel that way. I just think it;s selfish to ask others to pay for
here the flaw of ur thought we have a collective world every one sharing 1 person will get up and say hey! let me deal with the hand outs. then he will take more for him self. also what reason would some one need to make sure every one is treated fair? in a collective world the government would take care of u i don't care. in a self interest world my self interest is to help you for the fact that you will help me make more money. by that it will make u more money.:D
This whole video amounts to an ad hominem attack. When anyone resorts to name calling they by default admit that their position cannot be defended. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.
@Daneilboone1 As the video's description says, this is a subjective work of propaganda. The web and Youtube is full of reasoned critiques of anarcho-capitalism and objectivism.
@spystyle One man's freedom is another's slavery. Words like, freedom, liberty, liberal, libertarian, conservative, and democracy are tricky. They have multiple definitions which are always changing.
@TheForwardGaze - I honestly do think that Freedom and Liberty mean the same thing, and I also do believe that the meaning for both is absence of coercion.
Also: 'One man's freedom is another's slavery' seems like a non-sensical sentence, unless you are a slave owner who's looking for new "help" ??
Freedom just means an armed third party does not interfere. Freedom is the default position.
Your history in the discription is examples of left anarchism which is basically the 180 degree opposite economic position of Freidman, Rand, Stossel, the Paul's ect...You should try to actually learn about a position you disagee with before you bother trying refuting it. Then you won't have to use ad homs and straw men.
@MrGreeneggsnham Yes, "left anarchism" is the opposite of anarcho-capitalism, which is why I described it in the video's description, to give examples of real libertarianism (ie., anarchism/democratic anti-state socialism). This reinforces the very subjective and biased point of the video, that American "libertarians" are delusional, phony, and ultimately, through their rhetoric, serve the interests of the corrupt state capitalism they claim to oppose.
@TheForwardGaze Libertarian means something differernt in America vs. what it means in Europe. The term liberal used to describe what people like Freidman thought. This is why the term "classical liberal" exists. The FDR crowd actually stole the term liberal because people in the U.S. didin't like the term socialism. It was a marketing ploy and you fell for it! Many years later, the "classical liberals" adopted the term liberterian in the United States and I'm not sure why.
Nicely done with the argumentum ad hominem. Always a sure way to win over people with an IQ of 70 and an effective way to demonstrate your command of any topic.
So considering the fact they've found altruist acts actually activate "reward" neurons in the brain, doesn't that kind of debunk some of her arguments? Albeit I agree with many libertarian positions, I don't know how the federal government would supply an army for defense without some form of taxation. Would people give money out of the collective well being and community? Oops.
Well, I'll give him that I'm a nutjob for thinking I might see a valid argument here. I like hearing other people's ideas; it's how I got to be a Libertarian in the first place, but this video does almost everything one could possibly do wrong to indict Libertarianism. What it does right is to sound like a bunch of collectivist horseshit.
Taxation: people who want to steal from those who worked for their money fear getting caught and going to prison. So they elect politicians who will steal on the coward's behalf and eliminate his risk. Taxation and redistribution is legalized robbery. That system is nothing more honorable than democratically elected organized crime.
Actually, your only argument is that people who value liberty over your brand of fascist communism are psychopathic idiots. What's really stupid is your view that the purpose of government is to micro-manage every aspect of other people's personal lives. In your Utopian view of government, control freaks are elected to manipulate and engineer society. In T Jefferson's view, the purpose of govt is to defend life, liberty and property. That's ALL. You're claiming that view is psycho. Pretty dumb.
Thinks that selfishness and greed are exclusive to cooperation. Only morons think this because they are too stupid to grasp that Ayn Rand was very specific that she was talking about "enlightened selfishness"
The difference between selfishness and enlightened selfishness is that a selfish person steals a loaf of bread. An enlightened selfish person plants wheat, builds a mill, and creates jobs for an entire town so that everyone has the best bread ever.
@tocardx Rachel Maddow now supports Ron Paul. Alex Jones is an angry thug on many issues, and is less of a king of libertarians than say... the next person you showed even is... Stossel... or say Penn Jilette. On Greenspan.... to say that someone who is a high level government official who has their salary paid for through taxes somehow is an acolyte or even understands ANYTHING of Rand's philosophy makes you an illiterate moron. You've obviously never even read any Rand.
@tocardx I'm aware that Ayn Rand disavowed Greenspan. But as the video points out, the rhetoric of "libertarians" and objectivists is constantly serving the interests of state capitalism. Every time a Greenspan, Milton Friedman or Ron Paul defends a large corporation exploiting the public as the "free market at work," what they're really doing is defending crony capitalism. Even neoliberalism, in its pure form, doesn't support global corporate-state domination, but it's been corrupted.
@TheForwardGaze You're just lying now. When did Ron Paul or Milton Friedman defend crony capitalism? In fact it's one of the things they attacked most often and in the case of RP still do. Why is RP getting so popular today? Because he attacked the bailouts. Libertarians argued against state power since before they were called libertarians (they were then called liberals).
@tocardx, Greenspan was a devotee of Rand back in the day. Read Rand's "In Defense of Capitalsim" to see a few short essay's he wrote that was included in the book.
@tocardx You don't have a clue. Greenspan is the foremost authority on objectivism. He and Rand were very close friends for decades. He was an objectivist writer. Rand stood beside him when he was sworn in as chair of the council for economic advisers in 1974. I hate uneducated cocky bastards.
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT If you hate uneducated cocky bastards then you hate yourself. There is ZERO evidence that Greenspan is an authority on objectivism, let alone the "foremost" one. What has he written on objectivism in the last 30 years? Nothing. That he used Rand to get where he wanted doesn't make him an objectivist.
@newperve You said Alan Greenspan knew nothing of objectivism. Greenspan had a pro-huge free market following. You think that he didn't any influence on Rand? He was there, talking about it with Rand while she wrote Atlas shrugged. Just because you disagree with him know economically doesn't mean he doesn't know what objectivism is.
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT No I said he wrote nothing on objectivism in the last 30 years and was not an authority. You are moving the goalposts here, going from him being the "foremost authority" to him having influence over her, which there is again, zero evidence of. No doubt he knows something of objectivism, but that doesn't make him an objectivist. It's not that I disagree with him economically it's that objectivists do. Try to keep up.
@newperve Are you stupid, or just ignorant? Greenspan was one of the founders of Objectivism. That's just common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about it. He develop the philosophy with Rand. Greenspan didn't follow objectivist theory later on because it's flawed. The philosophy that states "what's best for the free market is also best for the consumer" is a fallacy. Oh and Greenspan wrote a book a couple years back. Try to keep up..lol
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT No he was not "one of the founders of objectivism" there was only one founder Ayn Rand. Exactly who thinks that Greenspan was a founder of objectivism? Name one person if it's "common knowledge". Greenspan didn't follow objectivist theory later on because he wanted power. We know this because he adopted policies that were obviously flawed. The book had nothing to do with objectivism and you know it you stupid liar.
@newperve Rand coined and was the leader behind the movement, but it was developed by a group of people called the "Collective" which Rand was the founder of. Look up "objectivism collective" wiki it, better yet, read the book.
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT Greenspan wrote one article on gold I believe. He was hardly a "founder" nor was anyone but Rand. What book do you want me to read? If what you claim is "common knowledge" is so, name someone who believes it.
A basic propaganda piece. Avoidance of the arguments = concession, either that they're correct or at the very least that you can't comprehend them. It shows persons' standards and how little they really care about truth and about peace and prosperity when they find such a worthless video satisfactory.
YEA PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED NOT TO SERVE BLACKS, ALSO CHINESE , MUSLIM, CHRISTIANS, ATHEIST, WHITE, RICH AND POOR IS CALLED FUCKING PROPERTY RIGHTS DUMBASS!!!!
So ok, I see your point. Many "Libertarians" don't follow a pure philosophy or ideology. In fact they appear to be contradictory in nature. Seems to suggest that freedom is only ok if it is your (their) freedom! Ok. But in making this vid. are you saying that Government is benign? Are you also of the view that Government is the true power in this country/world? Could it be possible that powerful people can work together to suit their own agenda and in doing so sell a lie to hide behind?
2012Aragorn 1 day ago
Your history & thoughts on libertarian ideology are wrong.This entire smear video is just a overbearing generalization with little to no facts to back it up.I am truly stunned that you not only moronically recall a side of a ideology that you have never placed yourself in,(like a near sighted herder guessing the pasture next doors grass's color is without ever seeing it) they dont all reject religion, only religions role in gov. Also it isnt our school of economics that fucked this country over.
khanmar 4 days ago
@TheForwardGaze At first I did not know whether to pity you or laugh, but after checking your channel I do see you are mighty confused..so I'll just chalk this up to ill education, a distorted sense of reality and an overall lack of understanding of all of the philosophies you cited in the description of this video.
Read Plato and work your way forward bc you do get the government you deserve !
cc4272 6 days ago
This video is a waste of time....AS IF just taking a few people on television that call themselves "libertarians" and attempting to discredit them actually proves some kind of universal point about the ideology as a whole....There are particular people from ANY school of thought that are probably "nut jobs". Have you read any Ayn Rand? Looking at your videos, you seem to advocate socialism, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN WHAT THAT DOES IN PRACTICE? Socialism has killed millions of people. You're the nutjob.
EMCPoint0fView 1 week ago
This foundation of all the arguments presented in this video against libertarianism are based upon the idea that humanity is incapable of judging itself.
Answer me this: If someone put a syringe of heroin and a gun in front of you, would you be likely to shoot up some heroin and murder someone? Probably not, especially if everybody else had a gun.
Despite the brittle foundation upon which this video stands, I applaud the fact that you at least allow comments and ratings.
iceteaguy 1 week ago
Rubbish, clearly.
marly9 1 week ago
Is it bad that I found everything the libertarians said in the clips to make perfect sense? Lol, I'm not sure what I was expecting from this video, but I did not expect to be sold on libertarianism! Dangit...now I've gotta do some deeper youtube digging on this mess.
LotharioRowe 1 week ago
@LotharioRowe Check out the YouTube channel "Stefbot" and look at some of his top viewed videos. That should get you started.
seanmc30 1 week ago 2
@seanmc30 I couldn't agree more, I've been reading all of his books lately, very stimulating intellectually
EMCPoint0fView 1 week ago
Corruption and capitalism go hand in hand. But I think you are naively overlooking the power of money. Politicians, judges, officials can just has easily be bought up in a libertarian society has they can in a democracy - in fact more easily because they wouldn't be held to account by the electorate.You see all corruption as stemming from government - but a few people down the ages - like say Jesus or Jefferson - have seen too much money congregating in too few hands as a corrupting force.
32peartree 1 week ago
Take the internet - a pretty good example of a free market that's become dominated by 2 or 3 big players. But now google and you tube are coming under pressure from corporations in the recording industry, Hollywood and TV to clamp down on piracy and copyright infringement. This isn't a case of government interference but rather a battle between powerful corporations. But of course once the internet is restricted - Libertarians will inevitably blame the government.
32peartree 1 week ago
Is this one of those pretend-to-be-serious-but-its-really-just-a-joke videos, or is the maker of this video just horrendously clueless?
mikedurland 1 week ago
I loled when you included Greenspan. Get real.
Rabo2986 1 week ago
Statist scum
batfly 1 week ago
alan greenspan a libertarian ?? cenk uygor a libertarian??? LOOOL Are you cointel-pro? In the whole video you just distort the words, and try to manipulate the opinion. There's not left-libertarianism, it's an oxymoron, double thinking, you just can't at the same time be pro indivudals rights and voluntarianism and at the same time be a colectivist. there's no way. You wasted so much time compiling this video for what??' Make a joke of yourself?? What a loser....
stronghold10a 1 week ago
@stronghold10a The video doesn't say that Greenspan or Cenk are libertarians. Libertarian socialists/communists have been around for 150 years. They organized labor unions, fought the Russian Tzar and Bolsheviks and the fascists in Spain, assassinated members of European monarchies and president McKinley, and blew up Wall Street in 1919 long before anyone had ever heard of anarcho-capitalism. They oppose capitalism because it causes inequality and authoritarianism. Oxymoron?
TheForwardGaze 1 week ago
@TheForwardGaze Libertarians don't oppose capitalism!
leeknivek 1 week ago
@TheForwardGaze "They're all here: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan,(...)" Your own words. Yes it's an oxymoron. Colectivism aka Socialism/communism is ruled by a principle of state force, state coercion. And that's the point that libertarians fight against, state force, the gun hold to your head, etc. How do you integrate the two ideas without using double-thinking?? It's not possible. You just can't be one bit for one idiology and another bit for the other. Cheers
stronghold10a 1 week ago
@stronghold10a Collectivism isn't AKA communism.
Is libertarianism AKA corporatism.
eirefrance 4 days ago
@eirefrance If is that what you think, at least that corporations would be working their ass off to provide the best, and cheaper service, not buying out politicians, making regulations, and bossing you around.
stronghold10a 4 days ago
@stronghold10a Actually, collectivism is entirely based on individual rights.
eirefrance 5 days ago
@eirefrance tell that to east europe and their 50 yers under "individual rights" aka your definition of collectivism...
stronghold10a 4 days ago
@stronghold10a Sure, as soon as you tell collectivists they're living behind the Iron Curtain.
eirefrance 4 days ago
@eirefrance Hey, you had it coming. You tell me that collectivism is entirely based on individual rights. Collectivism is all about centralisation of power in the hands of few, that will limit everyone else's liberties, to a greater "porpuse". I just use communist russia to give you an example, that your afirmation is totally wrong.
stronghold10a 4 days ago
@stronghold10a No, you're talking about something called Stalinism. Collectivism is based on direct democracy, collective ownership of property and an 'equal' sharing of work.
eirefrance 4 days ago
@eirefrance direct democracy right?? the majority enslaves the minority...
stronghold10a 4 days ago
@eirefrance You can call collectivism many things, from communism to statism, going through socialism, etc. If We really need a state, a very limited state in the form of a republic.
stronghold10a 4 days ago
@stronghold10a If you think collectivism is statism, you're so wrong you may as well call it capitalism. Look, this conversation isn't going anywhere, but you should consider that just because you disagree with different things doesn't make those things all the same. People don't all believe the same shallow, cartoonish ideas you think they do just because they all disagree with you. Individuals have their own ideas.
eirefrance 4 days ago
@eirefrance We disagree in many issues but well, that's the world we are living in. We just have to open your perspective and see the whole picture. Cheers
stronghold10a 3 days ago
@stronghold10a As long as you recognize that I'm not the only one who needs to open his or her perspective.
eirefrance 3 days ago
@eirefrance my perspective is wide open, that's why i choose to be a libertarian.
stronghold10a 3 days ago
@stronghold10a You have to understand that choosing what "side" or "philosophy" you follow has nothing to do with being open-minded. If you're calling collectivism statism, than you haven't opened your mind to learning what collectivism is. Don't mistake "thinking outside of the box" for open-mindedness.
eirefrance 3 days ago
@stronghold10a For instance, collectivism could refer to community based groups existing inside a state (Israeli Kibbutzim) or they could be completely anarchist and outside of the state (Christiana in Denmark) or they could worker-owned companies (I worked at one for 5 years). Democracy is collectivist. Collectivism means a lot of things and you're being the opposite of open-minded when it say it can only be this one thing.
eirefrance 3 days ago
@eirefrance We can have this debate for weeks. Libertarians are all about non-aggression principle. Gun or no-gun?? You can't have a collectivist society without phylosophy of "monopolized gun power". A collectivist sistem focus on the society, the group, not the individual. Over that you can debate about the different kinds of collectivism. But remember GUN OR NO GUN That's the question to ask.
stronghold10a 2 days ago
@stronghold10a Tell the Israeli Kibbutzim they're there at the barrel of a gun. Tell that to the members of the Maryland Food Collective, Glut Food Coop, Mondragon, Twin Oaks Intentional Community, the Abode of the Message, etc.....
Once again, you are confusing things because you are only allowing yourself to define collectivism in an incredibly narrow and cartoonish way. Individuals cooperating of their own free will doesn't require a gun.
eirefrance 2 days ago
@eirefrance "individuals cooperating OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL doesn't require a gun" You said it yourself. You're not walking the colectivist path.... You're misinterpretating your own defenition. Every Man in SOCIETY works in a kind of a colectivist model, not collectivist per say, but though the invisible hand that Simth talked about, that by your own individual choices all society can evolve as group.
stronghold10a 2 days ago
@stronghold10a No, I'm not misinterpreting my own definition. I'm telling you that collectivism exists outside of the libertarian definition of what collectivism is. Collectivism is, as the name implies, people collectively sharing ownership and work. Just because that definition doesn't put it in direct opposition with the libertarian non-aggression principle doesn't make any less 'collectivist.'
eirefrance 2 days ago
@stronghold10a The world isn't a binary code where everything is either Libertarian Non-Aggression or Pro-Aggression. If you opened your mind a little, you'd see that.
eirefrance 2 days ago
@eirefrance it's not a binary code. It's a principle....
stronghold10a 1 day ago
@stronghold10a You're not understanding what I'm saying. You can have your principle, just understand that just because it's YOUR principle doesn't mean people with opposing views don't also have that principle. Libertarianism is not alone in opposing the use of force.
eirefrance 1 day ago
@eirefrance c'mon... keyboard warrior, please... Hey you can oppose whatever you like. liberalism, libertarians, capitalism, free market, socialism, statism, etc. But having the same principle i can't understand how do you have an opposing view....
stronghold10a 1 day ago
@stronghold10a And, yes, we could have this "debate" for weeks, especially if you keep ignoring what I'm saying.
eirefrance 2 days ago
@eirefrance I'm not ignoring what you're saying. Resuming your words, your are saying that there are collectvist models that doesn't require the use of a gun to work. That they work through free will. I have nothing against that. NOw is that collectivism???
stronghold10a 2 days ago
@stronghold10a "NOw is that collectivism???"
Yes, yes it is. That's what I've been saying all along. The entire point of collectivism is that ownership, decisions and work are shared. I suppose you could call Stalinism "collectivist" even none of the three things I mentioned are shared, but that certainly doesn't exclude other things.
eirefrance 2 days ago
Yeah DeBeer's has a monopoly on GOLD - your currency of choice - fucktard!
32peartree 1 week ago
Libertarians and objectivists are not the same
votetomjackson 1 week ago
Glenn Beck is not libertarian.
livfreeordi3 1 week ago
@livfreeordi3 No he's a fascist.
32peartree 1 week ago
Alex Jones is a Evangelical, not a libertarian.
livfreeordi3 1 week ago
Ed Shultz is the propaganda guy in V-For Vendetta.
livfreeordi3 1 week ago
I can't tell if this is satirical or serious based on the 'evidence' used against Libertarianism. Bill Maher? Ed Schultz? Talk about left-wing brainwashing...
"I didn't learn that in MY government class"
Of course you didn't, Ed, because school's don't want you to think for yourself. It isn't racist to believe the Civil Rights Act was poorly written. It isn't racist to think free market Capitalism, given consumer power, can more efficiently solve these problems.
TheBabolat91 1 week ago
@TheBabolat91 Yeah just look at how unregulated capitalism has worked the last 30 years. Oops.
whedonfreak976 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
@whedonfreak976 Where was there unregulated capitalism? Surely not in America!
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek You are joking right? Thanks to Reagan, and Clinton that is what we have been living in for the last 30 years. And look at the result.
whedonfreak976 1 week ago
@leeknivek I mean not 100% but damn close to it, now ask New Zeland who did go through with the free market, it almost destroyed their economy.
whedonfreak976 1 week ago
@whedonfreak976 We have not had unregulated capitalism in the United States ever. In the 19th century we had a relatively free market. That is, to say, that there was minimal government interaction in the market. And, so, we prospered greatly. The standard of living increased tremendously. I cannot form an opinion over New Zealand as I don't know anything about that. I can't imagine that a free market would hurt them, though.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek For the first half the 19th Century - slavery existed and then following its abolision was replaced by racial apartheid. The indigenous people were ethnically cleansed and Robber Barons openly murdered striking workers. So no wonder prosperity increased in this relatively "free" market - as massive land clearances- slavery - killing trade unionists tends to to be good for business.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree The key word was "relatively". In America, the so-called robber barons actually helped tremendously in the economy by innovating, continually lowering prices, and keeping workers satisfied - not to mention employing a large number of people. Rockefeller and Vanderbilt are just as much robber barons as Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Nobody was forced to buy their products - people did because they were good.
Slavery is a whole other story, though.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek Slavery was not permitted because we had a relatively free market. Slavery was permitted because it always had been for thousands of years prior, and, WITH the free market, we ended up realizing that every man should have equal opportunity. Unfortunately it was later rather than sooner, but better late than never! As with women's rights, too.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek Well a country can be enormously "prosperous" if it treats its citizens like surfs. I'm sure if you legalized slavery, child labor, grabbed land on a massive scale and killed union leaders it would be pretty hard not to make a profit - just like China is today. The trouble is those pesky little human rights activists keep on popping up - fuckin' do gooders, hey?
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree Well, how prosperous was medieval Europe in relation to 19th century America? Slavery was legal there, too - as was child labor - and Unions? pff! The difference was that the labor was voluntary. The alternative to working in a factory for a wage is farming the land and just scraping by. Just as it is in most third world countries - they benefit greatly from sweat shops.
leeknivek 1 week ago
Of course, the slavery was not voluntary. But, the Chinese, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and others were not enslaved. They still worked for a wage and could afford to bring their family members over to America, too! And when they blacks were freed they also worked for a wage and did fairly well, too, didn't they? Aside from the terrible legislation that still held them back. But, that was from the government - certainly not from a free market!
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek Look you can make enormous profits by exploiting human resources that much is obvious whether that's in medieval Europe, the Gilded Age or today in China. But its all how you quantify "prosperity". Of course the Chinese communist party are using the greed of Western investors to go through the capitalist stage of production - as Marx stipulated - but Japan and Taiwan enjoyed their economic miracles without all the oppression. So this misery can not be excused economically or morally.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree So how exactly do you exploit human resources in a free market? Surely you could in a communist or socialist state - everyone is obligated to work. In fact, some even claim they have a "right" to work. However, in a free market, every transaction is voluntary. If you volunteer to work for wages, you cannot be exploited. If you've agreed to it - what's there to exploit?
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek In a society were you either work or starve this is not a voluntary transaction - this would be better termed wage slavery. Desperate people can be exploited especially in times of high unemployment. You yourself have probably been exploited - remember when your parents made you do chores because it was "their" house or a girlfriend gave you the run around. Of course you can leave your girlfriend or run away from home but, of course, life isn't that simple
32peartree 1 week ago
@leeknivek I don't think unions existed in medieval times - and you contradict yourself - how was labor free in the 19th century when slavery existed - lol. I suppose black people don't count.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree Of course there were no unions in the medieval times. That was my point. They had slavery, child labor, and no unions. It was not until the free market that they advanced so quickly.
I did not contradict myself. Obviously you've taken two statements that I said out of context to try to discredit what I had stated. In my second paragraph I stated that all of the immigrants who had come were not enslaved, yet worked and prospered under a relatively free market.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek Yeah but what about the indigenous people. There are always winners and losers. And immigration then, as now, is deeply unpopular - you should watch Gangs of New York. Of course capitalism is creative - but its been proven that development needn't come at such a massive social cost. Television, computers, cell phones and satellites were all pioneered without horrible exploitation.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree The indigenous people were mostly killed long before a free market existed. And, when it did, you have to recall that there was no law prohibiting others from killing them. Which isn't a product of a free market!
I have seen Gangs of New York. It's one of my favorite movies. What does that have to do with anything, though? The immigrants surely liked the idea of coming over here. Everyone else didn't like it because it underbid their current jobs. But, that's their problem.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek You might want to return back to the days of the Gangs of New York - but i think most Americans wouldn't want to join you. But the world of Gangs of New York still exists today in third world hell holes of Latin America. So if you get rid of food stamps welfare, medicaid etc you're need all those precious tax dollars to spend on your gated communities. I really can't understand this scrooge attitude that's taken over the US - it seems the richer people get - the meaner they become.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree I'm not even relatively wealthy, really. I'm unemployed, never have had a job, and am searching desperately. But, that's besides the point, I would think.
Anyways, what parallels does Gangs of New York have with Latin America?
Getting rid of entitlement programs is a good thing. It's going to have to come about at some point or another regardless. Either they'll have to go bankrupt, or, we'll be smart enough to end then sooner when it'll hurt us less.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@leeknivek What parallels does Gangs of New York have with Latin America - watch "City of God" or just take a look at the badlands of Mexico. When the poor are left to fend for themselves they seek security in gangs and then anarchy and lawlessness soon ensues. If the likes of Ron Paul rip up the social contract America would start resembling Latin America. If you don't have a job and you are claiming welfare - remember - Libertarians would get rid of all state provisions.
32peartree 1 week ago
@leeknivek good thing your mommy n daddy take care of you, or you'd be swallowing jizz for pocket change
blastsummit 1 week ago
@blastsummit Quite possibly. Wouldn't count on it, though.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@32peartree No employer has any obligation to hire someone or keep them employed if they do.
Anyways, are you saying that television, computers, cell phones, and satellites, could not have happened in a free market? If so, why?
Also, what exploitation was there? Wage labor is voluntary. Don't like the terms? Don't work there.
leeknivek 1 week ago
Comment removed
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree What pain and suffering of the 19th century? Aside from slavery, that is, because that would not be tolerable.
Even if there is unemployment, the market is always growing and will accommodate anyone willing to work at some point or another. Realistically, government intervention restricts that through regulation. Not to mention: is it really the government's job to ensure that people have work? No, it isn't. Nor should it ever be, despite what some people would like to think.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@whedonfreak976
....we haven't had unregulated Capitalism for a long time, maybe never
Wall street was granted an infinite line of federal credit in the 1970's. That is the government deciding their market value, NOT the free market. Look how well that turned out. If you believe the banks were able to lend because of 'deregulation' you are severely misguided. They were able to lend at low interest due to the federal reserve meddling in the free market.
TheBabolat91 1 week ago
@TheBabolat91 No, it's not "racist to think free market Capitalism, given consumer power, can more efficiently solve these problems", it's just a bit naive.
eirefrance 3 days ago
free Austrian economics. vs. the American School of economics which promotes protectionism. libertarians proved over and over they are traitors. the other libertarians not mentioned Von Mises, Rothbard, and the other creators are Jewish. I was once asked to join this movement back when it was in it's infancy, and was even promised a job as a politician .
other famous libertarians are Larry Summers and Gary Gensler, as well as the notably famous Peter Schiff.
LouieDaProtectionist 1 week ago
@LouieDaProtectionist Are you saying - there's some bigger agenda behind all this free market anarchism?
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree I went to the RNC in 88 (New Orleans) with some important people, and was told what the message was. as time went on, I met many lobbyists, and was sort of pushed into a marraige with a Congressman's daughter (which was a friend and didn't like). the guy she married which I shall not name became a politician, divorced her, and married someone else who is popular in the news as a sensationalist. Is libertarianism/ Austrian eco a Jewish developed ideology? absolutely.
LouieDaProtectionist 1 week ago
@LouieDaProtectionist Thanks for the reply - fascinating stuff - I wish you could be more candid but I understand. It does seem that all the ideologies now bestriding the political stage are anti-statist to some degree or other - whether that's anarchists on the left, liberals in the centre or neo Conservatives and libertarians on the right. None of them are calling for protectionism which all fits in with the agenda of globalization.
32peartree 1 week ago
The Dictatorship of the majority should be kept at bay by a written constitution, a free press, free assembly and regular elections. Taxation and bureaucracy have been a part of human civilization from the very beginning - so I find it a bit odd you'd automatically deem them tyrannical. But if Libertarians wish to play by democratic rules - I don't have a problem - but if they start rewriting the constitution to separate politics from economics - then they are overstepping the line.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
@32peartree I do differ with Libertarians on some points. People in developed societies can be afforded basic subsistence as compensation from the system that denies them the ability to head off into the wilderness and fend for themselves. This can be done though monetary policy without the need for thousands of pencil-pushing parasites administering the program. Monetary policy should be an automated function of economic activity, not tweaked each month by bankers or politicians.
natlang1 1 week ago
@natlang1 If Ron Paul got elected he could get rid of your "pencil pushing parasites" under the constitution - but by the same token if, the Democrats get back into power they can re-instate them. The problem comes when libertarians might separate the state from economics - which is unconstitutional. Remember - the founding fathers didn't say no to taxation they said "no taxation without representation".
32peartree 1 week ago
@natlang1 But you've actually hit upon another illiberal aspect of libertarianism - in that the people would not be free to head off to the hills and become hunter gatherers or subsistence farmers - as all land would probably be privately owned. So a sort of feudalism might develop outlawing anarchists and hippies has squatters. Unless that is you allowed some common land to be put aside - viz-a-viz medieval Europe.
32peartree 1 week ago
What do rich greedy people do? They spend
WarriorOfWriters 2 weeks ago
This woman merely channeled a passage of thought, she was no prophet but she articulated an idea that encompassed reality and purpose within reality which entirely dismissed our needless values; religion, racial constructs and implored us regard things for their existing value; that understanding truth was achieved with a disciplined sense of reason and that our only purpose even as sophisticated animals was to make ourselves richer.
WarriorOfWriters 2 weeks ago
@WarriorOfWriters Bullshit - there are plenty people who don't care about getting rich. Some people are driven by money - but others are driven by the pursuit of knowledge or wisdom or beauty. If we were all motivated by getting rich - they'd be no ballet dancers, struggling writers or badly paid government scientists. Instead we'd all become stock brokers or criminals. What an horrible reductionist argument.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
@32peartree ofcourse there would, ideally any artist wants to be original and must appease a demographic; no not all of us want to be rich, some of us just want to excel in our respective ambitions and be rewarded for it. It's not my dream to be rich but successful as a journalist and writer. I am working very hard to achieve that and I hope it makes me wealthy and famous.
WarriorOfWriters 1 week ago
@WarriorOfWriters But you would agree that being a writer isn't the best way of making money - if you wanted to get rich quick - buying and selling stuff is the better way. Besides, if money was the primary motivation - nobody would write difficult challenging novels - everyone would be trying to be the next Jackie Collins or Dan Brown. For a true artist the money is fine if it comes along - but its not the primary motivation - thank god.
32peartree 1 week ago
@WarriorOfWriters And I'd contend that money is not the prime motivator behind most worthwhile human activity - its just we're told continually that its all about getting rich so we convince ourselves that this must be the truth. For instance, did Fleming develop antibiotics because he wanted to become a millionaire? Or did Einstein become a physicist because he desired a luxurious lifestyle? Some people are great at making money - they have their role - but they are only part of the story.
32peartree 1 week ago
This video is wrong on so many levels.
cluther1114 2 weeks ago
Google "Ultra Liberalism" SGvST Wiki"
"Ultra Liberalism is an extreme form of economic liberalism. It is the view (sometimes called Minimal Statism or Minarchism that government should be as small as possible.Ultra Liberalist usually agree that government should be restricted to its "minimal" state function of government (courts, police, prisons, defense)."
32peartree 2 weeks ago
Pinochet's Chili for instance - Milton Friedman's experiment in monetarism. And lets not forget free market Malaysia, Indonesia, South Africa, Singapore, Thailand, Egypt, Tunisia etc etc. When wealthy bourgeois elites come under pressure they nearly always opt for a police state to protect their dominant economic position. A Libertarian Republic would be no different considering Libertarians are anti democratic.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
@32peartree It's pretty much the story of humanity. The reason why these political philosophies only exist in fantasy fiction is because they directly oppose human nature. It's common sense that under laissez faire capitalism that the lumber industry would like to own the forests, and what's stopping them from owning the stick frame construction industry? How could anyone compete with something that owns the resources.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 2 weeks ago
Ed prefers coercion and force over persuasion. One evil man.
cevansroxy 2 weeks ago
@MirageScience Yes.
newperve 2 weeks ago
Excellent video with very important points. Libertarianism is nothing more than a fantasy fiction cult, cut off from reality. They cloak insanity with words of liberty and freedom, but private tyranny rule, unaccountable private tyrannies with no limits, controls, regulations or ability for the people to protect themselves from them is a theft of liberty and freedom!! Capitalists themselves would never accept the fantasy fiction of Libertarianism, but happy to use them.
Navywxman 3 weeks ago
Seriously dude, don't procreate.
lifelong9er 3 weeks ago
chairman of the fed as a libertarian? Perhaps the person who posted this video should compare what Greenspan wrote under the "influence" of Rand and what he actually did as chairman of the fed.
lifelong9er 3 weeks ago
What a stupid video.
lifelong9er 3 weeks ago
Whoever posted this has an obvious axe to grind against liberty and freedom. The bias in the video speaks for itself. I'm a Libertarian and I am not a racist. No race is my emeny but people like the moronic poster of this video are my enemy because they are deceptive for their own "selfish" reasons to feed their "greed" by keeping the sheeple in line. I'd be willing to bet the poster of this video benefits daily in one way or another from despotism of the majority.
eyeorewolf 3 weeks ago
@eyeorewolf Holy crap. You hit me with both liberty and freedom, those well defined words that mean the same thing to everybody. You're right. I hate them both and love the "despotism of the majority," although I prefer "tyranny of the majority," but kudos to your original phrasing. Don't forget to watch some of my other vids which should equally outrage you. Long live the sheeple and the crony corporatist state, George Soros, the international jewish conspiracy, and the NWO!
TheForwardGaze 3 weeks ago
"selfishness and greed, not cooperation"...proving that you have no understanding of what Rand promoted. Rand said that everything should be a matter of cooperation between free parties rather than compulsion. BTW, for those of small IQ, Rand explained why, in the begging of this video why California's Proposition 8 was an improper action of the state. Sure, vote on public policies, but it's not proper for the majority to vote away rights of the minority, or vote on matters of rights.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
"Let's make fun of immigrant people's accent's. It's OK if liberals do it, it's only bad when a conservative does it, because of course, liberals are incapable of racism and all conservatives are secretly racist."
MrPisster 3 weeks ago
So, I guess the poster of this video supports the mainstream media's view of society? Mike Wallace and Ed Schultz over Ayn Rand and Rand Paul (that's as far as I got with this trash)?
So people who advocate liberty are "insane" because they are criticized on tv by the establishment whore media?
Good one, jackass. You made a real contribution.
MillionthUsername 4 weeks ago
The top comment is someone responding to their self.
PlacentaPudding 4 weeks ago
I will be voting Libertarian from now on. We need a third party and more options. I would encourage anyone who considers themselves socialist to vote for the socialist party candidate. Lets end the two party system.
clintcastle 1 month ago
And if you do support the state, in any form, the please STFU and don't go making videos claiming to know about the history of anarchism.
zyodei 1 month ago
You oppose the state? You're on our side. Thanks for the love letter.
zyodei 1 month ago
Holy Crap she predicted the future!
FromanMD 1 month ago
CONTINUED: Furthermore, labels are for idiots to argue about. That's why the globalists continue to coin so many labels for political movements; so idiots can argue about the split hairs and myriad other inconsequentals about it instead of discoursing rationally on the real issues that are molding our reality; (propaganda, brainwashing, conspircy, fascism) Now all of these are not so much creeping as galloping and we're STILL argueing and labeling!
olga2415 1 month ago
I was steeped in (all of) Ayn Rand's books during my 30\sx-40s. There is nothing inherently wrong with her philosopy of reason. It is misused,as is most things in the hands of idiots.Her attitude toward socialism is right on. Her attitude toward taxation is right on.She believed in the the sovereign individual.Unfortunately, there are not many of those except the 1% which is ruling the world's herd of sheep.Not many people measure up to her philosophy; not even she did. She was human after all.
olga2415 1 month ago
If you are FOR force, coercion, violence and war, then libertarians are in fact immoral and nutjobs. But, if you look at yourself in the mirror one day and realize that you want a world where your children can live in peace, all while having the MOST fair and nonviolent society, economy, and world then calling libertarians immoral and nutjobs is IMMORAL and makes YOU the nutjob. Pick!
ownagenumba1 1 month ago
Let me explain sth. to you commies. You can not simply lie on internet without consequences. With a speed of light you will be corrected and called on it.
Another thing is:
"Libertarians And Objectivists Are Nutjobs "
What kind of argument is this? It's ad personam - it essentially means you lost befor the fight even started:
MISES.ORG
TOMWOODS.COM
what else:
Peter Schiff debates David Epstein of Columbia University -- Nov 11 2009
Applying Economics to American History | Thomas E. Woods
:D
pipem4n 1 month ago
3.(chiefly Europe) An anarchist, typically with socialist implications. - wiktionary
So it depends on where you live.
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
2.(chiefly US) A believer in a political doctrine that emphasizes individual liberty and a lack of governmental regulation and oversight both in matters of the economy ('free market') and in personal behavior where no one's rights are being violated or threatened. Also 'classical liberal', akin to 'anarcho-capitalist'. - wiktionary
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
Your history is incorrect. Anarchism/libertarianism did not, in any way shape or form, originate from Communism. Yes, there was a split with the anarchist/Kropotkin faction within Communism, but Anarchist ideas predate Marx. You also conspicuously leave out American individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.
handfetisch 1 month ago 9
@handfetisch The video's not meant to be a detailed examination of history or political philosophy but a biased work of propaganda. I don't think the video specifically says that anarchism emerged from communism, but then I don't really feel like watching it again to find out.
I'm not sure about Spooner. I'll have to read up on him. But I'm pretty darn sure that Tucker, though an individualist anarchist, was a socialist and not an anarcho-capitalist.
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
So you don't think Libertarians should sit around and vote to decide that you can be racist if you want? And if the vast majority WERE libertarians and they voted this way that you would think it's wrong? And you would deny your freedom to be a bigot and ask someone to MAKE you not be racist so that you felt that it was an order coming from above you and that everything was right in society. Ok. That's your right personally to feel that way. I just think it;s selfish to ask others to pay for
gwhyhate 1 month ago
@gwhyhate your government to tell you how to think and feel because you can;t do it for yourself.
gwhyhate 1 month ago
here the flaw of ur thought we have a collective world every one sharing 1 person will get up and say hey! let me deal with the hand outs. then he will take more for him self. also what reason would some one need to make sure every one is treated fair? in a collective world the government would take care of u i don't care. in a self interest world my self interest is to help you for the fact that you will help me make more money. by that it will make u more money.:D
darkisato 1 month ago
most ridiculous video i've ever seen. what a waste of bandwidth
infotechsailor 1 month ago
This whole video amounts to an ad hominem attack. When anyone resorts to name calling they by default admit that their position cannot be defended. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.
Daneilboone1 1 month ago
@Daneilboone1 As the video's description says, this is a subjective work of propaganda. The web and Youtube is full of reasoned critiques of anarcho-capitalism and objectivism.
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze I obviously did not read the video's description.
Daneilboone1 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze Yes now that I have watched most of it I agree it is a work of propaganda.
Daneilboone1 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze So then what is your point- your OBJECTIVE- in making this? are you trying to convince anyone of anything?
lukeasacher 1 month ago
Libertarians are for freedom !
spystyle 1 month ago
@spystyle One man's freedom is another's slavery. Words like, freedom, liberty, liberal, libertarian, conservative, and democracy are tricky. They have multiple definitions which are always changing.
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze Non-aggression_principle
moldyorangepeel 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze - I honestly do think that Freedom and Liberty mean the same thing, and I also do believe that the meaning for both is absence of coercion.
Also: 'One man's freedom is another's slavery' seems like a non-sensical sentence, unless you are a slave owner who's looking for new "help" ??
But what do I know ....
losverband 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze Slavery involves conscription. It's non-voluntary.
Freedom just means an armed third party does not interfere. Freedom is the default position.
Your history in the discription is examples of left anarchism which is basically the 180 degree opposite economic position of Freidman, Rand, Stossel, the Paul's ect...You should try to actually learn about a position you disagee with before you bother trying refuting it. Then you won't have to use ad homs and straw men.
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Yes, "left anarchism" is the opposite of anarcho-capitalism, which is why I described it in the video's description, to give examples of real libertarianism (ie., anarchism/democratic anti-state socialism). This reinforces the very subjective and biased point of the video, that American "libertarians" are delusional, phony, and ultimately, through their rhetoric, serve the interests of the corrupt state capitalism they claim to oppose.
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze Libertarian means something differernt in America vs. what it means in Europe. The term liberal used to describe what people like Freidman thought. This is why the term "classical liberal" exists. The FDR crowd actually stole the term liberal because people in the U.S. didin't like the term socialism. It was a marketing ploy and you fell for it! Many years later, the "classical liberals" adopted the term liberterian in the United States and I'm not sure why.
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
Libertarians should definitely ditch Ayn Rand.
LuathHans 1 month ago
I guess I'm a nut-job.
cory2146 1 month ago
Nicely done with the argumentum ad hominem. Always a sure way to win over people with an IQ of 70 and an effective way to demonstrate your command of any topic.
cmunson31 1 month ago
So considering the fact they've found altruist acts actually activate "reward" neurons in the brain, doesn't that kind of debunk some of her arguments? Albeit I agree with many libertarian positions, I don't know how the federal government would supply an army for defense without some form of taxation. Would people give money out of the collective well being and community? Oops.
plaidchuck 1 month ago
Well, I'll give him that I'm a nutjob for thinking I might see a valid argument here. I like hearing other people's ideas; it's how I got to be a Libertarian in the first place, but this video does almost everything one could possibly do wrong to indict Libertarianism. What it does right is to sound like a bunch of collectivist horseshit.
C4War10r 1 month ago
Taxation: people who want to steal from those who worked for their money fear getting caught and going to prison. So they elect politicians who will steal on the coward's behalf and eliminate his risk. Taxation and redistribution is legalized robbery. That system is nothing more honorable than democratically elected organized crime.
DanielLionheart1 1 month ago 4
Actually, your only argument is that people who value liberty over your brand of fascist communism are psychopathic idiots. What's really stupid is your view that the purpose of government is to micro-manage every aspect of other people's personal lives. In your Utopian view of government, control freaks are elected to manipulate and engineer society. In T Jefferson's view, the purpose of govt is to defend life, liberty and property. That's ALL. You're claiming that view is psycho. Pretty dumb.
DanielLionheart1 1 month ago
First point of confusion idiot makes:
Thinks that selfishness and greed are exclusive to cooperation. Only morons think this because they are too stupid to grasp that Ayn Rand was very specific that she was talking about "enlightened selfishness"
The difference between selfishness and enlightened selfishness is that a selfish person steals a loaf of bread. An enlightened selfish person plants wheat, builds a mill, and creates jobs for an entire town so that everyone has the best bread ever.
tocardx 1 month ago
@tocardx Rachel Maddow now supports Ron Paul. Alex Jones is an angry thug on many issues, and is less of a king of libertarians than say... the next person you showed even is... Stossel... or say Penn Jilette. On Greenspan.... to say that someone who is a high level government official who has their salary paid for through taxes somehow is an acolyte or even understands ANYTHING of Rand's philosophy makes you an illiterate moron. You've obviously never even read any Rand.
tocardx 1 month ago 9
@tocardx I'm aware that Ayn Rand disavowed Greenspan. But as the video points out, the rhetoric of "libertarians" and objectivists is constantly serving the interests of state capitalism. Every time a Greenspan, Milton Friedman or Ron Paul defends a large corporation exploiting the public as the "free market at work," what they're really doing is defending crony capitalism. Even neoliberalism, in its pure form, doesn't support global corporate-state domination, but it's been corrupted.
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze You're just lying now. When did Ron Paul or Milton Friedman defend crony capitalism? In fact it's one of the things they attacked most often and in the case of RP still do. Why is RP getting so popular today? Because he attacked the bailouts. Libertarians argued against state power since before they were called libertarians (they were then called liberals).
newperve 2 weeks ago
@tocardx Affirmative! Well said!
lukeasacher 1 month ago
@tocardx, Greenspan was a devotee of Rand back in the day. Read Rand's "In Defense of Capitalsim" to see a few short essay's he wrote that was included in the book.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@tocardx You don't have a clue. Greenspan is the foremost authority on objectivism. He and Rand were very close friends for decades. He was an objectivist writer. Rand stood beside him when he was sworn in as chair of the council for economic advisers in 1974. I hate uneducated cocky bastards.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 3 weeks ago
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT If you hate uneducated cocky bastards then you hate yourself. There is ZERO evidence that Greenspan is an authority on objectivism, let alone the "foremost" one. What has he written on objectivism in the last 30 years? Nothing. That he used Rand to get where he wanted doesn't make him an objectivist.
newperve 2 weeks ago
@newperve You said Alan Greenspan knew nothing of objectivism. Greenspan had a pro-huge free market following. You think that he didn't any influence on Rand? He was there, talking about it with Rand while she wrote Atlas shrugged. Just because you disagree with him know economically doesn't mean he doesn't know what objectivism is.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 2 weeks ago
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT No I said he wrote nothing on objectivism in the last 30 years and was not an authority. You are moving the goalposts here, going from him being the "foremost authority" to him having influence over her, which there is again, zero evidence of. No doubt he knows something of objectivism, but that doesn't make him an objectivist. It's not that I disagree with him economically it's that objectivists do. Try to keep up.
newperve 2 weeks ago
@newperve Are you stupid, or just ignorant? Greenspan was one of the founders of Objectivism. That's just common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about it. He develop the philosophy with Rand. Greenspan didn't follow objectivist theory later on because it's flawed. The philosophy that states "what's best for the free market is also best for the consumer" is a fallacy. Oh and Greenspan wrote a book a couple years back. Try to keep up..lol
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 2 weeks ago
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT No he was not "one of the founders of objectivism" there was only one founder Ayn Rand. Exactly who thinks that Greenspan was a founder of objectivism? Name one person if it's "common knowledge". Greenspan didn't follow objectivist theory later on because he wanted power. We know this because he adopted policies that were obviously flawed. The book had nothing to do with objectivism and you know it you stupid liar.
newperve 2 weeks ago
@newperve Rand coined and was the leader behind the movement, but it was developed by a group of people called the "Collective" which Rand was the founder of. Look up "objectivism collective" wiki it, better yet, read the book.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 2 weeks ago
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT Greenspan wrote one article on gold I believe. He was hardly a "founder" nor was anyone but Rand. What book do you want me to read? If what you claim is "common knowledge" is so, name someone who believes it.
newperve 2 weeks ago
I love it when people think their right and everyone else is wrong. Makes for good laughs.
Fuckin freedom baby!
doesthismakeanysense 1 month ago
A basic propaganda piece. Avoidance of the arguments = concession, either that they're correct or at the very least that you can't comprehend them. It shows persons' standards and how little they really care about truth and about peace and prosperity when they find such a worthless video satisfactory.
regresseur 1 month ago
Great video, shows these people for the nutjobs they are.
ShadeToSun 1 month ago
YEA PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED NOT TO SERVE BLACKS, ALSO CHINESE , MUSLIM, CHRISTIANS, ATHEIST, WHITE, RICH AND POOR IS CALLED FUCKING PROPERTY RIGHTS DUMBASS!!!!
rodrigodet 1 month ago
What the fuck am I watching
chitchcott 1 month ago