@1:48 (Property is the product of ones time, energy and talent)
So where does material property (ownership) spring from as nobody creates matter using time, energy and talent? You can only own the manipulation not the medium. What are the implications?
I asked about the implications not if it's true or accepted.
One thing I can think of is that you can't claim nature as property unless modified.
ex: nobody can claim the grand canyon as their private property by any other lawful means than by modification - spray paint it blue and it becomes the medium of your labor and therefor it is your property.
There is a discussion going on at the freiwilligfrei.info community board (German). My point was, the first claim of territory is illegitime, but trading with illegitime goods, "makes these goods" legit property.
Another solution for general thefts: The thief (or his insurance agency) has to fully pay an equivalent value of property - if the theft it self can be clarified.
But the "theft" of territory began like ten thousand years ago and surely cannot be clarified
@neohashi Think of pragmatism: Today all territories on earth are already (semi-legit) property of someone... it wouldn't be rightous to steal these from their (at least semi-righful) owners.
@jkpboca But enforcing "ideals" that are supposed to have a positive outcome for all by "the right of the (deceived) majority" is the answer in your opinion?
don't fall for collectivism please... or you'll find yourself under a second adolf hitler sooner than you can cry "jew".
I really wish the count on this video were higher - this has been out for years. Its ridiculous that people don't understand the concept of true peace and choice. Always infiltrated with the notions of others. I would hope that Ron Paulers would SPREAD this video - its so efficient!
What you're suggesting is a complete lack of government or enforcement of any kind of law, aka mob rule. Your actions affect others, a society has the right to protect itself and its participants from the actions of others. Without government, you have the right to be beaten. After which, you have the right to bleed to death. That's pretty much the extent of your rights under that system. Also see Somalia.
Yes, what we have now is legalized bribery that in the end amounts to corporate feudalism. All the elements of lords and serfs are there with only the veil of democracy, freedom, inalienable rights there to disguise the truth.
I don't think so. Sounds like fear mongering to me. Without regulation competition would rise, lower cost of operation would keep jobs here and they would compete for competent workers. Polluting would be bad publicity thus bad for business, especially with the rise of competition. A truly free press would make sure of it. A free market would work itself out.
My right to individualism doesn't impede on your right to voluntary collectivism. But your forced collectivism impedes on my right to individualism. There is no such thing as forced individiaulism. That would be to say that I am forcing you to not force me do anything.
Taxation on personal property is an act of agression and is a form of tenamenship' makes one wonder who's doing what to whom and why' why cant we simply have a unfied sales tax' then there would be no loopholes'
Yeah. I own my life, and I am willing to give some of my fortune to help give everyone else better lifes to, because I actually care about others then myself.
Its not about the government taking care of anyone as a nanny, its about creating an equal society where money is not what decides what school you can go to and what job you can have.
The reason the price of schools and loans went up so much is due to big government and the federal reserve...not the selfishness of these blasted "life owners."
Ask your father and mother, be it they are still alive, how much they had to pay to go to college. Now, also think about the time period in which they lived. My point is made.
@KSmoothSaxG Actually, neither of them even payd. Because we have FREE SCHOOL so that everyone has the same chance.
Big government dont do anything bad to the banks. In fact, some of the cheapest banks have been hypothesised by SOCIALISTS. Because they are non-profit banks.
THe highest expense in ANY private owned insitution is always the amount of money going to the owner.
@apstenzel07 Yes of course they do. Everyone chips in paying for it, so that everyone can use it.
Before that, people from working class families couldnt go to school. Just a couple of weeks ago I estimated the price of my school (not a university) per year if it was private.
Its cheaper to pay taxes, at least for normal people.
@gulbirk I'm guessing you didn't account for how much the cost of education is inflated due to the state's monopoly. If we had totally private education, costs would go down.
Before we had public schools, the poor didn't go to school because it wasn't economically advantageous to do so. Homeschooling and apprenticeship filled that gap. The poor couldn't always afford AC either, but over time the nation becomes wealthier and more things put in reach of the poor. Same thing with education.
@gulbirk Education is not a right. The only fundamental right is the right to your own life (as well as liberty and property, which are corollaries). You cannot have a "right" which requires you to infringe on the rights of others.
I'm confused as to how the collection of taxes changes whether or not the state has a monopoly on education, so you'll have to expound on that.
If education hadn't been taken over by the state, markets would have made it cheaper as society became wealthier and people would be able to afford it without state help.
If a century ago, governments had started providing free shoes to the public, costs would be higher, quality would be lower, and any attempts to privatize the shoe industry would be accused of wanting the poor to go unshod. Education is that same as any other market commodity, and is subject to economic laws.
@shamgar001 This is all a bunch of bullshit. The idea that the market makes things cheaper is all just a lie. Let me tell you why.
The largest difference between a private and public school is that the private has a HUGE profit. Its run for the sake of making profit. Thus it has a whole new large expense.
So the only way to make that school cheaper, since it be default is more expensive is to
nr1: INcreasing efficiency, name an example of that pleas? Again, what that normally means is. Decrease the quality. Make bigger classes. Make students bye their own books, etc. Name an example.
Nr2: Yes, again same example. Cost effective how? Name them. Because all they do is Nr1: Decrease quality. Nr2: Decrease payments. Thats what they do. Or they tend to make bigger classes, which is decreasing quality. Name some good examples if they exist.
@gulbirk If you want a specific hypothetical example of this, maybe the administration office only needs one secretary, or the superintendent's wife's brother's paper company doesn't actually provide better paper for the inflated price.
I think more examples would be apparent given a specific situation. The fact is that waste naturally happens in a public school because there's no incentive to be efficient, but it's absolutely vital in a private firm. (continue for #2)
@gulbirk Most textbooks in America are published by two or three publishing houses, which typically have contracts with state education departments. Private firms could make the decision to go with cheaper books (which aren't necessarily worse quality) by "indie" publishers. Schools might also put more emphasis on online programs or change to a more intense four-day week.
Actually, I would prefer a school which doesn't provide books, because then I could buy them online and save money.
PLUSS, private companies ALWAYS have a profit. Thus there is a whole new expense that makes a private company more expensive to run by default. Even that would have to be covered somehow.
@gulbirk "Profit" is not an expense, it's what's left over after you balance revenues and expense. Also, competition makes high profits rare because anyone can choose to lower their profit margins to "steal" customers (leading to a net increase in profit). If profits are high, it brings more people into the market, increasing supply which consequently brings prices down.
@gulbirk And yes, profit is whatever is left over.
So to make more money be left over (by paying people less or decreasing the quality thus de-creasing the cost) normal people DIDNT have more money or more freedom. PERIOD.
This is shows by history itself.
Schools USED TO BE PRIVATE. That was why normal working class people couldnt attend. Because society was not put up that way. Jobs were not payd good, because the owner wants profit.
@gulbirk People used to not go to school because they didn't need to; the economy was not wealthy enough for that. People also used to not be able to afford automobiles, but the market brought them into the reach of the average person without a government monopoly. Same applies to virtually every other consumer good. Government monopolies hinder the process which enables the poor to achieve a higher standard of living. Profits enable that by incentivizing people to innovate.
@shamgar001 "People used to not go to school because they didn't need to" Ehm no. For example my grandmother (whom both parents worked) could not have gone to school because.
nr1: They couldnt afford it.
Nr2: Because when people were able to work, they had to work because people had less money in generall.
Normal working class people have never had as good rights and amounts of money as they have right now (in Norway that is). While earlier, people were used by private owners.
@shamgar001 "People used to not go to school because they didn't need to" Ehm no. For example my grandmother, could not have gone to school because for once, they couldnt afford it. This was because at that time, when you were able to work, you had to work. Because normal people DIDNT have that much money, working was important to not become poor.
People were payd less, and monopolies existed BEFORE states started taxing industry.
@gulbirk Suffer me to rephrase that: People didn't go to school because it didn't bring enough benefits to outweigh the cost. But over time, as with all goods, the price would have gone down until it was worthwhile.
And historically, abusive monopolies have only ever existed where the government created barriers to entry or totally outlawed education.
Education is a special kind of monopoly since the government gets to run it whether it works or not.
@shamgar001 No. Actually schools had existed for quite some time. And there wasnt a lack of schools or teachers. It was just the fact that normal people were payd shit because there were no rules on how much you could pay people.
And private owners ran the world the way they wanted to. AKA: Not the way 99% of the rest of the people wanted to.
This is where the creation of social democratic parties come from. Opression from rich owners.
@gulbirk Why was Plato's Academy closed by I think it was Augustine' makes you wonder about the good book being a bit subversive' unless one knows how to interpret it properly'
I can't tell you exactly which policies would be the most effective, but a free markets opens things up for experimentation. If buying "indie" books is cheaper, then schools which follow that path will succeed; if not, the reverse will occur. The thing is that we really don't know because schools are required to use the monopolistic publishers.
The best way to find out which policies succeed is to let them compete. Good ideas will survive and pass on while bad ideas are eliminated. (cont)
the upshot of all this is the completely voluntary society. a well-intentioned dream but a disaster in practice - not to mention that almost every point in this video can be philosophically disputed.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@farhan00 They'll learn to be rationally self-interested after a week of living on the street and eating out of dumpsters. Either that or some relative will baby them and keep 'em fed for the rest of their life as a leech.
this is almost hilarious; this is clearly libertarian philosophy, to hold individual rights as top priority in a society, yet it fails to address the SOCIETY, which the millions and millions of individuals are inside of. it ignores everything else that is true about todays complicated and intriciate society and tries to simplify the issue. this is so clearly justification for a 10yrs old brats to not share his toys.
@uiluj13 Well that may be true for most societies but for American society the very foundation of the Constitution was built around individual freedom...Society be damned I'll take my freedoms...
@bluemind423 the article of confederation was built on the IDEALS of freedom, it's failure to have a strong central government almost caused the 13 colonies to fall into cause, that's when the constitution came into play. but because people still feared a stron central government, the federalist(modern democrats) had to persuade the anti-federalists(modern republicans) to ditch the crappy articles of confederation(the ideal libertarian framework for a government) for today's constitution.
@uiluj13 the being that is society is an abstract. much in the same way that there are no forest but trees, there is no society but individuals existing proximal to one another and interacting. what you're talking about is the contention of individuality vs. collectivism.
the solution to that is that you can build constructive collectives within enforced individuality through voluntarism., but you can't build constructive individualism within an enforced collective because the individual is cut
@Ravengaurd6 a society is a forest -.- all the trees consented to be part of that collective of trees and must abide to the will of the majority. but of course a "trees and forests" are bad examples because trees cannot immigrate or petition every single individual tree to all go live on their own individual island, so that way you all can govern yourself and the rights of every single individual is respected in this world.
@uiluj13 the problem with what you said is that being BORN into a population counts as CONSENT to LIVE as a PART of that society and to OBEY the will of those who are many when one is of the few.
by that logic, a genocide of 20% percent of a population by the other 80% is perfectly legal and moral.
the FOCUS of libertarianism isn't "strike it out on your own", though you'd be free to do so,but
at the most basic level, it's to minimizing initiation of violence and coercion against anyONE.
@Ravengaurd6 hitler was a fascist dictator, and last i checked fascism is right wing(aka on the same wing as republicans) and, dictatorship =/= consent of the governed, look more into the history and you'll know this to be true in germany. and no! libertarian is about minimizing government, which INCLUDES minimizing initiation of coercion. violence? noo as i recall, john locke invented the natural rights thing to justify stealing native american land.
@uiluj13 dictatorship usually begins with MAJORITY consent. " Hitler decided to seize power constitutionally rather than by force of arms."
in democracy of majority rule, a minority still lose their rights as a result.
Minimizing government is the GOAL of the Libertarian PARTY(those politically involved). singular advocates of personal freedom and human rights(Libertarian-capitalists,libertarian-socialists and anarchists) denounce ALL initiations of violence and coercion TODAY.
@Ravengaurd6 yeah and then hitler stayed in power with force of arms. no one consented to that. and i want to get something straight, im a egalitarian, so im tired of you calling me violent and comparing me to hitler. the very foundation of all philosophy is to denounce violence and to instead debate the issues.
yes majority rules in a democracy, but here's another way to look at it; every individual's vote is counted the same equally.
I'm not calling YOU violent. I'm calling mob justice violent.
so what if their votes count equally. they are undone if they're not part of the majority. that's where democracy fails the most. A person should focus on principles at ALL times, and not just when the mob is on their side.
the idea of democracy is that ,yes, the people choose,but what of the people that chose "wrong".
what of their rights? do principles disappear under the shadow of a larger number of people?
@Ravengaurd6 the principles did not disappear, because they were never principles. they were things people are blindly passionate about and must be momentarily sacraficed for the greater good. there are rarely principles that fit into all situations. you agreed to that when you are still in this country, if you dont like it, move out; by staying here you agree that you sacrafice some things for others. that's the compromise you made between you and the government.
@uiluj13 if I COULD leave this country to go where I wanted,I'd be in Switzerland right now.I didn't CHOOSE to be BORN in this country, as Ann Frank didn't CHOOSE to be BORN in pre-Nazi Germany.
having principles isn't having "blind passion" about some morals. they are fully rationalized notions that one must actively defend for himself and his fellow man because the most basic principles are literally the ones protecting his life, the life of loved ones and everything he rightfully owns.
@Ravengaurd6 okay, stop comparing everything to nazi's -.- who do you think hid ann frank from the nazis? that's right a house full of germans. i mean seriously, the majority of germans didnt consent to the holocaust. what did you think happened after WW2? all the germans continued to drink jew blood? enough with the nazi! im tired of you trying to dramatize the issue.
you surrendered your right to protect your property to the government. your rights are not in danger because of government.
@uiluj13 of course there were many people who didn't consent with the rule of the nazi party,but what difference did it make? enough people still stood idly by as a monopoly on force was formed around them. WHEN did I surrender? and How are my rights NOT in danger because of the Government?
1. the government is already funded in full by taxation and regulation. if you don't pay taxes and ignore your summons you get taken to jail!
2.ounce the money is taken I can't control where it goes!
@Ravengaurd6 lol? government is not a monopoly, if it was then things would be getting down right now, but no. the two politcal parties right now are arguing because of what they feel is best for the people. i dont care if you percieve them as fat cats on capitol hill, politicans DO have the interest of the people and this country.
those things you mentioned are called civic duty. you surrendered some of your rights when you became priviledged to be a PART of a civilized society.
@uiluj13 when I said a monopoly I meant the governments Monopoly On Force. the government is the only entity in this country that can legally threaten people to get their money. the government OWNs the military and authorizes its mobilization and use. the government commands the men that command the soldiers that command the weapons that plenty of times have killed innocent civilians of foreign nations, and the money that funds it all was gotten initially from threatening civilians.
@Ravengaurd6 i guess that's why 47% americans found legal loopholes to avoid paying income tax, but lol you make it sound like big brother is pressing a gun against your forehead, lol.
you should go to jail if you dont pay your taxes or ignore your summons, everyone else is doing it, what makes you so special?
the articles of confederation is a perfect example of the failure that is libertarianism in so many ways, one of them is that paying taxes to the central government was voluntary, lulz.
@uiluj13 enforced collection of money IS a gun pointed at one head. if it is ENFORCED that means one can be penalized for lack of compliance. that is the BASIS of it.
& w/ or w/o tax revenue the gov' spends. this is something that people have no control over. as the government spends more currency than there is value to back up, it prints out more and devalues the currency. so basically the value of the dollar would drop and prices would rise and wages wouldn't be able to keep up. inflation.
@Ravengaurd6 o-0 how do the government spend the money exactly? riiight, to pay civil servants to do their jobs, which is money into people's pockets and into the market. derpderp. i think increasing tax would be great for the economy, i mean, it's the reckless people(and banks) buying homes they cant afford fault the recession happened, and then this, why would we want those same reckless people to manage more money?
@uiluj13 the government that subsidized the lending of those sub-prime mortgage loans that nobody payed off.and with spending I'm not talking about government employees, I mean the stimulus and bailouts of which cost TRILLIONs.
this whole deal about the "debt ceiling" (which has been raised countless time before) is that people are getting hyped up about something that's been happening for decades.
public sector jobs don't produce anything for people anyway, they just profit off of force.
@lol97d I hope that's a joke. Please, don't make me lend credence to the notion that most libertarian-types are crackpot conspiracy theorists.
Illuminati / NWO talk is good fun and all . . . but I was talking in a serious sense. And you refuted nothing I said, which I can only assume means you agree. [Though, I think what I said was simply common sense, so I don't exactly expect a rebuttal.]
Nice video, but just seems too simplistic to be used politically (as it seems most are doing).
Unlimited freedom may sound nice, but it is not feasible nor do I think it would be desirable. This "philosophy" only seems to supports anarchy.
It acts as if things would be utopian if only we were allowed to act of our own accord all the time. And that is just clearly not the case. The reason I don't trust government is because I don't trust humans.
It's too bad we loose so much of our liberty because we sign up to be slaves to our jobs so we can have food and shelter. We do the best we can to be happy with these luxurys and things we possess, but really these little "things" are just amusements that make this life endebted to corporate domination more bearable. Well that's just my pathetic life...at least I have my philosophy and science to keep me happy. Hope your happy too out there.
You don't "lose" your liberty by taking a job. You give it up. So, the only complaint there is that you're too fixated on obtaining these "luxuries" and amusements that you won't toss off the shackles you think you're wearing.
This "philosophy" is incompatible with reality, because it's incompatible with governance. It only works under a total anarchic system. If you want to be "free" - go live alone in the forest. Nothing is stopping you.
Property is not the product of your life and liberty.
Because to aquire property you have to sacrifice a portion of your life and your liberty. A normal worker never gets his/her true share, because 90% of the management en Ceo's are corrupt. So you always sacrifce too much and gain too little. That is our so called democracy, our surrogate freedom
@dianae2002 management and ceos are hired by someone so I have to disagree with you. A ceo answers the stockholders. Managers are put there by the owners or CEO's etc. Everyone only gets the share they agreed to---- since any employee owns their life if they feel they dont get paid "enough" they can quit and find a different job.
What a load of crap. OK let me explain how this works in the real world. First we live in a society. In this society we establish laws for public protection and infrastructure that everyone benefits from. In a society it can't all be about take, it's a give and take system, if you are going to benefit from living in this society you have a responsibility to pay dues as well. Otherwise you are saying I want the benefits but don't want to pay for it. If that isn't your cup of tea, go to Somalia.
@BandrewD not true. Economic philosophy has everything to do with personal liberty. Libertarianism is about government non-intervention into the everyday affairs of the people, and we all engage in some form of commerce every day. Anarcho-syndicalism is Marxism afraid to admit what it is, and unfortunately the civil liberties movement has degenerated into something completely race based and blind to all other issues.
@goodkarme 69 people see through flawed arguments and blatant propaganda.
When income is a survival necessity and the worker is a disposable resources to be exploited and discarded when the capitalist no longer has any use for the worker, who really owns your life? When your choice is between starvation and which master to serve, what choice do you have? Until the workers own the work place and go to work for themselves, liberty is an illusion.
@Laughingblades Workers can and do own their own workplace. It doesn't happen as much as the capitalist way but there's a good reason for that. When the capitalist invests in a factory/plant he/she assumes the larger part of the risk for a longer period of time. Remember, before anyone in the collective can earn money the product must be made, sold, and money collected before the "worker/owner" can go buy dinner. In the "evil" capitalist version those workers get paid either way. Risk=Reward
@Pdub0817 Not in Capitalism. In Capitalism the Capitalist owns the work place and owns your labor. You're a rent-a-slave. Capitalism was designed to siphon wealth to the top and maintain a class system in which the working class would never have any real power. In fact, Capitalists send their children to schools to learn to be artisans and leaders, while you labor serfs send your children to schools to learn compliance and the facts needed to stock cubicles, registers, and be factory workers.
@Laughingblades Suppose you had an idea. You wanted to make and sell Y item that you created. You continue to sell your product and lo and behold it sells wonderfully. So much that you cannot meet the demand on your own. You have to hire help. Do you hire help at equal pay to what you earn or hire help for less? I'd say you are disingenuous if you answered "equal pay". I rarely e-debate as it's rather pointless. I see from your rapid response this could go on far longer than I have time for. Cya
@Pdub0817 Hey bro, sorry you're so uninformed, but look at Mondragon some time.
OHHHH Hey, suppose I have an idea and I'm poor, well fuck I'm shit out of luck, no way I can make my idea go anywhere without money, guess I can sell it to some capitalist because that's how capitalists get most of their ideas.
I hope you enjoy protecting a system designed to keep you poor and under the rule of the rich you mindless sheep.
@Laughingblades Looks like its the other way around. You're brainwashed into thinking we live in a capitalist society. All you have to do is look up the definitions of corporatism and capitalism. I don't think you will though. It's hard for someone to admit they've been fooled. The world would be a better place if we could. I was fooled and it wasn't easy to admit. So no worries.
@scottblanks That's really cute, you have no idea what capitalism is but you think I've been brainwashed just because your government has been corrupted through legalized bribery.
@Laughingblades That's called corporatism. Doesn't matter what I say to you. You're are obviously a tool. Your youtube page is set up in the same format as every other tool on here out to slander anyone who promotes freedom and personal liberty and anyone who threatens corporatism in America. Good luck. :)
@scottblanks Kiddo capitalism is a system of ownership in which a private owner controls the workplace and means of production, including owning the product of labor, normally for a wage portioned from the earnings. It's kind of cute that you don't even know what capitalism or the free market is and you want to educate me on corporatism, I bet you couldn't explain the concept of a corporation either beyond "created by law".
Kid talk to me about economics when you know the terms.
@scottblanks And if you got rid of the government tomorrow, just completely abolished the state, multinational corporations would still be there wouldn't they? And with no taxes or tariffs at the ports, they'd send all your jobs over seas, with no regulations they'd pollute however much they wished, with no protections for labor they'd treat workers however they wished, and with no social safety net losing your job or getting old or injured could mean homelessness and starvation.
@Laughingblades of course we still need government. Those who do not advocate for many federal regulations still recognize that if someone hurts you or damages your property they should be hold liable for it - right now mega-corps aren't....but it's kind of hard to enforce things like the anti-fraud laws when the gov't participates in the fraud!
@ArmorOfChrist777 There are governments in the world that aren't run by dictators and mega-corps. We could have such a government but we'd have to get the money out of politics and that could be very hard to do. I suggest that what we have now is legalized bribery and that it is, in fact, treason against the United States and the American people, but due to corruption in the system we're not calling it that.
@Laughingblades See, this bothers me that you should use this language. You will note that my initial statement started off stating that workers can and do own their own workplace. Therefore, your implication that I am wrong because of the company Kantega is unfounded. Also, you should note that Kantega, at least according to Wikipedia, states that Kantega can "trace its roots back to Taskon."
@logic11isGod I think the authors just realize that our world has been dumbed down so much that if they didn't express themselves in a simple way, their message would not get out. BTW, is saying you feel "stupider" proof that you are? ; )
@logic11isGod they realized the majority of people out there are sheeple. Don't you agree that you need to dumb it down a bit for a drooling majority to understand? Do you need to be reminded that nothing but catch phrases, propaganda posters, and skin color elected a president last election? That's all the proof I needed.
This is one of the best videos I have ever seen- show it to your kids or nieces&nephews because its simple enough for them to understand and it could carry with them forever.
@buffalobills91 The oversimplification is endemic to the libertarian movement. It is a movement that has oversimplification at it's root. A great example of this is your attitude to Obama. No, he didn't win via some catch phrases and skin colour. In fact, his skin colour has worked against him... he won because he gives a hell of a speech, espoused some laudable ideals (he has failed to meet them) and McCain/Palin was an awful ticket.
@logic11isGod That sir is because the idea of Liberty is not hard to grasp...(except for our lawmakers). I agree that McCain/Palin was a weak weak ass ticket.. his best speech was the concession speech. However, with Obama, the only factors I see were white guilt, black racism, and a good snake oil salesman (as you eloquently pointed out) it had nothing to do with the content of his character. (like MLK wanted). It proves how sheepish we've become and why we need to dumb it down for people.
@birdinthehand2000 ...nice use of "malady" ...glad you bought a thesaurus.... from your own private response to me:"Phil-os-o-phy 1; the use of reason and argument in seeking truth and knowledge of reality"
This video really has little to do with politics- it has to do with being a living breathing human being. It has to do with understanding the reality of what another person (or group) can and cannot do if you are truly "free". I dunno why that makes you think im ill but frankly I dont care.
@buffalobills91 Its funny isnt it, its about people getting on the same plane, being in the same groove while everyone is arguing about whats going on with the world' the question is what is the plan and who's ideology are we to go by when antropology and philosophy go hand in hand, we might think about joining the forces in knowledge to build an indisputible truth, which is what Einstien meant by quantum physics' defining the two forms of reality, but its a matter of seeing reality as it is'
@logic11isGod Thats not necesarily true' what do people actually know about how the media is biased' its a big word' biased and is often predicated by spin and promotions to first's just like having a women elected' but what's the point of a figure head anyway and a constant changing of the guard? Whats really being done to help people keep up with inflation and these bubbles of greed? Why didnt Paul get elected? and didnt get media coverage though he has fought the Fed reserve
After the asgaard had defeated the old rulers, the giants, they were faced with a problem. The giants had been defeated by the aasgards together with the rest of the people, and it had been declared that from now all people were free and equal!
But the aasgards wanted to become the new rulers of people and get even richer. But how could they say that all people are free and equal, yet not free and equal? The aasgards asked the cunning trickster Locke to provide a solution to this dilemma.
@RV56 The solution Locke came up with was this: The people being free and equal had voluntarily agreed to not be free and equal! The fact that the aasgards were rich and powerful and every day in control of the work of the rest of the people was the result of free agreements, and the bulk of these agreements had been met in ancient times that no body remember.
@Foxgar you wouldn't be enforcing your views on the communist. You would be defending what's justly yours against the assault on your rights. There's a moral distinction between unprovoked aggression on the rights of others, and defensive aggression. True natural rights never conflict with the natural rights of others
@Foxgar you wouldn't be enforcing your views on the communist. You would be defending what's justly yours against the assault on your rights. There's a moral distinction between unprovoked aggression on the rights of others, and defensive aggression. True natural rights never conflict with the natural rights of others
yo but i'm not getting how this video explains liberty and freedom and all that since it seems to jump from the idea that you own yourself to the idea that you can own property in a specific fashion. Surely it requires force to be enacted onto people to say they own this rock rather than everyone owns this rock or nobody does or someone does or you do, or what process you have to engage in exactly to own it? write back please i wanna leanr about liberty innit!!
@Foxgar Initial real property is acquired by claim. It's like squatting. If nobody owns land, you can claim as much as you can put to productive use. Obviously a single person can't claim a continent, as governments tried to do. The process encourages exploration, discovery and overcoming frontier challenges by rewarding people for those efforts. After that, land is traded by mutual agreement. There is never any need for force or fraud.
@Foxgar There is a great, classic book that was written exactly on this topic. In fact, it contributed greatly towards the founding of the United States and heavily influenced the founders. The writer's name (you'll probably recognize this) is John Locke and the name of the essay is "The Second Treatise on Government." Seriously! It is not boring and is an incredible piece of work available in book stores cheap and at the library for free! :)
freedom is just like good and bad a fantasy. we are never free, but never "captured" we can always freely move and freely think, tough actions can be limited so we aren't truly free. because there is no base layer of the existence of freedom there can be no proof of the existence of freedom. time is also an illusion.
Interesting Philosophy, but according to it, passing any law all would be a violation of liberty. The only real freedom left is wild life. There's absolutely no law there but I'm not sure how many people would want to adapt to that.
Aggressive laws, yes. Laws against murder, theft, etc. are quite ok. So is voluntary laws. My dorm had voluntary laws, if you went to live their you agreed to obey them.
Yes, in many ways, but atleast my dorm was a single one amonst many, and if I disagreed, I could just move to another. Doing this with nations is a good deal more difficult, thus its very much more problematic when they pass aggressive laws.
@ZeckRichards Only if it is by voluntary consent. If you or any other individual disagrees with the actions of the nation state, you do NOT have to give them your personal property. In fact, if the nation state continues to insist on your personal property (thus declaring war on you and deeming you to be their slave) you have the right and duty to establish a different government which respects your natural rights. Sadly, the vast majority of modern Americans have forgotten this key fact...
@chuska8383 That's true for some things but I wouldn't say it's for everthing. Things like Union workers not having to pay taxes and are a little overpaid or or giving up your personal property, then yeah, I can see that maybe we should cut back. But for things, such as, the draft, or laws that protect the environment are usually essential. If our country was being invaded, we'd hold a draft not because we want to, but because we have, assuming we all want our country to stay alive.
@ZeckRichards No, the draft is a completely disgusting idea! You own your life, not the state. The draft is an affront to ALL natural rights (life for obvious reasons, liberty since it is involuntary service, and personal property since war means taxes) If the country is invaded and you feel compelled to fight, then fight. If the country is engaged in a war you don't support, then don't fight...or even fund it. Ideally, of course, there would be no country to defend, but we'll ignore that.
budguy68 ur dumb,capitalism and communism r both wrong.we need a system tht dosnt include money,or weapons,we shuld all have a common goal to make the world a better place by helping each other,not to gain riches or respect but for life.
Money isnt evil, rather it is a necessary tool for human cooperation above the most basic level. Barter economy is very inefficient and planned economies even worse.
The content of this video is correct only if you agree with the axiom it presents at first, i.e. self-ownership. It's dubious that we are or should be the owner of our own life to a maximal instant, without thoughts for our people, our country, our society, our family, our traditions or our ancestors. To believe in total self-ownership is to choose the path of treachery and decadence.
I think both Wisconsin Union and Tea Party people share some libertarian values. Who has their allegiances in the right place is yet to be seen. I'm not certain republican values are totally in line.
'Self ownership' is feasible only if the individual is capable of severing themselves from the environment as a whole. Unfortunately, this simply is not possible for even if one could isolate themselves from the atmosphere (...via an airtight, human-sized hamsterball...), they will suffocate as the oxygen depletes. Being free doesn't mean independence...being free means understanding you have to make responsible choices and are accountable for the choices you make.
Moreover, this video makes a very questionable (not to mention unenlightened) assumption that "property" is the highest good and standard for life. The video ignores the power and authority that comes with control of property. That is, as wealth begets wealth and money makes money, property - and therefore power -would become increasingly concentrated. While the video vilifies democracy democratic power, it appears completely fine with the power the oligarchy over other people's lives.
@udibi You're missing the point. It doesn't matter how much property you have, you have no right to use it on others without their consent. You have no right to power over others that they do not give you.
Property is the highest value because, in the end, you still own one thing: yourself. You (body, mind and soul) are your own property, and no one has the right to take that away from you. And you have no right to take it from others.
@ilnaras Not at all. For some reason all you seem to completely miss the tremendous power that comes with owning a lot of property - more property than those around you. When you have far more property than those around you, it becomes as easy as blinking to exert power over others. Sure, you'd argue that it is not right for the powerful person to do so, however in the libertarian scenario you all espouse, there is absolutely nothing to stand in the way of or prevent this inevitable outcome.
That is the issue of coercion, the age-old argument/condition that has prevented freedom.
Whether one can prevent this outcome is dependent on too many factors, but one is free to make the choices to become free.
That is the paradox of freedom. We have to work together to become free, because alone, one doesn't exert enough power to become free. And that's why there exists the "freedom movement".
So, there exists many things that stand for and against this outcome of "ultimate power".
Freedom isn't free, many people have and will suffer and die for it.
But you know what? It's worth the risks. And it's always worth the risks because we only have one try at life. So no matter what almighty evil is out there, one has to fight for it because it's the only thing that makes things meaningful.
I see the difference between ideology and reality. Reality just happens to be that while liberty cannot win every battle, there exists a privileged status for it, for liberty carries positive meaning and feelings for human beings. And hence it is always eventually more preferable.
So liberty for the self is the goal of all human beings, but what we haven't realized is that making the world better off for other people is good for ourselves as well.
And that's why some people believe it is better to oppress others to gain freedom than to gain it through helping others. Those people are deceiving themselves.
As well-intentioned as it may be, this video has glaring faults. The libertarian anarchy it describes would only work in a country with a well-educated, well-fed, healthy populace, with bountiful resources, great infrastructure, and no wars, natural disasters, or unforeseen events. Of course none of that could be coordinated or financed without anyone "stealing" (i.e. taxing) peoples' property or exerting some kind of governmental authority with which some individuals might not agree.
If you are seeking truth, be sure to check this out. Search "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Pass it on to everyone you can reach.
This philosophy (correctly) claims that human beings exist in time, and furthermore (correctly) claims that to take away a life is to take away a person's future. Is it not hypocrisy to refuse to extend this reasoning to abortion? Some Libertarians I know somehow claim that abortion should be a protected liberty of the mother.
@SKUSMC excellent point. In my opinion, the "my body, my choice" line is a fallacy, because the unborn child also has a body, but no choice. True liberties don't infringe on the equal liberties of others. Everything else is just progressive horseshit propagated by people who want to be able to do whatever they feel like.
@flythegadsden Agreed. Under their argument you'd suppose they were advocating the freedom to abort their own bodies, in which case I agree that I have no right to try to prevent them from committing suicide.
@1:48 (Property is the product of ones time, energy and talent)
So where does material property (ownership) spring from as nobody creates matter using time, energy and talent? You can only own the manipulation not the medium. What are the implications?
neohashi 2 weeks ago
@neohashi this view is widely accepted as true/realistic. if you buy a potatoe, you buy the farmers time, energy and talent. simply as that.
nolekulikali 2 days ago
@nolekulikali
I asked about the implications not if it's true or accepted.
One thing I can think of is that you can't claim nature as property unless modified.
ex: nobody can claim the grand canyon as their private property by any other lawful means than by modification - spray paint it blue and it becomes the medium of your labor and therefor it is your property.
neohashi 1 day ago
@neohashi I agree.
There is a discussion going on at the freiwilligfrei.info community board (German). My point was, the first claim of territory is illegitime, but trading with illegitime goods, "makes these goods" legit property.
Another solution for general thefts: The thief (or his insurance agency) has to fully pay an equivalent value of property - if the theft it self can be clarified.
But the "theft" of territory began like ten thousand years ago and surely cannot be clarified
nolekulikali 10 hours ago
@neohashi Think of pragmatism: Today all territories on earth are already (semi-legit) property of someone... it wouldn't be rightous to steal these from their (at least semi-righful) owners.
nolekulikali 10 hours ago
Oh I see, so I don't have control over peoples lives as much as I have over my life? I guess sucks for the tough guys.
redfoxbennaton 2 weeks ago
Why the hell would someone go against libertarianism?
Ron Paul 2012
abeismain 2 weeks ago 3
anarchy is not the answer to the world's woes.
jkpboca 3 weeks ago
@jkpboca But enforcing "ideals" that are supposed to have a positive outcome for all by "the right of the (deceived) majority" is the answer in your opinion?
don't fall for collectivism please... or you'll find yourself under a second adolf hitler sooner than you can cry "jew".
nolekulikali 2 days ago
You people who the video is saying to abolish govt clearly do not understand the simple explanation of Liberty.
uglyindian1 3 weeks ago
72 Marxists dislike the video
MrDevong 1 month ago
I really wish the count on this video were higher - this has been out for years. Its ridiculous that people don't understand the concept of true peace and choice. Always infiltrated with the notions of others. I would hope that Ron Paulers would SPREAD this video - its so efficient!
anabusedman 1 month ago
What you're suggesting is a complete lack of government or enforcement of any kind of law, aka mob rule. Your actions affect others, a society has the right to protect itself and its participants from the actions of others. Without government, you have the right to be beaten. After which, you have the right to bleed to death. That's pretty much the extent of your rights under that system. Also see Somalia.
seeqer66 1 month ago
ONLY 100K views? COME ON
nottinmatterz2day 1 month ago in playlist favorites
Yes, what we have now is legalized bribery that in the end amounts to corporate feudalism. All the elements of lords and serfs are there with only the veil of democracy, freedom, inalienable rights there to disguise the truth.
chvinyard 2 months ago
I don't think so. Sounds like fear mongering to me. Without regulation competition would rise, lower cost of operation would keep jobs here and they would compete for competent workers. Polluting would be bad publicity thus bad for business, especially with the rise of competition. A truly free press would make sure of it. A free market would work itself out.
scottblanks 2 months ago
My right to individualism doesn't impede on your right to voluntary collectivism. But your forced collectivism impedes on my right to individualism. There is no such thing as forced individiaulism. That would be to say that I am forcing you to not force me do anything.
AroundSun 3 months ago 2
Taxation on personal property is an act of agression and is a form of tenamenship' makes one wonder who's doing what to whom and why' why cant we simply have a unfied sales tax' then there would be no loopholes'
birdinthehand2000 3 months ago
Is there a way to download this in AVI or Mpeg format?
rockoutmichigan 4 months ago
@rockoutmichigan Look up "Youtube Downloader". It's a free program that works really, really well.
shamgar001 4 months ago
Yeah. I own my life, and I am willing to give some of my fortune to help give everyone else better lifes to, because I actually care about others then myself.
Its not about the government taking care of anyone as a nanny, its about creating an equal society where money is not what decides what school you can go to and what job you can have.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk
The reason the price of schools and loans went up so much is due to big government and the federal reserve...not the selfishness of these blasted "life owners."
Ask your father and mother, be it they are still alive, how much they had to pay to go to college. Now, also think about the time period in which they lived. My point is made.
KSmoothSaxG 4 months ago
@KSmoothSaxG Actually, neither of them even payd. Because we have FREE SCHOOL so that everyone has the same chance.
Big government dont do anything bad to the banks. In fact, some of the cheapest banks have been hypothesised by SOCIALISTS. Because they are non-profit banks.
THe highest expense in ANY private owned insitution is always the amount of money going to the owner.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk
I was speaking about universities...and even lower-education is not free; it's payed by tax payer money, dude!
KSmoothSaxG 4 months ago
@KSmoothSaxG Yes of course. But my parents didnt pay for university either. Its tax funded here.
Thus normal people can go to school too.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk If your parents pay taxes, they pay for your university.
apstenzel07 4 months ago
@apstenzel07 Yes of course they do. Everyone chips in paying for it, so that everyone can use it.
Before that, people from working class families couldnt go to school. Just a couple of weeks ago I estimated the price of my school (not a university) per year if it was private.
Its cheaper to pay taxes, at least for normal people.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk I'm guessing you didn't account for how much the cost of education is inflated due to the state's monopoly. If we had totally private education, costs would go down.
Before we had public schools, the poor didn't go to school because it wasn't economically advantageous to do so. Homeschooling and apprenticeship filled that gap. The poor couldn't always afford AC either, but over time the nation becomes wealthier and more things put in reach of the poor. Same thing with education.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 Yes, it became public, so everyone could use it.
There is no state monopoly in Norway because we pay profit tax. You only tax from your profit, not your income.
Secondly, schools are not a business, they are a right. And when privatised, they simply wont be used be anyone.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk Education is not a right. The only fundamental right is the right to your own life (as well as liberty and property, which are corollaries). You cannot have a "right" which requires you to infringe on the rights of others.
I'm confused as to how the collection of taxes changes whether or not the state has a monopoly on education, so you'll have to expound on that.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 (cont)
If education hadn't been taken over by the state, markets would have made it cheaper as society became wealthier and people would be able to afford it without state help.
If a century ago, governments had started providing free shoes to the public, costs would be higher, quality would be lower, and any attempts to privatize the shoe industry would be accused of wanting the poor to go unshod. Education is that same as any other market commodity, and is subject to economic laws.
shamgar001 4 months ago
@shamgar001 This is all a bunch of bullshit. The idea that the market makes things cheaper is all just a lie. Let me tell you why.
The largest difference between a private and public school is that the private has a HUGE profit. Its run for the sake of making profit. Thus it has a whole new large expense.
So the only way to make that school cheaper, since it be default is more expensive is to
A: Lower the teachers payment
B: Cut back in the quality.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk I can see that you haven't spent a lot of time studying how markets work. I would recommend reading "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 Actually I have. And you have no response because you understand deep down that it is obvious.
Name one way I can make my school cheaper then you without cutting back on the quality, OR cutting back on what I pay the teachers. NAME ONE WAY.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk
1. Increasing efficiency; Public schools don't have to do this because they get state money no matter how much of it they waste.
2. Finding more cost-effective ways to educate; state-run programs are naturally resistant to innovation.
3. Cutting administration; some schools have an admin-faculty ratio of 1:1, which is completely unnecessary for a good education.
Of course, there will also be non-profit private schools which can do all of these things and not have profits.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 False.
nr1: INcreasing efficiency, name an example of that pleas? Again, what that normally means is. Decrease the quality. Make bigger classes. Make students bye their own books, etc. Name an example.
Nr2: Yes, again same example. Cost effective how? Name them. Because all they do is Nr1: Decrease quality. Nr2: Decrease payments. Thats what they do. Or they tend to make bigger classes, which is decreasing quality. Name some good examples if they exist.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk If you want a specific hypothetical example of this, maybe the administration office only needs one secretary, or the superintendent's wife's brother's paper company doesn't actually provide better paper for the inflated price.
I think more examples would be apparent given a specific situation. The fact is that waste naturally happens in a public school because there's no incentive to be efficient, but it's absolutely vital in a private firm. (continue for #2)
shamgar001 3 months ago
@gulbirk Most textbooks in America are published by two or three publishing houses, which typically have contracts with state education departments. Private firms could make the decision to go with cheaper books (which aren't necessarily worse quality) by "indie" publishers. Schools might also put more emphasis on online programs or change to a more intense four-day week.
Actually, I would prefer a school which doesn't provide books, because then I could buy them online and save money.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 Oh wrong again. Because the only way a company mass producing school bocks could be much cheaper is also simple.
A: Spend less time finding information, decrease the quality on the book.
B: Spend less time writing the books.
Or maybe you have any other ideas? Because it seems that "making this effective" is just a code word for decreasing the quality.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk CONT
PLUSS, private companies ALWAYS have a profit. Thus there is a whole new expense that makes a private company more expensive to run by default. Even that would have to be covered somehow.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk "Profit" is not an expense, it's what's left over after you balance revenues and expense. Also, competition makes high profits rare because anyone can choose to lower their profit margins to "steal" customers (leading to a net increase in profit). If profits are high, it brings more people into the market, increasing supply which consequently brings prices down.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 Hahahhaha. Yeah, because that certainly was the case when Markets werent taxed.
No. Owners of companies have ALWAYS been rich, and have always had profit.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk And yes, profit is whatever is left over.
So to make more money be left over (by paying people less or decreasing the quality thus de-creasing the cost) normal people DIDNT have more money or more freedom. PERIOD.
This is shows by history itself.
Schools USED TO BE PRIVATE. That was why normal working class people couldnt attend. Because society was not put up that way. Jobs were not payd good, because the owner wants profit.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk People used to not go to school because they didn't need to; the economy was not wealthy enough for that. People also used to not be able to afford automobiles, but the market brought them into the reach of the average person without a government monopoly. Same applies to virtually every other consumer good. Government monopolies hinder the process which enables the poor to achieve a higher standard of living. Profits enable that by incentivizing people to innovate.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 """People used to not go to school because they didn't need to"""
ehm, no. Actually, if for example my grand mother (whom both parents worked) would have wanted to go to school she couldnt. because
Nr1: It costed to much
Nr2: Working class people didnt have that much money, so when a person was able to work, they had to work to have an income.
The standards of the working class was WAY WAY lower if you go back to a more libertarian time.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@shamgar001 "People used to not go to school because they didn't need to" Ehm no. For example my grandmother (whom both parents worked) could not have gone to school because.
nr1: They couldnt afford it.
Nr2: Because when people were able to work, they had to work because people had less money in generall.
Normal working class people have never had as good rights and amounts of money as they have right now (in Norway that is). While earlier, people were used by private owners.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@shamgar001 "People used to not go to school because they didn't need to" Ehm no. For example my grandmother, could not have gone to school because for once, they couldnt afford it. This was because at that time, when you were able to work, you had to work. Because normal people DIDNT have that much money, working was important to not become poor.
People were payd less, and monopolies existed BEFORE states started taxing industry.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk Suffer me to rephrase that: People didn't go to school because it didn't bring enough benefits to outweigh the cost. But over time, as with all goods, the price would have gone down until it was worthwhile.
And historically, abusive monopolies have only ever existed where the government created barriers to entry or totally outlawed education.
Education is a special kind of monopoly since the government gets to run it whether it works or not.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 No. Actually schools had existed for quite some time. And there wasnt a lack of schools or teachers. It was just the fact that normal people were payd shit because there were no rules on how much you could pay people.
And private owners ran the world the way they wanted to. AKA: Not the way 99% of the rest of the people wanted to.
This is where the creation of social democratic parties come from. Opression from rich owners.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk Why was Plato's Academy closed by I think it was Augustine' makes you wonder about the good book being a bit subversive' unless one knows how to interpret it properly'
birdinthehand2000 3 months ago
I can't tell you exactly which policies would be the most effective, but a free markets opens things up for experimentation. If buying "indie" books is cheaper, then schools which follow that path will succeed; if not, the reverse will occur. The thing is that we really don't know because schools are required to use the monopolistic publishers.
The best way to find out which policies succeed is to let them compete. Good ideas will survive and pass on while bad ideas are eliminated. (cont)
shamgar001 3 months ago
the upshot of all this is the completely voluntary society. a well-intentioned dream but a disaster in practice - not to mention that almost every point in this video can be philosophically disputed.
mostlytranslucent 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
I agree with 99% of this, but do recognize that this assumes people are rationally self-interested, and that isn't always true.
farhan00 5 months ago
@farhan00 They'll learn to be rationally self-interested after a week of living on the street and eating out of dumpsters. Either that or some relative will baby them and keep 'em fed for the rest of their life as a leech.
jpfoodsaver 4 months ago
Liberty can only thrive in a society which has a high level of technology which allows for uncensored instantaneous communication of ideas.
Technology such as the internet is creating the foundation for Liberty and then end of centralized governments.
batfly 6 months ago
this is almost hilarious; this is clearly libertarian philosophy, to hold individual rights as top priority in a society, yet it fails to address the SOCIETY, which the millions and millions of individuals are inside of. it ignores everything else that is true about todays complicated and intriciate society and tries to simplify the issue. this is so clearly justification for a 10yrs old brats to not share his toys.
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 Well that may be true for most societies but for American society the very foundation of the Constitution was built around individual freedom...Society be damned I'll take my freedoms...
bluemind423 6 months ago
@bluemind423 the article of confederation was built on the IDEALS of freedom, it's failure to have a strong central government almost caused the 13 colonies to fall into cause, that's when the constitution came into play. but because people still feared a stron central government, the federalist(modern democrats) had to persuade the anti-federalists(modern republicans) to ditch the crappy articles of confederation(the ideal libertarian framework for a government) for today's constitution.
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 the being that is society is an abstract. much in the same way that there are no forest but trees, there is no society but individuals existing proximal to one another and interacting. what you're talking about is the contention of individuality vs. collectivism.
the solution to that is that you can build constructive collectives within enforced individuality through voluntarism., but you can't build constructive individualism within an enforced collective because the individual is cut
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 a society is a forest -.- all the trees consented to be part of that collective of trees and must abide to the will of the majority. but of course a "trees and forests" are bad examples because trees cannot immigrate or petition every single individual tree to all go live on their own individual island, so that way you all can govern yourself and the rights of every single individual is respected in this world.
see how absurd the ideal libertarian way is?
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 the problem with what you said is that being BORN into a population counts as CONSENT to LIVE as a PART of that society and to OBEY the will of those who are many when one is of the few.
by that logic, a genocide of 20% percent of a population by the other 80% is perfectly legal and moral.
the FOCUS of libertarianism isn't "strike it out on your own", though you'd be free to do so,but
at the most basic level, it's to minimizing initiation of violence and coercion against anyONE.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 hitler was a fascist dictator, and last i checked fascism is right wing(aka on the same wing as republicans) and, dictatorship =/= consent of the governed, look more into the history and you'll know this to be true in germany. and no! libertarian is about minimizing government, which INCLUDES minimizing initiation of coercion. violence? noo as i recall, john locke invented the natural rights thing to justify stealing native american land.
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 dictatorship usually begins with MAJORITY consent. " Hitler decided to seize power constitutionally rather than by force of arms."
in democracy of majority rule, a minority still lose their rights as a result.
Minimizing government is the GOAL of the Libertarian PARTY(those politically involved). singular advocates of personal freedom and human rights(Libertarian-capitalists,libertarian-socialists and anarchists) denounce ALL initiations of violence and coercion TODAY.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 yeah and then hitler stayed in power with force of arms. no one consented to that. and i want to get something straight, im a egalitarian, so im tired of you calling me violent and comparing me to hitler. the very foundation of all philosophy is to denounce violence and to instead debate the issues.
yes majority rules in a democracy, but here's another way to look at it; every individual's vote is counted the same equally.
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13
I'm not calling YOU violent. I'm calling mob justice violent.
so what if their votes count equally. they are undone if they're not part of the majority. that's where democracy fails the most. A person should focus on principles at ALL times, and not just when the mob is on their side.
the idea of democracy is that ,yes, the people choose,but what of the people that chose "wrong".
what of their rights? do principles disappear under the shadow of a larger number of people?
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 the principles did not disappear, because they were never principles. they were things people are blindly passionate about and must be momentarily sacraficed for the greater good. there are rarely principles that fit into all situations. you agreed to that when you are still in this country, if you dont like it, move out; by staying here you agree that you sacrafice some things for others. that's the compromise you made between you and the government.
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 if I COULD leave this country to go where I wanted,I'd be in Switzerland right now.I didn't CHOOSE to be BORN in this country, as Ann Frank didn't CHOOSE to be BORN in pre-Nazi Germany.
having principles isn't having "blind passion" about some morals. they are fully rationalized notions that one must actively defend for himself and his fellow man because the most basic principles are literally the ones protecting his life, the life of loved ones and everything he rightfully owns.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 okay, stop comparing everything to nazi's -.- who do you think hid ann frank from the nazis? that's right a house full of germans. i mean seriously, the majority of germans didnt consent to the holocaust. what did you think happened after WW2? all the germans continued to drink jew blood? enough with the nazi! im tired of you trying to dramatize the issue.
you surrendered your right to protect your property to the government. your rights are not in danger because of government.
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 of course there were many people who didn't consent with the rule of the nazi party,but what difference did it make? enough people still stood idly by as a monopoly on force was formed around them. WHEN did I surrender? and How are my rights NOT in danger because of the Government?
1. the government is already funded in full by taxation and regulation. if you don't pay taxes and ignore your summons you get taken to jail!
2.ounce the money is taken I can't control where it goes!
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 lol? government is not a monopoly, if it was then things would be getting down right now, but no. the two politcal parties right now are arguing because of what they feel is best for the people. i dont care if you percieve them as fat cats on capitol hill, politicans DO have the interest of the people and this country.
those things you mentioned are called civic duty. you surrendered some of your rights when you became priviledged to be a PART of a civilized society.
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 when I said a monopoly I meant the governments Monopoly On Force. the government is the only entity in this country that can legally threaten people to get their money. the government OWNs the military and authorizes its mobilization and use. the government commands the men that command the soldiers that command the weapons that plenty of times have killed innocent civilians of foreign nations, and the money that funds it all was gotten initially from threatening civilians.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 i guess that's why 47% americans found legal loopholes to avoid paying income tax, but lol you make it sound like big brother is pressing a gun against your forehead, lol.
you should go to jail if you dont pay your taxes or ignore your summons, everyone else is doing it, what makes you so special?
the articles of confederation is a perfect example of the failure that is libertarianism in so many ways, one of them is that paying taxes to the central government was voluntary, lulz.
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 enforced collection of money IS a gun pointed at one head. if it is ENFORCED that means one can be penalized for lack of compliance. that is the BASIS of it.
& w/ or w/o tax revenue the gov' spends. this is something that people have no control over. as the government spends more currency than there is value to back up, it prints out more and devalues the currency. so basically the value of the dollar would drop and prices would rise and wages wouldn't be able to keep up. inflation.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 o-0 how do the government spend the money exactly? riiight, to pay civil servants to do their jobs, which is money into people's pockets and into the market. derpderp. i think increasing tax would be great for the economy, i mean, it's the reckless people(and banks) buying homes they cant afford fault the recession happened, and then this, why would we want those same reckless people to manage more money?
uiluj13 6 months ago
@uiluj13 the government that subsidized the lending of those sub-prime mortgage loans that nobody payed off.and with spending I'm not talking about government employees, I mean the stimulus and bailouts of which cost TRILLIONs.
this whole deal about the "debt ceiling" (which has been raised countless time before) is that people are getting hyped up about something that's been happening for decades.
public sector jobs don't produce anything for people anyway, they just profit off of force.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Cont. and the "Greater Good" ....oh yes as long as one group is GREATER they are therefore "GOOD"
the real world world isn't so inflexible that the people must turn to cannibalism at the drop of a hat.
alternative solutions to life's problems abound in this world that can be achieved through common sense and discipline without violence.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@lol97d I hope that's a joke. Please, don't make me lend credence to the notion that most libertarian-types are crackpot conspiracy theorists.
Illuminati / NWO talk is good fun and all . . . but I was talking in a serious sense. And you refuted nothing I said, which I can only assume means you agree. [Though, I think what I said was simply common sense, so I don't exactly expect a rebuttal.]
InfidelPerRatio 6 months ago
Simplistic BS. Play the video without the emotion enhancing score and see how little remains.
w7qho 7 months ago
@w7qho
What points did the video bring up that you disagree with?
emtpilot132 6 months ago
two thumbs up luved it!!
Audascity1 7 months ago
Nice video, but just seems too simplistic to be used politically (as it seems most are doing).
Unlimited freedom may sound nice, but it is not feasible nor do I think it would be desirable. This "philosophy" only seems to supports anarchy.
It acts as if things would be utopian if only we were allowed to act of our own accord all the time. And that is just clearly not the case. The reason I don't trust government is because I don't trust humans.
InfidelPerRatio 7 months ago
It's too bad we loose so much of our liberty because we sign up to be slaves to our jobs so we can have food and shelter. We do the best we can to be happy with these luxurys and things we possess, but really these little "things" are just amusements that make this life endebted to corporate domination more bearable. Well that's just my pathetic life...at least I have my philosophy and science to keep me happy. Hope your happy too out there.
kadmonzohar2 7 months ago
@kadmonzohar2 Sorry, but this is just nonsense.
You don't "lose" your liberty by taking a job. You give it up. So, the only complaint there is that you're too fixated on obtaining these "luxuries" and amusements that you won't toss off the shackles you think you're wearing.
This "philosophy" is incompatible with reality, because it's incompatible with governance. It only works under a total anarchic system. If you want to be "free" - go live alone in the forest. Nothing is stopping you.
InfidelPerRatio 6 months ago
@zelos88
...and the economy has never been better lmao
AJatethewaffles 7 months ago
A fantastic video that should be in every school and on television everyday.
The current system is not sustainable and will crumble in less than a decade.
AJatethewaffles 7 months ago
the ppl get to decide
juscalmesavage420 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
Property is not the product of your life and liberty.
Because to aquire property you have to sacrifice a portion of your life and your liberty. A normal worker never gets his/her true share, because 90% of the management en Ceo's are corrupt. So you always sacrifce too much and gain too little. That is our so called democracy, our surrogate freedom
dianae2002 8 months ago
@dianae2002 management and ceos are hired by someone so I have to disagree with you. A ceo answers the stockholders. Managers are put there by the owners or CEO's etc. Everyone only gets the share they agreed to---- since any employee owns their life if they feel they dont get paid "enough" they can quit and find a different job.
buffalobills91 7 months ago
What a load of crap. OK let me explain how this works in the real world. First we live in a society. In this society we establish laws for public protection and infrastructure that everyone benefits from. In a society it can't all be about take, it's a give and take system, if you are going to benefit from living in this society you have a responsibility to pay dues as well. Otherwise you are saying I want the benefits but don't want to pay for it. If that isn't your cup of tea, go to Somalia.
subzero961 8 months ago
@BandrewD not true. Economic philosophy has everything to do with personal liberty. Libertarianism is about government non-intervention into the everyday affairs of the people, and we all engage in some form of commerce every day. Anarcho-syndicalism is Marxism afraid to admit what it is, and unfortunately the civil liberties movement has degenerated into something completely race based and blind to all other issues.
flythegadsden 8 months ago
its not about repablicans or democtats or liberals or conserv or communists or capitalists you Fcking morons!
miketsiaras 8 months ago
@miketsiaras absolutely right. It is about real "freedom" not like the "free-dumb" we have now.
buffalobills91 8 months ago
65 people want the government to take care of them
goodkarme 8 months ago 13
@goodkarme 1 more must have joined the party.
jjsjeffjjsjeff 8 months ago
@goodkarme Actually,I think they want YOU to take care of them.
Frost770 3 months ago in playlist Frost770's favorites
@goodkarme 69 people see through flawed arguments and blatant propaganda.
When income is a survival necessity and the worker is a disposable resources to be exploited and discarded when the capitalist no longer has any use for the worker, who really owns your life? When your choice is between starvation and which master to serve, what choice do you have? Until the workers own the work place and go to work for themselves, liberty is an illusion.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades Workers can and do own their own workplace. It doesn't happen as much as the capitalist way but there's a good reason for that. When the capitalist invests in a factory/plant he/she assumes the larger part of the risk for a longer period of time. Remember, before anyone in the collective can earn money the product must be made, sold, and money collected before the "worker/owner" can go buy dinner. In the "evil" capitalist version those workers get paid either way. Risk=Reward
Pdub0817 2 months ago
@Pdub0817 Not in Capitalism. In Capitalism the Capitalist owns the work place and owns your labor. You're a rent-a-slave. Capitalism was designed to siphon wealth to the top and maintain a class system in which the working class would never have any real power. In fact, Capitalists send their children to schools to learn to be artisans and leaders, while you labor serfs send your children to schools to learn compliance and the facts needed to stock cubicles, registers, and be factory workers.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades Suppose you had an idea. You wanted to make and sell Y item that you created. You continue to sell your product and lo and behold it sells wonderfully. So much that you cannot meet the demand on your own. You have to hire help. Do you hire help at equal pay to what you earn or hire help for less? I'd say you are disingenuous if you answered "equal pay". I rarely e-debate as it's rather pointless. I see from your rapid response this could go on far longer than I have time for. Cya
Pdub0817 2 months ago
@Pdub0817 Hey bro, sorry you're so uninformed, but look at Mondragon some time.
OHHHH Hey, suppose I have an idea and I'm poor, well fuck I'm shit out of luck, no way I can make my idea go anywhere without money, guess I can sell it to some capitalist because that's how capitalists get most of their ideas.
I hope you enjoy protecting a system designed to keep you poor and under the rule of the rich you mindless sheep.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades You're thinking of Corporatism, not capitalism. A common misconception in America.
scottblanks 2 months ago
@scottblanks Awww how cute you're brainwashed into thinking Capitalism means free market aren't you kid?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades Looks like its the other way around. You're brainwashed into thinking we live in a capitalist society. All you have to do is look up the definitions of corporatism and capitalism. I don't think you will though. It's hard for someone to admit they've been fooled. The world would be a better place if we could. I was fooled and it wasn't easy to admit. So no worries.
scottblanks 2 months ago
@scottblanks That's really cute, you have no idea what capitalism is but you think I've been brainwashed just because your government has been corrupted through legalized bribery.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades That's called corporatism. Doesn't matter what I say to you. You're are obviously a tool. Your youtube page is set up in the same format as every other tool on here out to slander anyone who promotes freedom and personal liberty and anyone who threatens corporatism in America. Good luck. :)
scottblanks 2 months ago
@scottblanks Kiddo capitalism is a system of ownership in which a private owner controls the workplace and means of production, including owning the product of labor, normally for a wage portioned from the earnings. It's kind of cute that you don't even know what capitalism or the free market is and you want to educate me on corporatism, I bet you couldn't explain the concept of a corporation either beyond "created by law".
Kid talk to me about economics when you know the terms.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
I know them. We live in a corporatist society. Not a capitalist one.
scottblanks 2 months ago
@scottblanks And if you got rid of the government tomorrow, just completely abolished the state, multinational corporations would still be there wouldn't they? And with no taxes or tariffs at the ports, they'd send all your jobs over seas, with no regulations they'd pollute however much they wished, with no protections for labor they'd treat workers however they wished, and with no social safety net losing your job or getting old or injured could mean homelessness and starvation.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades of course we still need government. Those who do not advocate for many federal regulations still recognize that if someone hurts you or damages your property they should be hold liable for it - right now mega-corps aren't....but it's kind of hard to enforce things like the anti-fraud laws when the gov't participates in the fraud!
ArmorOfChrist777 2 months ago
@ArmorOfChrist777 There are governments in the world that aren't run by dictators and mega-corps. We could have such a government but we'd have to get the money out of politics and that could be very hard to do. I suggest that what we have now is legalized bribery and that it is, in fact, treason against the United States and the American people, but due to corruption in the system we're not calling it that.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades ...and thanks, I'm blushing at all your cute comments.
scottblanks 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Laughingblades Check this out: /watch?v=-QsbvE_0Kpc&sns
scottblanks 2 months ago
@Pdub0817 Bro, Kantega kicks your capitalist apologetics ass.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades See, this bothers me that you should use this language. You will note that my initial statement started off stating that workers can and do own their own workplace. Therefore, your implication that I am wrong because of the company Kantega is unfounded. Also, you should note that Kantega, at least according to Wikipedia, states that Kantega can "trace its roots back to Taskon."
Pdub0817 2 months ago
@Pdub0817 Problem? Mondragon kicks your capitalist apologetics ass.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
Wow, I feel stupider for having watched this. Do some people really view the world as that simple?
logic11isGod 8 months ago
@logic11isGod I think the authors just realize that our world has been dumbed down so much that if they didn't express themselves in a simple way, their message would not get out. BTW, is saying you feel "stupider" proof that you are? ; )
GetItRight4aChange 8 months ago
@logic11isGod they realized the majority of people out there are sheeple. Don't you agree that you need to dumb it down a bit for a drooling majority to understand? Do you need to be reminded that nothing but catch phrases, propaganda posters, and skin color elected a president last election? That's all the proof I needed.
This is one of the best videos I have ever seen- show it to your kids or nieces&nephews because its simple enough for them to understand and it could carry with them forever.
buffalobills91 8 months ago
@buffalobills91 The oversimplification is endemic to the libertarian movement. It is a movement that has oversimplification at it's root. A great example of this is your attitude to Obama. No, he didn't win via some catch phrases and skin colour. In fact, his skin colour has worked against him... he won because he gives a hell of a speech, espoused some laudable ideals (he has failed to meet them) and McCain/Palin was an awful ticket.
logic11isGod 8 months ago
@logic11isGod That sir is because the idea of Liberty is not hard to grasp...(except for our lawmakers). I agree that McCain/Palin was a weak weak ass ticket.. his best speech was the concession speech. However, with Obama, the only factors I see were white guilt, black racism, and a good snake oil salesman (as you eloquently pointed out) it had nothing to do with the content of his character. (like MLK wanted). It proves how sheepish we've become and why we need to dumb it down for people.
buffalobills91 8 months ago
@buffalobills91 What do you really know about anything really is you do not know how to interpret your own malady?
birdinthehand2000 7 months ago
@birdinthehand2000 ...nice use of "malady" ...glad you bought a thesaurus.... from your own private response to me:"Phil-os-o-phy 1; the use of reason and argument in seeking truth and knowledge of reality"
This video really has little to do with politics- it has to do with being a living breathing human being. It has to do with understanding the reality of what another person (or group) can and cannot do if you are truly "free". I dunno why that makes you think im ill but frankly I dont care.
buffalobills91 7 months ago
@buffalobills91 Its funny isnt it, its about people getting on the same plane, being in the same groove while everyone is arguing about whats going on with the world' the question is what is the plan and who's ideology are we to go by when antropology and philosophy go hand in hand, we might think about joining the forces in knowledge to build an indisputible truth, which is what Einstien meant by quantum physics' defining the two forms of reality, but its a matter of seeing reality as it is'
birdinthehand2000 7 months ago
@logic11isGod Thats not necesarily true' what do people actually know about how the media is biased' its a big word' biased and is often predicated by spin and promotions to first's just like having a women elected' but what's the point of a figure head anyway and a constant changing of the guard? Whats really being done to help people keep up with inflation and these bubbles of greed? Why didnt Paul get elected? and didnt get media coverage though he has fought the Fed reserve
birdinthehand2000 3 months ago
After the asgaard had defeated the old rulers, the giants, they were faced with a problem. The giants had been defeated by the aasgards together with the rest of the people, and it had been declared that from now all people were free and equal!
But the aasgards wanted to become the new rulers of people and get even richer. But how could they say that all people are free and equal, yet not free and equal? The aasgards asked the cunning trickster Locke to provide a solution to this dilemma.
RV56 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RV56 The solution Locke came up with was this: The people being free and equal had voluntarily agreed to not be free and equal! The fact that the aasgards were rich and powerful and every day in control of the work of the rest of the people was the result of free agreements, and the bulk of these agreements had been met in ancient times that no body remember.
RV56 9 months ago
FEDERAL RESERVE> pure evil
127miles 9 months ago 12
@Foxgar you wouldn't be enforcing your views on the communist. You would be defending what's justly yours against the assault on your rights. There's a moral distinction between unprovoked aggression on the rights of others, and defensive aggression. True natural rights never conflict with the natural rights of others
flythegadsden 9 months ago
@Foxgar you wouldn't be enforcing your views on the communist. You would be defending what's justly yours against the assault on your rights. There's a moral distinction between unprovoked aggression on the rights of others, and defensive aggression. True natural rights never conflict with the natural rights of others
flythegadsden 9 months ago
yo but i'm not getting how this video explains liberty and freedom and all that since it seems to jump from the idea that you own yourself to the idea that you can own property in a specific fashion. Surely it requires force to be enacted onto people to say they own this rock rather than everyone owns this rock or nobody does or someone does or you do, or what process you have to engage in exactly to own it? write back please i wanna leanr about liberty innit!!
Foxgar 9 months ago
@Foxgar Initial real property is acquired by claim. It's like squatting. If nobody owns land, you can claim as much as you can put to productive use. Obviously a single person can't claim a continent, as governments tried to do. The process encourages exploration, discovery and overcoming frontier challenges by rewarding people for those efforts. After that, land is traded by mutual agreement. There is never any need for force or fraud.
Liberty4Ever 9 months ago
@Foxgar There is a great, classic book that was written exactly on this topic. In fact, it contributed greatly towards the founding of the United States and heavily influenced the founders. The writer's name (you'll probably recognize this) is John Locke and the name of the essay is "The Second Treatise on Government." Seriously! It is not boring and is an incredible piece of work available in book stores cheap and at the library for free! :)
chuska8383 9 months ago
freedom is just like good and bad a fantasy. we are never free, but never "captured" we can always freely move and freely think, tough actions can be limited so we aren't truly free. because there is no base layer of the existence of freedom there can be no proof of the existence of freedom. time is also an illusion.
straaler5 9 months ago
Illuminati
NWOpartycrasher 9 months ago
So inspiring! thank you for posting
PilgrimHaus 9 months ago
Interesting Philosophy, but according to it, passing any law all would be a violation of liberty. The only real freedom left is wild life. There's absolutely no law there but I'm not sure how many people would want to adapt to that.
ZeckRichards 9 months ago
@ZeckRichards
Aggressive laws, yes. Laws against murder, theft, etc. are quite ok. So is voluntary laws. My dorm had voluntary laws, if you went to live their you agreed to obey them.
Illyrien 9 months ago
@Illyrien I can agree with that. But isn't a nation kind of the same way? That we all must give a little in order to maintain what we have?
ZeckRichards 9 months ago
@ZeckRichards
Yes, in many ways, but atleast my dorm was a single one amonst many, and if I disagreed, I could just move to another. Doing this with nations is a good deal more difficult, thus its very much more problematic when they pass aggressive laws.
Illyrien 9 months ago
@Illyrien That's true. I can definently agree with that.
ZeckRichards 9 months ago
@ZeckRichards Only if it is by voluntary consent. If you or any other individual disagrees with the actions of the nation state, you do NOT have to give them your personal property. In fact, if the nation state continues to insist on your personal property (thus declaring war on you and deeming you to be their slave) you have the right and duty to establish a different government which respects your natural rights. Sadly, the vast majority of modern Americans have forgotten this key fact...
chuska8383 9 months ago
@chuska8383 That's true for some things but I wouldn't say it's for everthing. Things like Union workers not having to pay taxes and are a little overpaid or or giving up your personal property, then yeah, I can see that maybe we should cut back. But for things, such as, the draft, or laws that protect the environment are usually essential. If our country was being invaded, we'd hold a draft not because we want to, but because we have, assuming we all want our country to stay alive.
ZeckRichards 9 months ago
@ZeckRichards No, the draft is a completely disgusting idea! You own your life, not the state. The draft is an affront to ALL natural rights (life for obvious reasons, liberty since it is involuntary service, and personal property since war means taxes) If the country is invaded and you feel compelled to fight, then fight. If the country is engaged in a war you don't support, then don't fight...or even fund it. Ideally, of course, there would be no country to defend, but we'll ignore that.
chuska8383 9 months ago
@ZeckRichards False passing a law that prevents you from taking another's liberty is the only legitimate function of government.
MrDevong 9 months ago
@MrDevong Yeah, that seems about right. But what about things like traffic laws or laws protecting the environment?
ZeckRichards 9 months ago
budguy68 ur dumb,capitalism and communism r both wrong.we need a system tht dosnt include money,or weapons,we shuld all have a common goal to make the world a better place by helping each other,not to gain riches or respect but for life.
juscalmesavage420 9 months ago
@juscalmesavage420
Money isnt evil, rather it is a necessary tool for human cooperation above the most basic level. Barter economy is very inefficient and planned economies even worse.
Illyrien 9 months ago
@juscalmesavage420 And who gets to decide what that goal is?
MrDevong 9 months ago
To learn about a philosophy more in touch with our inner and true nature, watch this video :
watch?v=Gx5KhoKYqKQ
WillhelmKaiser 10 months ago
The content of this video is correct only if you agree with the axiom it presents at first, i.e. self-ownership. It's dubious that we are or should be the owner of our own life to a maximal instant, without thoughts for our people, our country, our society, our family, our traditions or our ancestors. To believe in total self-ownership is to choose the path of treachery and decadence.
WillhelmKaiser 10 months ago
I think both Wisconsin Union and Tea Party people share some libertarian values. Who has their allegiances in the right place is yet to be seen. I'm not certain republican values are totally in line.
Scottmtg 10 months ago
'Self ownership' is feasible only if the individual is capable of severing themselves from the environment as a whole. Unfortunately, this simply is not possible for even if one could isolate themselves from the atmosphere (...via an airtight, human-sized hamsterball...), they will suffocate as the oxygen depletes. Being free doesn't mean independence...being free means understanding you have to make responsible choices and are accountable for the choices you make.
mdlittle5466 10 months ago 2
Moreover, this video makes a very questionable (not to mention unenlightened) assumption that "property" is the highest good and standard for life. The video ignores the power and authority that comes with control of property. That is, as wealth begets wealth and money makes money, property - and therefore power -would become increasingly concentrated. While the video vilifies democracy democratic power, it appears completely fine with the power the oligarchy over other people's lives.
udibi 10 months ago
@udibi You're missing the point. It doesn't matter how much property you have, you have no right to use it on others without their consent. You have no right to power over others that they do not give you.
Property is the highest value because, in the end, you still own one thing: yourself. You (body, mind and soul) are your own property, and no one has the right to take that away from you. And you have no right to take it from others.
ilnaras 10 months ago
@ilnaras Not at all. For some reason all you seem to completely miss the tremendous power that comes with owning a lot of property - more property than those around you. When you have far more property than those around you, it becomes as easy as blinking to exert power over others. Sure, you'd argue that it is not right for the powerful person to do so, however in the libertarian scenario you all espouse, there is absolutely nothing to stand in the way of or prevent this inevitable outcome.
udibi 10 months ago
@udibi
That is the issue of coercion, the age-old argument/condition that has prevented freedom.
Whether one can prevent this outcome is dependent on too many factors, but one is free to make the choices to become free.
That is the paradox of freedom. We have to work together to become free, because alone, one doesn't exert enough power to become free. And that's why there exists the "freedom movement".
Everyone wants this freedom.
soccom8341576 9 months ago
@udibi
So, there exists many things that stand for and against this outcome of "ultimate power".
Freedom isn't free, many people have and will suffer and die for it.
But you know what? It's worth the risks. And it's always worth the risks because we only have one try at life. So no matter what almighty evil is out there, one has to fight for it because it's the only thing that makes things meaningful.
soccom8341576 9 months ago
@udibi
I see the difference between ideology and reality. Reality just happens to be that while liberty cannot win every battle, there exists a privileged status for it, for liberty carries positive meaning and feelings for human beings. And hence it is always eventually more preferable.
So liberty for the self is the goal of all human beings, but what we haven't realized is that making the world better off for other people is good for ourselves as well.
soccom8341576 9 months ago
@udibi
And that's why some people believe it is better to oppress others to gain freedom than to gain it through helping others. Those people are deceiving themselves.
So, the battles will always continue.
soccom8341576 9 months ago
As well-intentioned as it may be, this video has glaring faults. The libertarian anarchy it describes would only work in a country with a well-educated, well-fed, healthy populace, with bountiful resources, great infrastructure, and no wars, natural disasters, or unforeseen events. Of course none of that could be coordinated or financed without anyone "stealing" (i.e. taxing) peoples' property or exerting some kind of governmental authority with which some individuals might not agree.
udibi 10 months ago
Great video and great Philosophy, a lot better then what we have now.
ChristoMafesto 10 months ago
If you are seeking truth, be sure to check this out. Search "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Pass it on to everyone you can reach.
vividDC 10 months ago
This philosophy (correctly) claims that human beings exist in time, and furthermore (correctly) claims that to take away a life is to take away a person's future. Is it not hypocrisy to refuse to extend this reasoning to abortion? Some Libertarians I know somehow claim that abortion should be a protected liberty of the mother.
SKUSMC 10 months ago
@SKUSMC excellent point. In my opinion, the "my body, my choice" line is a fallacy, because the unborn child also has a body, but no choice. True liberties don't infringe on the equal liberties of others. Everything else is just progressive horseshit propagated by people who want to be able to do whatever they feel like.
flythegadsden 10 months ago
@flythegadsden Agreed. Under their argument you'd suppose they were advocating the freedom to abort their own bodies, in which case I agree that I have no right to try to prevent them from committing suicide.
SKUSMC 10 months ago