define = it's hard narrowing what it quite means but what you mean is equal or larger/ smaller let's say you're X and you're comparing to Y are you equal? theoretically you're = but in reality you're not. X and Y are unknown they've got no relation. You've got no relation to Y.
"Property rights are not like other rights [...] If I have the right to free speech, it doesn't interfere with your right to free speech. But if I have property, that interferes with your right to have that property. You don't have it, I have it. So the right to property is very different from the right to freedom of speech [...]
@gjmatechak The term property rights means the right to have property in general not to have any specific item as my property. As such me having an item as property does not interfere with your property rights.
How does one acquire property? They buy it. They buy it with the funds they acquired in compensation for their labour. Therefore, property is acquired as a result of someone's personal labour. No one should have the right to the fruits of someone else's labour. That's what property rights are.
@jarvy251 i agree in principle but so long as it is brought to its natural conclusion. a mother owes nothing to her children. the child has no rights to the fruits of her labor. a woman has no rights to the fruits of her husbands labor nor does he have the rights to hers. nobody has the rights to police unless they pay for the police. clean water must be payed for, product safety is the job of the buyer, etc. after all these are property rights we are talking about.
I agree. Many of these things, like police and clean water we pay for already via taxes. The only difference being that we can't withhold payments or seek an alternative if we think the public sector is performing poorly.
@gjmatechak That's dumb. Property rights, even of very specific properties, is totally natural. If you disagree, I suggest that you find the nearest bear den and try to use Chomsky's quote to support your equal right to his property.
Make sure to get the exchange on video, so we can all see the success of your ideology.
The law works for SOME folks who can afford it, only. It's a scam. When Uncle Sam steals from the public, that is "legal". You can defend your "rights" in court if you can afford to take off of work and hire a lawyer, and appear before a judge that makes a living stealing from society. Duhhhh.
0:47 Wait wait wait. Didn't Locke own part of a slave trading company? He'd be a great politician, as I say, not as I do........Just looked it up, he was an investor in the Royal African Company, a slave importer, and had no issue justifying slavery. Not that this makes his arguments for personal liberty void, that would be fallacious, just means he had some cognitive dissonance.
The Important question is, do we have equal opportunity in this country? And the sad, but overwhelmingly obvious answer is no. If you say that an inter-city black boy brought up in the projects with a poor education has an equal chance for success in capitalist america, as the affluent do, then you are either clueless or a liar. Btw, thanks for the basic lesson on personal preference I really had no idea that I should respect others opinions.
this was an advertisement on the video that i just watched and instead of click skip this ad now, i chose to watch, and i really loved it <3 its genius.
david52875 well the asians do it all the time in my area. the family works together builds wealth then buys a store or opens one up. every person has the same chances just some have to work harder then others.
You're not as wealthy as Bill Gates because you didn't start out with a 4 million dollar trust fund and go to a high school that cost 20k a year in the 70s. How can you be treated as an equal with that? Liberalism isn't about equal outcome it's about equal opportunity. Maybe hollywood's fans would be better served if people got movie parts based on talent and hard work rather than having an uncle in the business. Gweneth Paltrow (sp?)'s uncle is Steven Spielberg... gee she's successful go fig
But we are NOT legally equal. Think about it. How many times have we heard of a celebrity who has served only a fraction of the time in jail that a normal man would? Its almost guaranteed, Mr. Skoble, that Hugh Jackman would get a lower sentence than you for the same crime barring crimes like murder.
I think John Sterwart Mills definitionof Liberty is better and in a sense is the same, but coined in the form of an Environment of freedom. Liberty is the fertile ground in which freedom grows.
@coolbji It's been a while now since I've felt like debating libertarians, but effectively you're being sold an ideological system that has no connection to reality, but is valuable to the national elites exactly because it supports the status quo.
@coopclauson Comments like yours continually help me prove my theories over human behavior. I was writing a detailed analysis of your idea ,that I was going to send you, when I realized it does not matter to you what I say. However, let me say, you're completely right, but your comment is shallow and does not consider larger factors.
My ONLY criticism of these videos is that they use very simple and uncontroversial examples. While this makes them easy to understand and agree with, it doesn't force the viewer to confront how it applies to ickier examples. That, and this video only has 10k or so views. So two complaints.
hmmm... i think the libertarian position can be naive about hierarchy in society. even if we agree that having "equal liberty" is an acknowledged condition of law, who is interpreting this law when there is a conflict between people of differing capabilities? do you side with the weak or the strong? these determinations build on themselves and distinctions made by interpretations of law will shape society to favor the sovereign ("law givers").
How in your right mind does capitalism not infringe upon other peoples liberty? If we really had equal opportunities, everyone would be self-employed. Instead the working poor (the majority) are forced to sell their labor power for an unlivable wage in order to maintain. Thats why people are forced to get on govt assistance. Think about it, do you really think someone who was born in the projects has the same opportunities as someone in the suburbs? Exploitation isn't libertarian
@BIGASSFUCKER " If we really had equal opportunities, everyone would be self-employed."
No, you moron, being self employed is hard WORK, especially at first. People like you think "I can't be self-employed, it's too much work, so i'll just steal money from someone else (through taxes and welfare).
@BIGASSFUCKER "Think about it, do you really think someone who was born in the projects has the same opportunities as someone in the suburbs?"
If Frederick Douglass could come out of SLAVERY and become successful, then yes, assuming statists like you don't use welfare or minimum wage to keep them in poverty.
@david52875 That's a horrible example. That's like saying if Jay-Z can go from selling drugs to a multi millionaire everyone can. The reality is that a majority of people in the ghetto don't have the same opportunities as those in the suburbs. There are things such as education, after school activities, and other things.
@david52875 This is where I stop arguing with you because you went ad hominem. No where in my response to you did I say anything about whether I support policies like minimum wage. You assumed that and you said it in a derogatory ("... if people like you...") way. Have a good day.
@david52875 "That's a horrible example. That's like saying if Jay-Z can go from selling drugs to a multi millionaire everyone can. The reality is that a majority of people in the ghetto don't have the same opportunities as those in the suburbs. There are things such as education, after school activities, and other things."
Where do you see all that? You're assuming, and when you assume you make yourself look like an ass.
@Fredfiness As a public school teacher, I can honestly tell you that those in the ghetto have MORE offered to them than those in suburbia. And most of them squander the extra opportunity.
@eagleeye1975 As someone from a family of teachers I agree with the last sentence of your statement, "And most of them squander the extra opportunity."
I still believe suburban kids have more quality (let me add that in) opportunities. Of course there are a lot of programs that are designed to help kids in the ghetto, but not a lot of them offer quality education. *shrug*
@Fredfiness Yeah... I get what you're saying. But after seeing like 40 different after school programs, 40 different scholarship programs, 40 different outreach and intervention programs, 40 different private charities working to help at-risk youths in the inner city, etc... then thinking back on my upper middle class schooling which had NONE of that offered to me... I just have to laugh at people who are like "the poor don't have as many opportunities". I call BS. :)
Poor example; he had to become a criminal twice over to get there, and had the great fortune of being illegally educated by the sympathetic wife of his master. He was one in a million; he was educated AND he successfully escaped slavery.
In modern society, our system is not producing the equality of education that could allow more Frederick Douglasses to become great orators. Inner city poverty, resulting from industry gutted by globalism, is restricting equality.
@VonBrachner The fact that he had to be a criminal to get where he was only further supports my point; opposing the state only made his position that much more disadvantageous, and only further demonstrates that people are able to rise above adversity if they possess the ability to do so.
The average person today is a million times as educated as Frederick Douglass, yet they aren't one billionth as successful. That should tell you something.
@david52875 Actually, no. They would not have the same opportunities. This is not a bad thing though, and to change it would involve inflicting aggression.
"We must enjoy equal protection of our rights". Could this be rephrased as "We must be willing and invested to fight for our neighbor's rights as well as our own, even though they may not align".
An excellent video explaining the true all inclusive power of liberty in that I can like what I like, you can like what you like, and what's important is that as long as what we like doesn't interfere with the other, we all get along just grand.
Mutual respect of self and the valuing each others unique
I wish I could say this was true, but there many examples of celebrities doing something wrong and getting off with little more than a slap on the wrist. I would have to argue that we are not all equal, even in the eye of a judicial system.
@Ardentzero that's the entire point of the video though. Instead of focusing on how we can make people equal in terms of how much money they make or what they do for a living or "equal opportunity" so they say - we should be focusing on equal protection (and equal punishment) under the law.
@boristhepython Yeah unfortunately I wrote that comment about half way though the video before he started talking about everybody being able to pursue happiness as long as it's not negatively impacting another individual's pursuit of their own happiness :/
@JoshBoschke Wrong! Conservatives by far get this more than liberals: it's the very basis of the conservative ideology. It's liberals who pander to special groups of people rather than reinforcing individual rights and responsibilities.
First, and I say this a lot, please drop the bogus liberal-conservative dichotomy.
Second, neither "side" is doing a very good job on individual rights.
Third, before you spout out the ideology of one side or the other lets look at the reality of who supported The Patriot Act, waterboarding, gay rights, Gitmo, NDAA, bailouts, etc...
@donfolstar Progressives are involved in both the Democrat and Republican party, so as far as they're concerned, yes they do offer a bogus dichotomy. But to say that there's no difference between socialists and conservatives is pure folly.
True conservatives do not stand for any of the big govt policies which you cited, so until real conservatives are in power, your accusations hold no water.
Perhaps you missed this the first time so I will repost it:
"before you spout out the ideology of one side or the other lets look at the reality..."
You claim that basically every elected official who calls themselves conservative is not, in fact, conservative. There seems to be a bit of a problem with that kind of claim, especially when you vilify "liberals", "socialists", and "progressives" who are similarly co-opted.
@donfolstar Let's get specific to make things easier. Bush was not a conservative because of the policies which he implemented which you mentioned previously. People can claim to be conservative all they want, but it is what they do that defines them. Gingrich for example has been trying to appear conservative in the debates, but he has a history of support for ending global warming, as well as the individual mandate. When someone says they're conservative do you automatically believe them?
@donfolstar And what's wrong with "spouting" ideology? It's the basis for people's actions. But when it's not their standard, people will tend to compromise and flip-flop. So comparing reality and ideology is very useful because we can then go on to judge character and consistency, allowing us to better choose our representatives.
So let me see if I got this right. For you ideologyX is good, even though virtually everyone who calls themselves that does not fit your (possible the textbook) definition. Meanwhile, ideologyY&Z people are bad even though, again, nobody really fits your definition. That is a tricky pickle.
Just to add to the confusion now: nature CONSERVATIon =/= CONSERVATIve. That is a fairly new development... it is almost like these definitions change over time to reflect reality.
@donfolstar Obviously I believe conservatism is good because it reflects my values the most (along with 40% of Americans by the way, while only 20% consider consider themselves liberal according to the latest Gallup poll). And it is logical that then that would not favor the ideologies that are diametrically opposed to mine. And yes it is true that the presidential nominees that the Republican party supports are often more moderate than they are conservative.
@donfolstar I disagree though, that no one really fits the definition of ideology Y&Z (liberal/socialist), especially when we consider the policies of our current president.
When it comes the confusion over conservative/conservation, it really comes down to context. Conservatism holds the Constitution in high esteem, so it seeks to conserve it so that it endures. Conservation on the other hand often refers to environmentalism. No confusion there in my mind.
@donfolstar Now to bring this back to my original comment which you took umbrage with: I believe that Conservatism, defined as "a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)", DOES in face reflect the ideas in this video the most, counter to what user JoshBoschke claimed.
@dane7902 I don't understand what coveting has to do with conservatism (or even equality, to which this video is basically making the assertion that people can only be upset with their work when they want something that they don't deserve). Conservatism also isn't capitalism, as I'm sure you know. We shouldn't trick anyone into thinking that the word means anything more than "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability."
@molluskscommawethe First of all, from what I see in this video, covetousness is not the main argument, rather it is individuality that is the main focus. Conservatives champion each individual's "pursuit of happiness" rather than trying to guarantee success and happiness through redistribution of wealth, which liberals and socialists often advocate.
@dane7902 Actually defending individuals' pursuit of happiness, whatever they may be (so long as they don't infringe on others' rights) is a central tenet of liberalism, especially utilitarianism. Conservatives tend to be about imposing their own values on others and restricting their freedoms
Liberalism isn't necessarily about wealth redistribution, but poverty and lack of social mobility is usually a barrier to people's pursuit of their goals - plus guaranteeing rights requires a funded state
@cactustactics Does utilitarianism hold the ideal that one should seek to better the common good rather than his/her own rational self-interest? Doesn't liberalism advocate more often for 'the greater good' rather than an individual's responsibility to pursue happiness on their own terms?
@dane7902 Yeah utilitarianism is (basically) about maximising total happiness, which means minimising restrictions on people's ability to pursue whatever makes them happy, balanced against its impact on the happiness of others.Liberalism in general is really based on the idea of protecting people's basic rights, and ensuring that they're able to pursue whatever ideals of 'good' they have (there are many and no one way of life can encompass them all)- conflicts are where the greater good comes in
@dane7902 Yes that is the philosophy of utilitarianism, do the action that will produce the most good for everyone not just you. Basically, if everyone was doing it, would it be good or bad?
@cactustactics Conservatives impose values on others? Are you trying to tell me that liberals, progressives, and socialists don't impose their values on others? The whole game of government and politics is the competition between ideologies, and with ideology comes values, and the party that is given power gets to determine what values are held in highest esteem.
@dane7902 What I'm saying is that social conservatism is about a fixed way of life that people shouldn't deviate from - throughout history (including now) conservatism has been about the rejection of new things, other lifestyles. It's about conserving society and specific values.
I'm not saying leftism doesn't try to impose values, but they're values of tolerance and acceptance and equality. Obviously that conflicts with conservatism, but the aim is allowing everyone to pursue their own goals.
@cactustactics Let's consider some California's policies: in San Diego, alcohol is illegal on the beaches, and in LA it is illegal to throw footballs and Frisbees on the beach. To me that is completely antithetical to the values of a small-government conservative. So what ideology would those policies fall under? Does it stand up for the "greater good" or does it enhance individual liberty?
@dane7902 I had to read up on those- LA's actually repealed a ban, they're just clarifying their ability to prohibit that stuff when it's dangerous (crowded in the summer etc) so that is about the greater good- restricting individual liberty when it threatens to harm others'
San Diego's prop D was voted in, just over 50% - lower than their gay marriage ban vote. The thing about small government conservatism is it rarely dovetails with social conservatism, the desire to legislate personal values
@molluskscommawethe Obviously Conservatism isn't Capitalism because one is an ideology and the other is an economic system. But, conservatism strongly defends capitalism because out of all the crappy systems out there, capitalism is the least crappy; not perfect, just better than any of the alternatives.
It shows a lack of understanding on your part to limit conservatism to just "tradition and social stability" because it's main focus is based on economics and upholding the constitution.
@dane7902 Conservatism's main focus in America is on economics and particular aspects of our constitution, but to say this is part of its definition is like defining a human being as 'somebody who is a citizen of Palestine' (let's not get crazy.)
As for the video, I don't think one is supposed to parallel it's lessons with economic issues, unless one assumes that people are upset when they don't get opportunities that they don't deserve.
@molluskscommawethe Last time I checked Palestinians were human, so I guess defending the constitution is a tenet of conservatism. I have a feeling there was a point you were trying to make here but I got lost in it's subtlety, perhaps you could elaborate?
And I wasn't trying to parallel the video with economics, but with conservatism in general. Though I'm sure a connection can be made between the principles expressed in it and the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
@dane7902 The point was that when you over-specify, you exclude participants from the definition, but I suppose economics is one of the members of "everything" that is desired to stay a constant. What if a constitution called for itself to be frequently revised? Who would be a conservative?
I think a connection can actually be made between this video and economics, but as I've said, I think it would be implying that people irrationally wanting work that they don't deserve is a thing.
@molluskscommawethe Could you give me an example of what I'm "over-specifying" and who is being excluded because of it?
And about your constitution needing to be revised idea, it doesn't really make sense to me to speculate 'what might have been' because it isn't based in reality. But the constitution does give the people power to amend it, so it can be changed when needed. This way it preserves the form of government, the separation of powers, as well as the people's rights.
@molluskscommawethe Uh, wrong. This is something I care deeply about, which is why I'm taking the time to debate it with you. If you can't answer my question and clarify your comments, then you must not value them very much.
@dane7902 I value the issue of this video's relation to economics more than creating hypothetical situations where conservatism can't be defined as interested in defending the constitution.
@molluskscommawethe If that's your opinion then we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Even if conservatism didn't involve defending the constitution, I've never met a conservative that didn't strongly stand up for it.
I don't think one is supposed to parallel this video's lessons with economic issues, unless one assumes that people are upset when they don't receive opportunities that they don't deserve.
@alvisc2002 I've only ever heard Ron Paul supporters use those terms, so I don't think they're widely accepted in the political lexicon. Perhaps Progressivism (which spans across party lines) would describe it better...
@alvisc2002 Just want to point out that 'neoliberal' relates to economic liberalism (not social) - liberalising the flow of money, so free trade, free markets, lack of regulation, lack of protectionism (tariffs, restrictions on foreign ownership, state-run enterprises instead of private), that kind of thing. The 'neo' means they now support the enforcement of patents and copyright to 'protect investment'
So yeah, liberal is in the name but most of this stuff is at odds with social liberal goals
@dane7902 It's sad to see such extreme flag waving. If you dont think conservatives also pander to special groups, i am very sorry for you. Dont get me wrong, democrats do it too. But to say one side is innocent is completely asinine. I think the best thing for you to do is to not watch any "news station" but rather go out and do your own research.
@CurryCobra I don't even watch Fox or any other "news station" since I don't have cable. I only "waved my flag" because I disagreed with JoshBoschke's claim.
Since I'm on the inside looking in, I'm having trouble thinking of any groups conservatives pander to. Could you name a few? And try not to confuse establishment Republicans with everyday conservative American citizens.
@dane7902 Libertarian get this completely, Republican and Democrats both fail at this idea but in different ways. Democrats, at least in there claims, are more of person freedoms and equality, where is Republican are more for economy freedoms and tax equality. Both parties fail are being for these freedoms, on the whole, but I think your views are what is conservative and liberal is twisted by your own views. Check out the LP's Are you a Libertarian? Quiz, it makes the point very well.
Here is WHY our rights are all equal: we each own our own lives and our own bodies. Our self-ownership is equal. Rights to life, liberty, property and self defense are direct logical consequences of assuming that we each own our own bodies. And who wants to assume the opposite; that government owns your body? Yucko!
@SkepticThink Sorry I will specify. Well the criticism being that women have been subjected to discrimination in all history and that we live in a patriarcial, men-driven society, and also that structures are privileging men.
In these conditions, although all men (and women) are treated equal, women are still being discriminated.
That is the reason why they ask for a stronger voice and actual preferential treatment.
@Tobelli As a woman, I am subject to and protected by the same laws as men. Yes, instances of sexual discrimination occur, but the argument that it is/would be rampant in a truly free society society holds no water. Sexual discrimination, like discimination of any kind, makes no business sense. Why alienate potential customers? Additionally, if employers could really pay a female employee 75% of what they would pay a man to produce the same value, male unemployment would skyrocket.
As I see it, we (in Europe) do live in an equal society since we have equal laws for men as for womenn nonetheless women ARE indeed subject to discrimination, female employee do in fact get only 75% of men's wage.
Just because sexual discrimination makes no "business sense", it still happens.
Do you agree that in Europe (I am not aware of the situation in the US) although there is equality we still have sexual discrimination?
@Tobelli it is doubtful whether the pay gap between men and women has much to do with discrimination. It's more to do with the choices men and woman make during their lives. Women, who have no children and do not marry, earn as much as men do in the same job. It is far more likely, and is reflected in the statistics, that it is family building and the institution of marriage that causes the pay gap. If you want someone greater than I to explain this, read one of Thomas Sowell's books
@Astbruchgefahr Very well explained. I thank you very much indeed for this discussion and your reference to Sowell's books. Do you happen to suggest any book in particular? Conflict of Visions? Intelectual and society?
@Tobelli The Vision of the Anointed is excellent and Basic Economics is also good. I haven't had time to read much of his work beyond that. Affirmative action and intellectuals believing they can reorder people's lives are the running themes throughout all his works. Discrimination issues are pretty close to his heart, as he is a black man, and he has personal anecdotes on the effects of it. watch?v=vtXLzhbTz5E
@Tobelli 75% of a man's wage to add the same value? I think not. As I said, that would result in profit-motivated employers discriminating against men.
My point, and part of the point of this video, is that people are inherently UNequal. Speaking generally, men and women have different priorities in the workplace. Men tend to be more money-motivated while women are more concerned about things like workplace conditions, work hours, etc. Neither gender is wrong or inferior, just different.
@tzasame And if an employer or business DOES discriminate (on any grounds), I say let 'em. I'll be discriminating in the use of my dollars. I am not REQUIRED to do business with a private entity (in a truly free society, anyway... as an aside, that's one of the things most troubling about the perverted marriage of government and business we're experiencing today). Governments, with the compulsory participation and legal use of force, are of course a different story altogether.
OMG...I have told everyone my whole life...that you can some up all american laws (and judge if they are "legal" laws or not) by this one statement: You are free to do whatever you want in this country, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom.
Knowing that a dumb kid like me has the same "Idea" of American liberty as you makes me feel proud!
Keep producing videos! I maybe a conservative, but I agree with most, if not all, libertarian theology.
I don't think anyone, ever, has suggested that everyone should do the same job. Or that we should take acting jobs from one person and require someone else to do it. What is the point of this video?
@bobt39 If you follow the logic, it means that you cannot do many of the things we do currently, such as:
-Regulate drug use: it takes away people's right to choose. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you should disrespect their right to choose.
-Redistribute wealth for the purpose of equalizing society: taking people's right to property is to disrespect their rights and value as a free human.
And so on. I think the video should have said something more relevant though, I agree.
@TigerghostPictures@Arctura42 Replies like the ones I've seen here are why I have the general impression libertarians are selfish, think of their selves first, care less or little for the family.
@TigerghostPictures@Arctura42 Replies like the ones I've seen here are why I have the general impression libertarians are selfish, think of their selves first, care less or little for the family.
So where do gays and the whole "gay marriage" issue fit into all this equality talk? One of the common arguments against gay marriage is that it would deny certain people their right to refuse to recognize such a union as a marriage and therefore refuse services to them. Either way, someone's rights are going to be violated, the gay couple or the religious owners of the B&B. Is this type of discrimination justifiable? As a gay man, I'm curious. I'd like the liberty to marry someday.
@TigerghostPictures I, as a straight man, am not eligible to marry someone of my same gender either, so there is equality. You could marry a member of the opposite gender, same as I. ;) I'm a conservative, and honestly, I can't see any reason to deny same sex marriage. Every argument against it has been an appeal to religion, an appeal to tradition, or a game of semantics. None of those are valid logical reasons in my mind.
There is no such thing as a victim-less crime. A vice that libertarians claim do not hurt other's rights actually does hurt their rights. This is because individual decisions impact and direct the culture. We can have a culture that is immoral in inherently poor for the raising of children if, for example, we have a prominent minority that uses drugs and prostitutes. My family has a right to live in a healthy culture without having to move or give up our freedoms.
@mbevks Well, then be a parent and direct your kids attention elsewhere. We don't need a government doing your job in raising kids. We all know that the government is doing such a good job with the drug war, the war on porn, and censorship all for the "think of the children" argument [*sarcasm]. Why should I have to put up with beeps and censor bars on TV, why can't my neighbor smoke pot on his porch? There is no harm done to you or your perfect 1950s poster-child family. We have the technology.
@TigerghostPictures A society with a significant minority of crack users becomes a society whose culture is that of a crack drug culture, even if only 20% or 30% are actual users. People are not isolated spheres, we must live in and interact with the culture. We have a right to have a culture that is generally moral and is conducive to the raising of children. All activity, moral or immoral, impacts the culture. A negative impact does infringe on my rights and the rights of my children.
@mbevks If by "we have a right to have a culture that is generally moral and is conducive to the raising of children" you mean that we have a right to use force to make people behave morally (which is rather hypocritical, and also rather ambiguous as you and I may have different definitions of morality) then I disagree. I don't think we have a right to affect how people around us behave and that all we can do is create our own communities of like minded people. Your thoughts?
@Arctura42 The law should support at least the minimally accepted morality. The problem with a rigid philosophy like that used by many libertarians is that they recognize all or nothing, not a sensible and flexible system that makes value judgments based on the best people can come up with considering their conditions.
@mbevks What is the minimally accepted morality? What if someone disagrees with some portion of it? Would not a cultural environment that accepted the use of drugs develop a radically different set of morals than a culture that abides strictly by religious doctrines? Which of those is correct? If the society as a whole changes, does the law change too? What if someone goes off and hides from society in the woods, is he still part of it, and thereby must be punished for what he does away from it?
@Arctura42 Questions like these are why we have people to make these decisions (Republic, Monarchy, etc.). Different people in different places and times may come up with different answers. There is not a hard and fast rule, this is why we need a flexible government that can make rules about sex, drugs, money, etc. as they try to support a moral society which supports the family.
1:31
For once I understand a reference in these videos...
undercop5567 23 hours ago in playlist Favorites
define = it's hard narrowing what it quite means but what you mean is equal or larger/ smaller let's say you're X and you're comparing to Y are you equal? theoretically you're = but in reality you're not. X and Y are unknown they've got no relation. You've got no relation to Y.
WhisperShoes 4 days ago in playlist Favorites
FINALLY SOMEONE FUCKING GETS IT!!!
EMITYMETSAWTNOD 5 days ago in playlist Favorites
Corporations look at this video and laugh. "The only thing in this country that has rights is the almighty dollar."
EXstormDragon 6 days ago in playlist Favorites
lol
SnrmEminem 2 weeks ago
Marxists don't get this.
uriituw 2 weeks ago
"Property rights are not like other rights [...] If I have the right to free speech, it doesn't interfere with your right to free speech. But if I have property, that interferes with your right to have that property. You don't have it, I have it. So the right to property is very different from the right to freedom of speech [...]
Property has no right." -Noam Chomsky
gjmatechak 3 weeks ago
@gjmatechak The term property rights means the right to have property in general not to have any specific item as my property. As such me having an item as property does not interfere with your property rights.
666or999 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorites
@gjmatechak
How does one acquire property? They buy it. They buy it with the funds they acquired in compensation for their labour. Therefore, property is acquired as a result of someone's personal labour. No one should have the right to the fruits of someone else's labour. That's what property rights are.
jarvy251 2 weeks ago
@jarvy251 for a simpleton that view might do, nothing is like that in real life, just hypothetical life
Jeg1337 2 weeks ago
@Jeg1337
If only that were an actual argument.
OK, how does it work "in real life?"
jarvy251 2 weeks ago
@jarvy251 i agree in principle but so long as it is brought to its natural conclusion. a mother owes nothing to her children. the child has no rights to the fruits of her labor. a woman has no rights to the fruits of her husbands labor nor does he have the rights to hers. nobody has the rights to police unless they pay for the police. clean water must be payed for, product safety is the job of the buyer, etc. after all these are property rights we are talking about.
greycloud24 6 days ago in playlist Favorites
@greycloud24
I agree. Many of these things, like police and clean water we pay for already via taxes. The only difference being that we can't withhold payments or seek an alternative if we think the public sector is performing poorly.
jarvy251 6 days ago
@gjmatechak That's dumb. Property rights, even of very specific properties, is totally natural. If you disagree, I suggest that you find the nearest bear den and try to use Chomsky's quote to support your equal right to his property.
Make sure to get the exchange on video, so we can all see the success of your ideology.
rmcdaniel423 1 week ago
The law works for SOME folks who can afford it, only. It's a scam. When Uncle Sam steals from the public, that is "legal". You can defend your "rights" in court if you can afford to take off of work and hire a lawyer, and appear before a judge that makes a living stealing from society. Duhhhh.
geehuckwow 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorites
Please remove the reference to respecting serial killers, hm?
tyshekka 1 month ago
@tyshekka why? What part about that statement did you or other people not understand? He said that you don't have to respect serial killers.
jezzbanger 1 month ago
0:47 Wait wait wait. Didn't Locke own part of a slave trading company? He'd be a great politician, as I say, not as I do........Just looked it up, he was an investor in the Royal African Company, a slave importer, and had no issue justifying slavery. Not that this makes his arguments for personal liberty void, that would be fallacious, just means he had some cognitive dissonance.
I'm liking these videos though.
DeathOfAMudkip 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
This has been flagged as spam show
The Important question is, do we have equal opportunity in this country? And the sad, but overwhelmingly obvious answer is no. If you say that an inter-city black boy brought up in the projects with a poor education has an equal chance for success in capitalist america, as the affluent do, then you are either clueless or a liar. Btw, thanks for the basic lesson on personal preference I really had no idea that I should respect others opinions.
NormalStreet 1 month ago in playlist Favorites 3
Comment removed
skateindastreets3 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Comment removed
fritoman182 1 month ago
Wait, Hugh Jackman sings?!
TheJunkieBox 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
i know vin diesel is half blk, but why does he look so blk here
Plasjif 1 month ago
Yeah, but Hugh Jackman's name is Hugh... Aeon's a much cooler name... that has to make up for the looks somehow, eh?
ppardee 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Am I wrong or is this a Libertarian ideal?
basimpson22 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@basimpson22 lol No, this is what the conservatives started out as. Well, not exactly but close.
shananagans5 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@basimpson22 This is the concept of liberty, take it for a libertarian idea if you wish.
fritoman182 1 month ago
@1:30 Twlight... LOL
DKshad0w 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Learn Liberty's videos: "duuuuuuhhhhhhh"// Why don't my liberal friends understand this?
metallica04100 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
this was an advertisement on the video that i just watched and instead of click skip this ad now, i chose to watch, and i really loved it <3 its genius.
applelemonhead3345 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Why don't they teach THIS in schools???
jerrylittlemars 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@jerrylittlemars because they don't want Libertarians to run the country. Ron Paul 2012!
basimpson22 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Excellent
AlecTaylor6 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
This group brings up some very good points. I subscribed.
tenhundredkills 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Equal worth-nuff said
Krewcible 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
This is the first time I've clicked on an ad and been glad I did. Well done.
AveryHayes 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
ron paul 2012
hmt741 1 month ago in playlist Favorites 21
@hmt741 he is simply too extreme for me.
MandrakeTheMagician1 4 days ago in playlist Favorites
david52875 well the asians do it all the time in my area. the family works together builds wealth then buys a store or opens one up. every person has the same chances just some have to work harder then others.
gonefishing770 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Don't forget if the cost is to much for the window he will pass the cost to the consumer to make up lost revenue.
gonefishing770 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
You're not as wealthy as Bill Gates because you didn't start out with a 4 million dollar trust fund and go to a high school that cost 20k a year in the 70s. How can you be treated as an equal with that? Liberalism isn't about equal outcome it's about equal opportunity. Maybe hollywood's fans would be better served if people got movie parts based on talent and hard work rather than having an uncle in the business. Gweneth Paltrow (sp?)'s uncle is Steven Spielberg... gee she's successful go fig
sinistar99 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@sinistar99 Well said! You did not simply restate the obvious, rather, you brought up an interesting point.
coolbji 2 months ago
But we are NOT legally equal. Think about it. How many times have we heard of a celebrity who has served only a fraction of the time in jail that a normal man would? Its almost guaranteed, Mr. Skoble, that Hugh Jackman would get a lower sentence than you for the same crime barring crimes like murder.
crackerkiller89 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
I think John Sterwart Mills definitionof Liberty is better and in a sense is the same, but coined in the form of an Environment of freedom. Liberty is the fertile ground in which freedom grows.
doobersmanster 2 months ago in playlist Featured Shorts
This is like the core of what the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution were all about.
superclaydude 2 months ago
"I suspect he likes what he does, just as I like what I do, which is selling propaganda to weak minded fools on the internet"
No, wait, I added that last part myself.
coopclauson 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@coopclauson You're negative towards this video? Why?
coolbji 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@coolbji It's been a while now since I've felt like debating libertarians, but effectively you're being sold an ideological system that has no connection to reality, but is valuable to the national elites exactly because it supports the status quo.
coopclauson 2 months ago
@coopclauson Comments like yours continually help me prove my theories over human behavior. I was writing a detailed analysis of your idea ,that I was going to send you, when I realized it does not matter to you what I say. However, let me say, you're completely right, but your comment is shallow and does not consider larger factors.
coolbji 2 months ago
LOL The twilight book reference had me cracking up. HAHA>
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
My ONLY criticism of these videos is that they use very simple and uncontroversial examples. While this makes them easy to understand and agree with, it doesn't force the viewer to confront how it applies to ickier examples. That, and this video only has 10k or so views. So two complaints.
shepf2 2 months ago
hmmm... i think the libertarian position can be naive about hierarchy in society. even if we agree that having "equal liberty" is an acknowledged condition of law, who is interpreting this law when there is a conflict between people of differing capabilities? do you side with the weak or the strong? these determinations build on themselves and distinctions made by interpretations of law will shape society to favor the sovereign ("law givers").
AlemanJuan 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlemanJuan
Equality doesn't exist in Humans
We are not robots
this is why Equality is the most dangerous idealogy of all time.
It is the basis of brutal Communist regimes who must opress so much to make us all equal
to make people like Robots
Just look at North Korea they are like Robots
This is out of the Equality Idealogy
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 1 month ago
Perfect explanation of what equality should be in a free society.
You shoudl give people equal rights and you shouldn't have institutionalized inequality, but you can;t force peopel to live in the same way.
heatbucspies55 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Equal liberty and oppurtunity!! FUCK YEAH!!!
freddytheshadowninja 3 months ago
How in your right mind does capitalism not infringe upon other peoples liberty? If we really had equal opportunities, everyone would be self-employed. Instead the working poor (the majority) are forced to sell their labor power for an unlivable wage in order to maintain. Thats why people are forced to get on govt assistance. Think about it, do you really think someone who was born in the projects has the same opportunities as someone in the suburbs? Exploitation isn't libertarian
BIGASSFUCKER 3 months ago
@BIGASSFUCKER That's Mixed-Economy Capitalism (Crony Capitalism) not Free-Market Capitalism.
DracoPilamZ 3 months ago
@BIGASSFUCKER " If we really had equal opportunities, everyone would be self-employed."
No, you moron, being self employed is hard WORK, especially at first. People like you think "I can't be self-employed, it's too much work, so i'll just steal money from someone else (through taxes and welfare).
david52875 3 months ago
@BIGASSFUCKER "Think about it, do you really think someone who was born in the projects has the same opportunities as someone in the suburbs?"
If Frederick Douglass could come out of SLAVERY and become successful, then yes, assuming statists like you don't use welfare or minimum wage to keep them in poverty.
david52875 3 months ago 36
@david52875 That's a horrible example. That's like saying if Jay-Z can go from selling drugs to a multi millionaire everyone can. The reality is that a majority of people in the ghetto don't have the same opportunities as those in the suburbs. There are things such as education, after school activities, and other things.
Fredfiness 3 months ago
@Fredfiness Like I said, people in the ghetto would have MORE oppurtunity if people like you stopped supporting policies like the minimum wage.
david52875 3 months ago
@david52875 This is where I stop arguing with you because you went ad hominem. No where in my response to you did I say anything about whether I support policies like minimum wage. You assumed that and you said it in a derogatory ("... if people like you...") way. Have a good day.
Fredfiness 3 months ago
@Fredfiness Your position is obvious from what you said. You think we need the government to give some people a leg up because they are unequal.
david52875 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@david52875 "That's a horrible example. That's like saying if Jay-Z can go from selling drugs to a multi millionaire everyone can. The reality is that a majority of people in the ghetto don't have the same opportunities as those in the suburbs. There are things such as education, after school activities, and other things."
Where do you see all that? You're assuming, and when you assume you make yourself look like an ass.
Fredfiness 3 months ago
@Fredfiness As a public school teacher, I can honestly tell you that those in the ghetto have MORE offered to them than those in suburbia. And most of them squander the extra opportunity.
eagleeye1975 3 months ago
@eagleeye1975 As someone from a family of teachers I agree with the last sentence of your statement, "And most of them squander the extra opportunity."
I still believe suburban kids have more quality (let me add that in) opportunities. Of course there are a lot of programs that are designed to help kids in the ghetto, but not a lot of them offer quality education. *shrug*
Fredfiness 3 months ago
@Fredfiness Yeah... I get what you're saying. But after seeing like 40 different after school programs, 40 different scholarship programs, 40 different outreach and intervention programs, 40 different private charities working to help at-risk youths in the inner city, etc... then thinking back on my upper middle class schooling which had NONE of that offered to me... I just have to laugh at people who are like "the poor don't have as many opportunities". I call BS. :)
eagleeye1975 3 months ago
@david52875
Poor example; he had to become a criminal twice over to get there, and had the great fortune of being illegally educated by the sympathetic wife of his master. He was one in a million; he was educated AND he successfully escaped slavery.
In modern society, our system is not producing the equality of education that could allow more Frederick Douglasses to become great orators. Inner city poverty, resulting from industry gutted by globalism, is restricting equality.
VonBrachner 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@VonBrachner Yeah. Frederick Douglass' success was all thanks to his education. Not his intelligence, determination or ability. Sure.
david52875 2 months ago
@VonBrachner The fact that he had to be a criminal to get where he was only further supports my point; opposing the state only made his position that much more disadvantageous, and only further demonstrates that people are able to rise above adversity if they possess the ability to do so.
The average person today is a million times as educated as Frederick Douglass, yet they aren't one billionth as successful. That should tell you something.
david52875 2 months ago
@david52875 Actually, no. They would not have the same opportunities. This is not a bad thing though, and to change it would involve inflicting aggression.
AlecTaylor6 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@BIGASSFUCKER In a manner of speaking, we are all self employed. Each and every one of us contracts out our company's product (our labor) to others.
eagleeye1975 3 months ago
Why did they make Vin Diesel black? Looked more like Mr. T
SergeiMosinJr 3 months ago
"We must enjoy equal protection of our rights". Could this be rephrased as "We must be willing and invested to fight for our neighbor's rights as well as our own, even though they may not align".
An excellent video explaining the true all inclusive power of liberty in that I can like what I like, you can like what you like, and what's important is that as long as what we like doesn't interfere with the other, we all get along just grand.
Mutual respect of self and the valuing each others unique
leifthor415 3 months ago
I wish I could say this was true, but there many examples of celebrities doing something wrong and getting off with little more than a slap on the wrist. I would have to argue that we are not all equal, even in the eye of a judicial system.
Ardentzero 3 months ago
@Ardentzero that's the entire point of the video though. Instead of focusing on how we can make people equal in terms of how much money they make or what they do for a living or "equal opportunity" so they say - we should be focusing on equal protection (and equal punishment) under the law.
boristhepython 3 months ago
@boristhepython Yeah unfortunately I wrote that comment about half way though the video before he started talking about everybody being able to pursue happiness as long as it's not negatively impacting another individual's pursuit of their own happiness :/
Ardentzero 3 months ago
The two dislikes? well we have to respect the right of the impaired as well....
WGBudd801 3 months ago
this is awesome!!!
criss461 3 months ago
Excellent!
ShrugMeSilly245 3 months ago
So this is why the country is so divided. Equal protection of individual rights vs powder kegs of inbred deep seeded envy, of what other have earned.
Solverwiz 3 months ago
I like the cartoons. The point is pretty well made, but maybe not the best comparisons were chosen for people to really get it.
hybridmcgee 3 months ago
Professor Aeon Skoble confirmed for sexiest man alive.
Alectr0n 4 months ago
This video is mostly the "Non-Aggression Principle" summarized.
It also makes an inferred argument against coercive equality via the state, i.e. Social Justice.
Nicely done.
Jack95912 4 months ago
This is FANTASTIC!!!!!! So clear, and SOOOOOOO important.
freedomworks2 4 months ago
Sadly, Liberals and Conservatives don't get this.
JoshBoschke 4 months ago 48
@JoshBoschke I'm a conservative and I understood this perfectly. Not stop pointing fingers and making labels for people who don't deserve it.
StraightFromtheVinyl 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@JoshBoschke Since when?
garymichael1950 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@JoshBoschke If they see eye to eye, the world will explode. which is why politicians have to be child so they don't get along
TheSolitaryTraveller 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@JoshBoschke Wrong! Conservatives by far get this more than liberals: it's the very basis of the conservative ideology. It's liberals who pander to special groups of people rather than reinforcing individual rights and responsibilities.
dane7902 1 month ago in playlist Favorites 4
@dane7902
First, and I say this a lot, please drop the bogus liberal-conservative dichotomy.
Second, neither "side" is doing a very good job on individual rights.
Third, before you spout out the ideology of one side or the other lets look at the reality of who supported The Patriot Act, waterboarding, gay rights, Gitmo, NDAA, bailouts, etc...
donfolstar 1 month ago
@donfolstar Progressives are involved in both the Democrat and Republican party, so as far as they're concerned, yes they do offer a bogus dichotomy. But to say that there's no difference between socialists and conservatives is pure folly.
True conservatives do not stand for any of the big govt policies which you cited, so until real conservatives are in power, your accusations hold no water.
dane7902 1 month ago
@dane7902
Perhaps you missed this the first time so I will repost it:
"before you spout out the ideology of one side or the other lets look at the reality..."
You claim that basically every elected official who calls themselves conservative is not, in fact, conservative. There seems to be a bit of a problem with that kind of claim, especially when you vilify "liberals", "socialists", and "progressives" who are similarly co-opted.
donfolstar 1 month ago
@donfolstar Let's get specific to make things easier. Bush was not a conservative because of the policies which he implemented which you mentioned previously. People can claim to be conservative all they want, but it is what they do that defines them. Gingrich for example has been trying to appear conservative in the debates, but he has a history of support for ending global warming, as well as the individual mandate. When someone says they're conservative do you automatically believe them?
dane7902 1 month ago
@donfolstar And what's wrong with "spouting" ideology? It's the basis for people's actions. But when it's not their standard, people will tend to compromise and flip-flop. So comparing reality and ideology is very useful because we can then go on to judge character and consistency, allowing us to better choose our representatives.
dane7902 1 month ago
@dane7902
So let me see if I got this right. For you ideologyX is good, even though virtually everyone who calls themselves that does not fit your (possible the textbook) definition. Meanwhile, ideologyY&Z people are bad even though, again, nobody really fits your definition. That is a tricky pickle.
Just to add to the confusion now: nature CONSERVATIon =/= CONSERVATIve. That is a fairly new development... it is almost like these definitions change over time to reflect reality.
donfolstar 1 month ago
@donfolstar Obviously I believe conservatism is good because it reflects my values the most (along with 40% of Americans by the way, while only 20% consider consider themselves liberal according to the latest Gallup poll). And it is logical that then that would not favor the ideologies that are diametrically opposed to mine. And yes it is true that the presidential nominees that the Republican party supports are often more moderate than they are conservative.
dane7902 1 month ago
@donfolstar I disagree though, that no one really fits the definition of ideology Y&Z (liberal/socialist), especially when we consider the policies of our current president.
When it comes the confusion over conservative/conservation, it really comes down to context. Conservatism holds the Constitution in high esteem, so it seeks to conserve it so that it endures. Conservation on the other hand often refers to environmentalism. No confusion there in my mind.
dane7902 1 month ago
@donfolstar Now to bring this back to my original comment which you took umbrage with: I believe that Conservatism, defined as "a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)", DOES in face reflect the ideas in this video the most, counter to what user JoshBoschke claimed.
dane7902 1 month ago
@dane7902 I don't understand what coveting has to do with conservatism (or even equality, to which this video is basically making the assertion that people can only be upset with their work when they want something that they don't deserve). Conservatism also isn't capitalism, as I'm sure you know. We shouldn't trick anyone into thinking that the word means anything more than "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability."
molluskscommawethe 1 month ago
@molluskscommawethe First of all, from what I see in this video, covetousness is not the main argument, rather it is individuality that is the main focus. Conservatives champion each individual's "pursuit of happiness" rather than trying to guarantee success and happiness through redistribution of wealth, which liberals and socialists often advocate.
dane7902 1 month ago
@dane7902 Actually defending individuals' pursuit of happiness, whatever they may be (so long as they don't infringe on others' rights) is a central tenet of liberalism, especially utilitarianism. Conservatives tend to be about imposing their own values on others and restricting their freedoms
Liberalism isn't necessarily about wealth redistribution, but poverty and lack of social mobility is usually a barrier to people's pursuit of their goals - plus guaranteeing rights requires a funded state
cactustactics 3 weeks ago
@cactustactics Does utilitarianism hold the ideal that one should seek to better the common good rather than his/her own rational self-interest? Doesn't liberalism advocate more often for 'the greater good' rather than an individual's responsibility to pursue happiness on their own terms?
dane7902 3 weeks ago
@dane7902 Yeah utilitarianism is (basically) about maximising total happiness, which means minimising restrictions on people's ability to pursue whatever makes them happy, balanced against its impact on the happiness of others.Liberalism in general is really based on the idea of protecting people's basic rights, and ensuring that they're able to pursue whatever ideals of 'good' they have (there are many and no one way of life can encompass them all)- conflicts are where the greater good comes in
cactustactics 3 weeks ago
@dane7902 Yes that is the philosophy of utilitarianism, do the action that will produce the most good for everyone not just you. Basically, if everyone was doing it, would it be good or bad?
But no, it is not Liberalism.
CurryCobra 1 week ago
@cactustactics Conservatives impose values on others? Are you trying to tell me that liberals, progressives, and socialists don't impose their values on others? The whole game of government and politics is the competition between ideologies, and with ideology comes values, and the party that is given power gets to determine what values are held in highest esteem.
dane7902 3 weeks ago 2
@dane7902 What I'm saying is that social conservatism is about a fixed way of life that people shouldn't deviate from - throughout history (including now) conservatism has been about the rejection of new things, other lifestyles. It's about conserving society and specific values.
I'm not saying leftism doesn't try to impose values, but they're values of tolerance and acceptance and equality. Obviously that conflicts with conservatism, but the aim is allowing everyone to pursue their own goals.
cactustactics 3 weeks ago
@cactustactics Let's consider some California's policies: in San Diego, alcohol is illegal on the beaches, and in LA it is illegal to throw footballs and Frisbees on the beach. To me that is completely antithetical to the values of a small-government conservative. So what ideology would those policies fall under? Does it stand up for the "greater good" or does it enhance individual liberty?
dane7902 3 weeks ago
@dane7902 I had to read up on those- LA's actually repealed a ban, they're just clarifying their ability to prohibit that stuff when it's dangerous (crowded in the summer etc) so that is about the greater good- restricting individual liberty when it threatens to harm others'
San Diego's prop D was voted in, just over 50% - lower than their gay marriage ban vote. The thing about small government conservatism is it rarely dovetails with social conservatism, the desire to legislate personal values
cactustactics 3 weeks ago
@molluskscommawethe Obviously Conservatism isn't Capitalism because one is an ideology and the other is an economic system. But, conservatism strongly defends capitalism because out of all the crappy systems out there, capitalism is the least crappy; not perfect, just better than any of the alternatives.
It shows a lack of understanding on your part to limit conservatism to just "tradition and social stability" because it's main focus is based on economics and upholding the constitution.
dane7902 1 month ago
@dane7902 Conservatism's main focus in America is on economics and particular aspects of our constitution, but to say this is part of its definition is like defining a human being as 'somebody who is a citizen of Palestine' (let's not get crazy.)
As for the video, I don't think one is supposed to parallel it's lessons with economic issues, unless one assumes that people are upset when they don't get opportunities that they don't deserve.
molluskscommawethe 1 month ago
@molluskscommawethe Last time I checked Palestinians were human, so I guess defending the constitution is a tenet of conservatism. I have a feeling there was a point you were trying to make here but I got lost in it's subtlety, perhaps you could elaborate?
And I wasn't trying to parallel the video with economics, but with conservatism in general. Though I'm sure a connection can be made between the principles expressed in it and the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
dane7902 1 month ago
@dane7902 The point was that when you over-specify, you exclude participants from the definition, but I suppose economics is one of the members of "everything" that is desired to stay a constant. What if a constitution called for itself to be frequently revised? Who would be a conservative?
I think a connection can actually be made between this video and economics, but as I've said, I think it would be implying that people irrationally wanting work that they don't deserve is a thing.
molluskscommawethe 1 month ago
@molluskscommawethe Could you give me an example of what I'm "over-specifying" and who is being excluded because of it?
And about your constitution needing to be revised idea, it doesn't really make sense to me to speculate 'what might have been' because it isn't based in reality. But the constitution does give the people power to amend it, so it can be changed when needed. This way it preserves the form of government, the separation of powers, as well as the people's rights.
dane7902 1 month ago
@dane7902 Haha. This is wholly turning into semantics and hypotheticals, and this really isn't anything I'm concerned with either.
molluskscommawethe 1 month ago
@molluskscommawethe Uh, wrong. This is something I care deeply about, which is why I'm taking the time to debate it with you. If you can't answer my question and clarify your comments, then you must not value them very much.
dane7902 1 month ago
@dane7902 I value the issue of this video's relation to economics more than creating hypothetical situations where conservatism can't be defined as interested in defending the constitution.
molluskscommawethe 1 month ago
@molluskscommawethe If that's your opinion then we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Even if conservatism didn't involve defending the constitution, I've never met a conservative that didn't strongly stand up for it.
dane7902 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think one is supposed to parallel this video's lessons with economic issues, unless one assumes that people are upset when they don't receive opportunities that they don't deserve.
molluskscommawethe 1 month ago
@dane7902 nope. look up neocons and neoliberals.
just because people claim to be liberal/conservative doesn't mean that they are.
alvisc2002 3 weeks ago
@alvisc2002 I've only ever heard Ron Paul supporters use those terms, so I don't think they're widely accepted in the political lexicon. Perhaps Progressivism (which spans across party lines) would describe it better...
dane7902 3 weeks ago
@alvisc2002 Just want to point out that 'neoliberal' relates to economic liberalism (not social) - liberalising the flow of money, so free trade, free markets, lack of regulation, lack of protectionism (tariffs, restrictions on foreign ownership, state-run enterprises instead of private), that kind of thing. The 'neo' means they now support the enforcement of patents and copyright to 'protect investment'
So yeah, liberal is in the name but most of this stuff is at odds with social liberal goals
cactustactics 3 weeks ago
@dane7902 It's sad to see such extreme flag waving. If you dont think conservatives also pander to special groups, i am very sorry for you. Dont get me wrong, democrats do it too. But to say one side is innocent is completely asinine. I think the best thing for you to do is to not watch any "news station" but rather go out and do your own research.
CurryCobra 1 week ago in playlist Favorites 5
@CurryCobra I don't even watch Fox or any other "news station" since I don't have cable. I only "waved my flag" because I disagreed with JoshBoschke's claim.
Since I'm on the inside looking in, I'm having trouble thinking of any groups conservatives pander to. Could you name a few? And try not to confuse establishment Republicans with everyday conservative American citizens.
dane7902 1 week ago
@dane7902 Libertarian get this completely, Republican and Democrats both fail at this idea but in different ways. Democrats, at least in there claims, are more of person freedoms and equality, where is Republican are more for economy freedoms and tax equality. Both parties fail are being for these freedoms, on the whole, but I think your views are what is conservative and liberal is twisted by your own views. Check out the LP's Are you a Libertarian? Quiz, it makes the point very well.
Loathomar 5 days ago
Here is WHY our rights are all equal: we each own our own lives and our own bodies. Our self-ownership is equal. Rights to life, liberty, property and self defense are direct logical consequences of assuming that we each own our own bodies. And who wants to assume the opposite; that government owns your body? Yucko!
freesk8 4 months ago
This is a really fun way to illustrate liberty!
LadyGrantaire 4 months ago
have you ever asked if hugh jackman would like to do what you do?
fabes0011 4 months ago
So how would you answer to the femminist critics?
Tobelli 4 months ago
@Tobelli Which criticism? That's a very vague question you just asked
SkepticThink 4 months ago
@SkepticThink Sorry I will specify. Well the criticism being that women have been subjected to discrimination in all history and that we live in a patriarcial, men-driven society, and also that structures are privileging men.
In these conditions, although all men (and women) are treated equal, women are still being discriminated.
That is the reason why they ask for a stronger voice and actual preferential treatment.
Tobelli 4 months ago
@Tobelli As a woman, I am subject to and protected by the same laws as men. Yes, instances of sexual discrimination occur, but the argument that it is/would be rampant in a truly free society society holds no water. Sexual discrimination, like discimination of any kind, makes no business sense. Why alienate potential customers? Additionally, if employers could really pay a female employee 75% of what they would pay a man to produce the same value, male unemployment would skyrocket.
tzasame 4 months ago
@tzasame First of al, thanks for your answer.
As I see it, we (in Europe) do live in an equal society since we have equal laws for men as for womenn nonetheless women ARE indeed subject to discrimination, female employee do in fact get only 75% of men's wage.
Just because sexual discrimination makes no "business sense", it still happens.
Do you agree that in Europe (I am not aware of the situation in the US) although there is equality we still have sexual discrimination?
Tobelli 4 months ago
@Tobelli it is doubtful whether the pay gap between men and women has much to do with discrimination. It's more to do with the choices men and woman make during their lives. Women, who have no children and do not marry, earn as much as men do in the same job. It is far more likely, and is reflected in the statistics, that it is family building and the institution of marriage that causes the pay gap. If you want someone greater than I to explain this, read one of Thomas Sowell's books
Astbruchgefahr 4 months ago
@Astbruchgefahr Very well explained. I thank you very much indeed for this discussion and your reference to Sowell's books. Do you happen to suggest any book in particular? Conflict of Visions? Intelectual and society?
Tobelli 4 months ago
@Tobelli The Vision of the Anointed is excellent and Basic Economics is also good. I haven't had time to read much of his work beyond that. Affirmative action and intellectuals believing they can reorder people's lives are the running themes throughout all his works. Discrimination issues are pretty close to his heart, as he is a black man, and he has personal anecdotes on the effects of it. watch?v=vtXLzhbTz5E
Astbruchgefahr 4 months ago
@Tobelli 75% of a man's wage to add the same value? I think not. As I said, that would result in profit-motivated employers discriminating against men.
My point, and part of the point of this video, is that people are inherently UNequal. Speaking generally, men and women have different priorities in the workplace. Men tend to be more money-motivated while women are more concerned about things like workplace conditions, work hours, etc. Neither gender is wrong or inferior, just different.
tzasame 4 months ago
@tzasame I was saying that women earn 25% less for the same job, this is the statistical truth in most European states.
Tobelli 4 months ago
@tzasame And if an employer or business DOES discriminate (on any grounds), I say let 'em. I'll be discriminating in the use of my dollars. I am not REQUIRED to do business with a private entity (in a truly free society, anyway... as an aside, that's one of the things most troubling about the perverted marriage of government and business we're experiencing today). Governments, with the compulsory participation and legal use of force, are of course a different story altogether.
tzasame 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tobelli What do you think of this video? /watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow&feature=related
SkepticThink 4 months ago
OMG...I have told everyone my whole life...that you can some up all american laws (and judge if they are "legal" laws or not) by this one statement: You are free to do whatever you want in this country, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom.
Knowing that a dumb kid like me has the same "Idea" of American liberty as you makes me feel proud!
Keep producing videos! I maybe a conservative, but I agree with most, if not all, libertarian theology.
Keep educating the masses!
DanteWolfwood 4 months ago
I don't think anyone, ever, has suggested that everyone should do the same job. Or that we should take acting jobs from one person and require someone else to do it. What is the point of this video?
bobt39 4 months ago
@bobt39 If you follow the logic, it means that you cannot do many of the things we do currently, such as:
-Regulate drug use: it takes away people's right to choose. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you should disrespect their right to choose.
-Redistribute wealth for the purpose of equalizing society: taking people's right to property is to disrespect their rights and value as a free human.
And so on. I think the video should have said something more relevant though, I agree.
SkepticThink 4 months ago
Too bad the government doesn't know this..
Redstrikerlee 4 months ago
*I* would certainly go see a movie about a mutant economist.
shamgar001 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TigerghostPictures @Arctura42 Replies like the ones I've seen here are why I have the general impression libertarians are selfish, think of their selves first, care less or little for the family.
mbevks 4 months ago
@TigerghostPictures @Arctura42 Replies like the ones I've seen here are why I have the general impression libertarians are selfish, think of their selves first, care less or little for the family.
mbevks 4 months ago
Very nice! You folks are making wonderful videos. Thank you ever so much for your efforts.
Panpiper 4 months ago
So where do gays and the whole "gay marriage" issue fit into all this equality talk? One of the common arguments against gay marriage is that it would deny certain people their right to refuse to recognize such a union as a marriage and therefore refuse services to them. Either way, someone's rights are going to be violated, the gay couple or the religious owners of the B&B. Is this type of discrimination justifiable? As a gay man, I'm curious. I'd like the liberty to marry someday.
TigerghostPictures 4 months ago
@TigerghostPictures I, as a straight man, am not eligible to marry someone of my same gender either, so there is equality. You could marry a member of the opposite gender, same as I. ;) I'm a conservative, and honestly, I can't see any reason to deny same sex marriage. Every argument against it has been an appeal to religion, an appeal to tradition, or a game of semantics. None of those are valid logical reasons in my mind.
jepst41 4 months ago
here's where people make the mistake: it should read all men are CREATED equal, emphasis on the created. it doesn't mean you are equal forever
37butterflyprincess 4 months ago
Brilliant, as usual. I swear learn liberty is going to make it to the history books haha
FreakyKing2 4 months ago
The only thing I didn't get was they said all men were created equal yet owned slaves while writing that. However I really enjoy the idea of it
JJbones88 4 months ago
There is no such thing as a victim-less crime. A vice that libertarians claim do not hurt other's rights actually does hurt their rights. This is because individual decisions impact and direct the culture. We can have a culture that is immoral in inherently poor for the raising of children if, for example, we have a prominent minority that uses drugs and prostitutes. My family has a right to live in a healthy culture without having to move or give up our freedoms.
mbevks 4 months ago
@mbevks Well, then be a parent and direct your kids attention elsewhere. We don't need a government doing your job in raising kids. We all know that the government is doing such a good job with the drug war, the war on porn, and censorship all for the "think of the children" argument [*sarcasm]. Why should I have to put up with beeps and censor bars on TV, why can't my neighbor smoke pot on his porch? There is no harm done to you or your perfect 1950s poster-child family. We have the technology.
TigerghostPictures 4 months ago
@TigerghostPictures A society with a significant minority of crack users becomes a society whose culture is that of a crack drug culture, even if only 20% or 30% are actual users. People are not isolated spheres, we must live in and interact with the culture. We have a right to have a culture that is generally moral and is conducive to the raising of children. All activity, moral or immoral, impacts the culture. A negative impact does infringe on my rights and the rights of my children.
mbevks 4 months ago
@mbevks If by "we have a right to have a culture that is generally moral and is conducive to the raising of children" you mean that we have a right to use force to make people behave morally (which is rather hypocritical, and also rather ambiguous as you and I may have different definitions of morality) then I disagree. I don't think we have a right to affect how people around us behave and that all we can do is create our own communities of like minded people. Your thoughts?
Arctura42 4 months ago
@Arctura42 The law should support at least the minimally accepted morality. The problem with a rigid philosophy like that used by many libertarians is that they recognize all or nothing, not a sensible and flexible system that makes value judgments based on the best people can come up with considering their conditions.
mbevks 4 months ago
@mbevks What is the minimally accepted morality? What if someone disagrees with some portion of it? Would not a cultural environment that accepted the use of drugs develop a radically different set of morals than a culture that abides strictly by religious doctrines? Which of those is correct? If the society as a whole changes, does the law change too? What if someone goes off and hides from society in the woods, is he still part of it, and thereby must be punished for what he does away from it?
Arctura42 4 months ago
@Arctura42 Questions like these are why we have people to make these decisions (Republic, Monarchy, etc.). Different people in different places and times may come up with different answers. There is not a hard and fast rule, this is why we need a flexible government that can make rules about sex, drugs, money, etc. as they try to support a moral society which supports the family.
mbevks 4 months ago
@mbevks Why can't we make these decisions for ourselves?
Arctura42 4 months ago
@Arctura42 You can. It is called buying an unpopulated island and declaring yourself king.
mbevks 4 months ago