Libertarians don't understand that without regulation, the environment would be destroyed by a few greedy capitalists whose main goal is PROFIT in the short term and completely disregard the earth's future sustainability. Not to mention monopolies would rule because small businesses couldn't compete with the low costs. Discrimination would be allowed. And the system would uphold an even greater aristocracy where only the richest can afford the best education. That's why I'm a liberal.
libertarianism would be amazing to see in action. unfortunately, it wont happen until theres some sort of crisis where people lose trust in republicans/democrats/liberals/conservatives. but hey, the nazi party started out with only 2000 members, and look where it went.
I agree with the libertarian stance when it comes to social issues. However I do not feel in any way that it should promote capitalism. Government regulations were introduced into the market because businesses were virtually allowed to enslave their employees prior to that. I personally don't think that any form of macro level economics is right. People should work towards the good of sustaining the communities they live in and not be motivated by financial rewards.
@deathsagent1 you can be libertarian and support another conservative party member. the point of libertarians is that no one is telling you what to think, feel, or how to live your life.
I wouldn't want an entirely conservative system, or an entirely liberal system. Nor would I want an entirely Libertarian system. I want a balance where the world consists of more than just 2 horribly polarized parties. I tend to fall into the Libertarian views for most categories, but people argue that an unregulated market would have issues. So would a large, unregulated, corrupt government who makes decisions for us. I'll take the lesser of 2 evils, generally speaking, and keep my freedom.
@darksungames You can't maintain a society if murder, rape, and theft are unpunished. This is one of the fundamental tasks of government and any party outside of pure anarchists are going to grant this. Your freedom stops where the next persons begins.
Though someone already responded to you, I'd like to reinforce it. Read the preamble of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Constitution is very Libertarian.
First off, morals are subjective, changing from person to person thus an unstable basis on which to justify laws. I prefer the term ethics as it's more tangible.
Anyway, Libertarians believe one's freedom ends when another's freedom begins. For example a thief takes something that's not his/hers therefore is violating property rights of who they just robbed. That is when use of force is acceptable against the violator.
"... The ability of people to make reasonable choices" ... OK, I get that.
"... Government .... coercing people to do things they don't want to do,,,"
But why the focus on government when corporations also coerce people to do things they don't want to do? How can people choose when it is not in the best interest of business to give you all the necessary information (or even lie) about their product / service?
Libertarian... brainwashed by big business who brought you this message.
@henleythecat Libertarians propose a free market, corporations are a result of corporatist market system.
Corporations are businesses but not all businesses are corporations.
In a fraud is deincentivized by third-party regulators who have actual incentive to properly regulate, unlike state regulators who get revenue regardless of actual competence. Also the fact there's no artificial barriers to entry ensures that there's always the risk of competition emerging.
Let me put it another way. IMHO, govt regulators should have three goals
1. create a open and level playing field
2. promote competition.
3. reduce the cost of compliance whenever possible (almost never done).
The corporate sponsors of this channel have a economic incentive to convince you that all govt regulations are bad, but that does not mean it is in our economic best interest.
"institute" & professors are only used for marketing their message.
@henleythecat Well your expectations of state regulators is irrelevant to what they actually do
1. They have no incentive to remain a neutral 3rd party, since state regulators are not paid by consent but by mandate they're very susceptible to corruption. Regulation that benefits the established businesses at the detriment of the new businesses is often set in place. Famous example of this is meat inspection act.
@henleythecat Well the only way that wont be done, is to make regulation a privately supplied service. That way regulators have a genuine incentive to provide quality services as thats the only way theyll earn a profit
Please look up the ad hominem fallacy, you make this fallacy in almost every comment I see from you. Its fairly simple, a person's characteristic is irrelevant to his argument. The fact that x sponsored this video is completely irrelevant to the argument's validity
How can you say "I want the firefighters who get paid regardless" then turn around and make this privatization argument? Do you not see the parallels? Seriously?
I hate to break this to you, but when you can steer an aircraft carrier through the holes in an argument WHO is making becomes extremely relevant.
@donfolstar Privatization in no way precludes the type of payment I describe, not that I'm arguing for privatization, I'm arguing for free markets. Privatization implies the state letting selected business take over a function, a free market bars no one from entering the market.
The point of contention is how the funds are gathered, if it's through, coercion i.e. taxation, libertarians tend to have a problem with that, if it's on a consensual basis, there's no problem. It has nothing to do with with what frequency you pay someone.
Believing for an instant that a system completely based off consensual relationships and responsible/rational decisions would ever work makes communists look worldly.
The question was not frequency but incentive. There are many instances where a profit motivation is absolutely wrong.
Further, coercion and force would destroy a "free" market almost instantaneously. Any attempts to stop that destruction would require regulation- blam, no free market.
@donfolstar What about all the stuff that's not state related? That's all based on consensual trade and relationships. I mean do you force your friends to be around you? Did you steal your computer?
The question revelealed your ignorance on this matter. What distinguishes privatization/free markets from state funded functions is not how you pay firemen, cops, doctors etc, it's if it's done through taxation or voluntary trade.
@donfolstar Well it's not meant as an insult, being ignorant is excusable.
I mean you did say things which are blatantly false, like that coercion would destroy a free market and that employing a retainer-type of payment system is not possible in a free market.
Finally, I'm at a loss what "finishing these sentences" proves..
Fraud or coercion would not destroy a free market, these things will exist no matter the political system. What would destroy or make a free market no longer a free market, would be a state interfering in the market.
So tell me, would you feel safer with firemen who get paid regardless of the amount of work they do OR firemen who only get paid when they put out a fire?
Try to follow that two steps forward from the fireman's perspective before answering.
@donfolstar I'd feel better if they get paid regardless. I would think the latter system would incentivize fraud by firefighters as they could be incentivized to start fires to get more money.
I think many libertarians would dissagree with him on abortion. Life, Liberty and Property. You can't have any of it if your life is taken from you.This is the first of your videos that I have a serious disagreement with. I know what it means to be a libertarian. The government's only valid role is to protect those fundamental rights. Life is the first one!
@RebelJeffrey Probably alot of libertarians would disagree with him on abortion. I'm a libertarian and I'm pro-choice but I know of plenty of libertarians who are pro-life. It's one of the few issues libertarians as whole don't agree on.
Wow, I thought Liberals and Libertarians were the same... but now I KNOW the truth of the matter. I'm so glad great videos like this are on YouTube. I'm going to change my political leanings from Liberal to Libertarian right away, because that's what I really am. :D
Libertarianism seems to have been co-opted by people completely focused on the unregulated economy side over personal freedoms. Take this channel for example- almost entirely economic videos. Further, Libertarians are throwing in with the Republican party which does not seem very interested in personal or economic freedom (unless you are a mega-corporation). Get it together movement.
@donfolstar Well in my mind economic freedom IS personal freedom. What is personal freedom without the freedom to own the fruits of labour, to do what you want provided you're not hurting or conning anybody.
Also corporations are the prime beneficiaries of state intervention and regulations, they are not for free markets in the slightest, well the vast majority of them anyway.
@crazypants88 It can't, that's the point. It's a big government institution. Why would you not own your weed and why would it be illegal? Private property and personal property are wildly different concepts, your confusion of the two is not an accident. You build a house and plant a field it's your crops and your house. Your effort made them. Would you buy the rights to sunlight? You would if government could feasably control your access to it...like it can with land...
Until libertarians understand that private property rights are big government theft, extortion and aggression they are nothing more than tools. Take a piece of land not being used and grow your food. Maybe make some goods and wears and barter with them if you want. But do not rely on the government to defend your land "boundry" or you will be forced into paying their exorbent ransoms and/or forced to trade you time and effort with elitists in exchanged for government currency.
@ped200014 I think you're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism. Small government, which Libertarians push for, still has the power to defend property and the individual, it just doesn't have the right to dictate how you should live your life, which more Authoritarian political structures push for (such as forcing you to pay other people's university fees or telling you that you can't marry somebody because you're the same gender etc).
@northernvoxmedia Exactly. The government stealing land and selling it to the elite IS big government. And that's what you want. Economic dictatorship and systematic servitude of the masses to the aristocratic hierarchy by govt force. A plutocracy. It's disgusting enough in itself, your propaganda of populist leftwing egalitarianism makes it all the more insidious. Exactly the means fascism rose to power, complete with an eerie cult following of a primary figurehead.
@ped200014 How come private property has existed without a state then?
And really a state can't defend property, at least not without threatening to take it from people first. Everything a state does is enabled by taxation, taxation is payment regardless of consent, it's enforced via the threat of imprisonment or worse.
@crazypants88 Where and when has private land existed without a state? A state defends property through courts and force. It's its primary function. When the colonist came they didn't buy land. They homesteaded. The English later took control of land and sold it back to whomever had the most money thus forcing the rest into servitude of the new land lords. Then came taxes. The european govt destroyed real liberty and created the poor, landless working class directly by land control.
@jonny282 yes of corse it is but as we all know its harder the more right wing a country is, i realy hate teh way the right pretend to want social mobility and poy policies in placce which ebveryone knows make it worse, its a terrible scandel
Lets be fair-Though the balance of libertarians may be for abortion rights, it is not a core belief and and to frame the discussion in a biased manner is intellectually dishonest. It comes down to this:
As a libertarian, if you believe that a fetus is part of your person-hood, then you will say ending it is your right.
As a libertarian, if you believe that a fetus, at any point, has it's own person-hood, then abortion at that point violates the right to life of that person and is wrong.
So for an ideal Libertarian society, we would have to have equal opportunity among all citizens? So in theory, working towards this goal (which would have to be defined so as not to be vague) would be the first step on the road towards a society where an individual truly has the freedom to make choices about their lives.
@gamemeister27 There is no free market, there will never be a free market, and capital itself will see to that. The buying and selling crap isn't what makes freedom, that is an absurd idea of freedom especially since there isn't even freedom in it since it is contingent on so many other things. The entire libertarian ideology is absurd, ideas of an imaginary free market are absurd, and the constraining of the meaning of life and some false freedom about buying and selling stuff is absurd.
@Navywxman Correction, there has been no free market during YOUR lifetime. What we have is a corporate welfare big government centrally planned crony-capitalist economy. It just so happens that in the late 19th century during the international gold exchange and free banking era. When the economy approximated to its best degree the 'crazy and naive' libertarian ideal, that the largest expansion in wealth in human history occurred within one generation. Curious correlation isn't it?
@halvepupose1 Your correction is absent a correction. There hasn't been one ever nor ever will be. Late 19th century wasn't nor approximated libertarian fictions. The US was made around serving the interests of the wealthy and relied on the state even then. Considering other factors like immigration, the building up of the west, and that wealth was concentrated with a vast disparity where a minority benefited most not serving most, libertarian nonsense had nothing to do with it or was it great.
@Navywxman and we had slowly decreasing prices. meaning your money become more valuable and had budget surpluses every year and paid down the post civil war debt. And most importantly this was all done under an elegant and simple international gold exchange. There were booms and busts, because markets are and always have been cyclical, they seek an equilibrium. But they were short lived, corrective, and healthy and gave rise to further expansion in wealth.
@halvepupose1 The state still had a great deal of the service of business and the wealthy, plus it was a time before the wealthy and their bought politicians sought to run up debt deliberately to undo the accomplishments of the people. The booms and busts were not good or healthy, they were recessions and depressions and the majority suffered at the expense of the wealthy few. The damage only lessened thanks to the country being largely agrarian which it is no longer. libertarian fantasies lol
@Navywxman do you believe that socialism is the answer? Do you think nationalized industries will increase our standard of living? People of your philosophy constantly point to Europe as a cornucopia of just socialized medicine, transit, labor etc. (my sister lives in France). But fail to point out that this is one-dimensional view in that these societies are owned by none. These welfare states are insolvent and ride on the backs of productive creditor nations. i don't want their policies
@halvepupose1 People of my philosophy? You don't even know what that is. While I ascribe to no system in use, there are certainly merits to socialism and the nationalization of some industries. Europe practices elements of capitalism and socialism and is an excellent example how the one-dimensional view of capitalism is a failure by comparison. The US is a case in point, the more libertarian the policies, the worse the country has become. From wages, inequality, health, you name it, it is worse
@Navywxman would you at least concede that fiat money is not beneficial to a free society and has resulted in the concentration of wealth in the top 1%? From the books I choose to read on economics I believe that although capitalism is not a perfect system, it has brought more people out of poverty than any other system so far designed. And it is exactly the types of nations that depart form the ideals of libertarian society that fair worst.
@halvepupose1 I've known for a very long time that fiat money is bad, but then that is what capital wants. It isn't something imposed from the Gov. Business, banks, investors of many ilk wanted it and still do. Capitalism is what is broken, ineffective, wasteful, and destructive. Let loose capitalists will burn the earth to a cinder and kill us all just to make one more buck. In fact they probably will.
@halvepupose1 Actually western european countries depart farther from ideals of libertarian society and not only do not fair worse, are far better in every way to that of say the US which is closer to those libertarian ideals. The Europeans know it and they do not want to be like the US, and I don't blame them one bit.
@Navywxman I don't have a problem with progressivism provided that it is paid for! Taxing the people through the destruction of currency rather than direct taxation is far more insidious immoral and disruptive to a market economy rather than direct taxation. If libertarians and progressives could unite behind a restored and renewed international gold standard we could do this nation a great service despite our differences in philosophy.
@halvepupose1 A gold standard will not do much if any good whatsoever to the US. The system, capitalism, is destructive, and capitalists, not others, are the ones who made it so. It is a predatory system and in this day and age will most likely be the end of us all.
@Navywxman and who is to say your interpretation of history isn't just as fanciful. I can show you data that supports the long term correlation between monetary policy and GNP expansion. While you base your interpretation largely on qualitative factors. In my opinion, progressives fantasize just as much about a far more absurd goal: income equality.. it cannot be achieved and was already attempted in the collectivist idea called communism. who are these angels that run society in your world?
@halvepupose1 fanciful interpretation of history? lol hardly, I mentioned very real factors, if you ignore them it is out of willful ignorance. income inequality has never been attempted and in a monetary system it will not be attempted. Libertarians miss that business and corporations are collectivist. That the owning of the state is collectivist. It is just for the in crowd though. Angels? My world? You seem to be projecting onto me. Sorry bud, libertarianism is a fantasy fiction cult
@Navywxman yea well I shouldn't have jumped on you about your philosophy cause you're right I don't know what it is. But I fundamentally disagree in your assessment that the U.S. has become increasingly libertarian and therefore we can attribute the problems we see in our country to that shift. Rather I would say quite the opposite is true. The whole bush deregulated the markets thing gets old after a while. Government policy generated the morale hazard.
What would a person be if they believed this. Personal choice (with limited impact on others ie smoking which is no more harmful to others, perhaps less, then the air pollution by vehicles modern industry) should not be impaired by legislation. Yet they also believe that government is needed to supply security (infrastructure, business and environmental regulation, and education (I didn't mention police or military as they are less important to security then those mentioned) for the people.
What it means to be a libertarian is to buy into a fantasy fiction cult! To trade in your humanity for some cold, inhuman BS market system that allowed to run rampant has racked up a massive death toll. It is a belief in an imaginary "pure" capitalism that has never nor could ever exist because capitalists themselves wouldn't allow it as it is more profitable to exploit individuals and the state. It is a delusional belief that business WANTS competition lmao!! Time to shed childish things people
@Navywxman So how would a free market business "not allow competition"?
And libertarianism never states that businesses want competition and neither is it predicated on that belief. Again how would a business remove the threat of competition.
@crazypants88 Capitalists haven't, don't nor would ever allow a free market system, profit is greater from there not being one. That also assumes that a free market system is something good which nothing indicates it would be. It would actually be pretty unstable, exploitative, and destructive. Libertarianism is absolutely explicit about wanting competition, if you think it doesn't than you need to start reading up on it from the beginning! Ask yourself how does business remove competition.
@Navywxman Again, how are they supposed to prevent the free interaction of people exactly? You have to back up your original assertion, not just make more assertions.
I do believe a free market would result in the greatest living standard for all, but that's not what we're discussing here.
Libertarianism is actually explicit about the fact that businesses DON'T want competition, you would know this if you've read or knew anything about libertarianism.
@crazypants88 businesses aren't people for one so it is far beyond the interaction of people. Business has hindered it in countless ways, not just through the state but through everything from monopolies, dumping products, blackballing employees, dominating the media and information, and always own Gov., countless things are done, you shouldn't need me to tell you. I said Libertarianism is explicit about wanting competition, maybe you need to pay attention and read more on it.
@Navywxman Businesses are simply made up of people, so yes it is part of the free interaction of people. The only conceivable way to keep out competition is through state intervention, that's why lobbyism is million dollar industry.
No, businesses don't want competition. Competition benefits the consumer not the supplier. Even if some libertarians were explicit about businesses wanting competition, something I've never heard libertarians say,
, indeed the explicitely say the opposite, it's not dependent on the idea that competition will only come about if businesses want it. The only thing it's dependent on is the fact that people are profit seeking, they seek to increase their wealth. The most effective way to do that in a free market is to serve the demands of people, i.e. entering the market.
@crazypants88 As I've told others, there never was, nor will there ever be a free market, it is a fiction that exists only in libertarian fantasies. Capital itself will ensure there is no free market, plus the confining of life to the buying and selling of stuff is ridiculous!
@Navywxman Yes there was a free market, in the western territories of the US that were stateless had a free market, the US itself has seen the majority of it's history as a mostly free market. And even if there were no prior examples that wouldn't be an argument either way..
What do you mean by "capital itself will ensure thre is no free market"?
libertarian is a way of beeing.You are against the initiation of force against you your property and the enviroment(that 7 billion people and theyr kids NEED to survive since we have a right to our lives).If a true libertarian society is possible(uncompromised),i dont know.Taxes on sigarettes is still theft for sigarette companyes and libertarians will not introduce a pollution free enviroment.The only real uncompromised libertarian world is anarchy,it just is.just my view
@VirginiaVeteran Not only that, but lets be consistent. Why is a women, while driving to an abortion clinic, who swerves her vehicle to hit a protected species (eg a possum) who then aborts its fetus is liable up to 12 months jail, is free to end the life of her own offspring without risk of breaking the law??? Clearly some animals have greater liberty that humans.
If the fetus/baby can't survive outside it's mothers womb, then in my book it's not a person or a living human being. However, if it can survive independently, let's say at 8 months, then it is murder to abort the baby at that time.
Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean survive in terms of getting fed or taken care of. What I meant to say is that if the baby can stay alive without the mom's womb, then he/she is a person. For example, if you take out the baby/fetus at 4 or 5 months there is no way it could survive. However, at some later stage like 8 months, it might. Although this is not a black and white concept.
I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. I believe freedom is what made this country (U.S.) great, not government interference. I differ with some libertarians on abortion, gay marriage, and national defense. I have no problem with letting gays do whatever they want, but a child raised by a mother and a father is ideal to being raised by a same sex couple or a single parent. Government shouldn't interfere with the economy but it should spend on keeping us safe.
@Duke1839 you're about as much as a libertarian as glenn beck and sarah palin are. You claim to be for small government, except for on issues you don't agree with, then you want as much government as possible.
"Again, the teenager does not have to keep the child after it is born, there are literally countless people wanting to adopt. "
We already went over this, there aren't countless people wanting to adopt inner-city black children. That's not opinion, that's fact. Again you are cherry picking stats, there are plenty of people that make it out of poverty, but infinitely more that don't. Especially if you want to take away welfare, you're going to make it that much harder for people to escape
@adisantos1 I am not, it is like I said for every child adopted there are 30 couples wanting to adopt it. I know many couples wanting to adopt and race does not matter. My cousins are adopted into a mixed race home. That aside your socialist (and slightly racist) views are not libertarian so are irrelevant to the point at hand. If you are unable to accept the personal liberty of grown adults I don't think you will ever accept it of unborn children.
@Reu360 Again, you are using personal experiences and isolated incidents as representation as a whole. My views aren't racist, because I'm not offering my personal opinion, I'm offering facts. In my perfect world, there would be a couple willing and ready to adopt every under privileged child in this country, but that simply isn't reality. If that was the case, then why are there so many minority children in group homes? You still haven't answered that question.
@Reu360 Now I'm sure you're going to throw out another isolated example of someone who did well in a group home, but for the vast majority of children they are hell. And how exactly are we supposed to care for these kids without welfare, you still haven't answered that question either.
My fundamental belief is that life doesn't begin at conception, so essentially my views are in line with the libertarian perspective, and aren't socialist in the slightest.
This seems fair, relatively honest, respecting of individual rights and liberties. It seems that Libertarians are interested in the best interest of the American people, leaving the people to decide what's best for themselves. It does seem truly good. I guess that's why Liberals really, truly hate it. They hate anything good.
@JRudolph86 I'd guess most libertarians wouldn't be for civilians owning nuclear weapons, but I think it's important that civilians be ready and able to fight their governments if the need arises. There clearly is a gap of power between the small arms that civilians are normally allowed to keep and the weapons that any given military has.
I very much doubt some governments would as willing to oppress their citizens if they could fight back.
@crazypants88 Isn't it un-Libertarian to restrain an individual from doing ANYTHING short of infringing on someone elses life, liberty, or property? Merely owning a nuclear weapon isn't infringing on any of those said things... So in-theory, a true Libertarian should have no objection to someone merely owning a nuclear weapon as it doesn't violate anyone elses natural rights.
@crazypants88 So you have no objection with an individual harnessing the power to lay waste to a city in seconds? I can understand and agree with the statement that people kill people, guns don't.. however accidents do happen and in worst-case-scenario, someone can accidentally get hurt by an unsecured firearm. The trouble with owning a nuke is that thousands of people could die from unsecured nuke. Is the risk worth taking for absolute liberty? Or should we moderate Liberty?
@JRudolph86 The exact same argument can be made to anyone that has nukes, states included. Yes accidents can happen but unless you can wipe out the knowledge on how to make a nuke, there will always be the threat of nukes. So as a deterrent for nuclear war, people should have equal firepower so there's the threat of mutually assured destruction.
Do Libertarians believe an individual has the right to own whatever pet it wants and keep it in its backyard? Say a Siberian Tiger, for example? I've always wanted one!
Why do Libertarians focus so much on government and not big business? We are so black and white in this country. There has to be a good guy and bad guy. At least with government we have some say. If government purchase land at least we have access to it. There is getting to be a lot conglomerates that are sucking the life right out of this country. Our communities are just starting look like industrial parks.
@soldatna Because the most common issues people have with big business are caused by government. They enable them to incorporate, subsidize them, erect artificial barriers to entry and bail them out when they're failing.
As a libertarian the only part I would disagree with him on is what he says about abortion. The problem with abortion is that it deprives someone of their right to life. It is indisputable that if an unaborted fetus is allowed to be born, assuming no rare complications, it will become a person. Also, premature babies are surviving longer and longer out of the womb. Abortion should treated as an act of violence and dealt with on the local state level.
@Reu360 Abortion may be an act of violence but you are ignoring the pregnants woman's right to her own body. If a pregnant woman do not wish to have a person living inside her, the fetus is a parasitic entity whose right to life is overriden by the woman's right to her own body.
@sotflicka The woman chose to have sex the direct foreseeable result of which is pregnancy. Libertarians believe that no entity (corporation, government, person) can deprive another entity of their rights. The exception to this is if an entity first acts to infringe another entity's rights in which case the right to self-defense comes into play. Since the unborn child only action is to live (assuming no harm to to the mother) it can't lose it's right to life simply for having the right to life.
@Lukasinho123 Condom's prevent a life from being formed. The difference between abortion and a condom is that an abortion is killing a living fetus where as a condom which may prevent a hypothetical fetus from being formed. Since there is no unborn child, no life, it can't have the right to live. Put simply, hypothetical unborn children are not equal to real living unborn children.
@Reu360 I'm not sure you realize the problems inherent in this "potential person" argument either. Why is there a right to a future life possessed by a zygote but not by the gametes which are its genesis? Every sperm and egg is a living human cell which has potential to become a complete human being. If "potential humans" have rights to life shouldn't we be having rampant sex to make sure that as many of our sperm and eggs meet so as to realize the "right to life" of potential persons?
@dlane0308 I never said potential person, I said unborn child. With potential person you are correct, you can't protect the rights of a hypothetical person. In order to turn a sperm and an egg into a person action (sex) needs to be taken. With an unborn child the sperm has already fertilized the egg to make an unborn child, the person is no longer hypothetical. No action needs to be taken in order to maintain the life of the unborn child.
@Reu360 So life begins at conception then? Or being a person begins? So a single cell is a person? No action need be taken to maintain the life of the unborn child? What about the single mother who may not be financially able to care for the child? Or the prison system which this unborn fetus, statistically, would see later in life? Leave other peoples decisions to themselves, it's NOT your business. If you aren't a victim of her decision, then it's none of your freaking business.
@mcapps1 1) an individuals life begins at conception 2) AFTER the child is born action does need to be taken to care for the child. That is why child assistant programs are available as well as adoption. 4) using your logic that unless I am the victim it is none of my business the oppression of the North Koreans is acceptable, the genocide by the Nazis is justified and the systematic rapes in Darfur are tolerable. The victim here is the unborn child which has no selfdefense so it is my business.
@Reu360 What you said was that if a fetus is allowed to be born it will *become* a person, implying that a fetus is a potential person. Look at your post. "No action must be taken to maintain the life of the child after the sperm has fertilized the egg." What?? What do you think a pregnancy is if not action on the part of the mother's body? Do you not think that women should have control over their bodies?
@dlane0308 the first action that is taken is sex which is a choice the woman takes (sans rape) with the foreseeable consequence being child barring. Thus, she had the choice to not be pregnant. This is not like homosexuality or drug use, those are victimless crimes. Abortion destroys the life of the unborn child. Once pregnant, the child will grow inside the mother till it is born. The mothers actions are passive, with abortion, they become active.
@Reu360 The purpose of most sex in the modern world is not to bear children, so it is not as if by choosing to have sex a woman is choosing to have children. In cases of abortion, the bearing of children is certainly not wanted. When you say that having a child is "passive," what you are saying is that the woman's body is doing something that she doesn't want it to do, without her choice. Abortion gives her control over the parts of her body where she previously didn't have it. cont...
@dlane0308 This comes back to my ski analogy. A skier skis down a hill for enjoyment. The skier, like the mother, is aware of the risk and even though both use protection it doesn't always work. Everyone expects the skier to live with the consequences of his/her choice, why is it different for the mother? At what point is the mother responsible. If she has the child and doesn't care for it is that acceptable? By having sex the woman takes on the responsibility to carry the child to birth.
@Reu360 ...cont. Pregnancy is an active process in that it requires the mother's body. To say that it is simply passive in the sense that the woman doesn't have to input any mental effort is to miss the point. It involves and requires active input from her body, so she should have a choice in the matter. It doesn't matter that in some primitive state women had no active choice in the matter, now they do, and I think they should, at the least up to the point of viability.
@dlane0308 Americans have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Americans have the right to be hired as airplane pilots but as a pilot you can't quite your in the middle of a flight. Americans have the right to drive cars, but you can't drive recklessly without getting a ticket. People take actions and make choices everyday which have inherent responsibility. Sex is the same thing. You can't have sex then kill your unborn child. We are civilized, not savages.
@Reu360 It is an indisputable fact that sperm is an essential requirement to become a fetus, therefore, masturbation should treated as an act of violence and dealt with on the local state level. Sperm has a right to life.
@mcapps1 I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. Under that same logic every woman who has had a minstrel cycle should be charged with an act of violence. Every man who has sex should be charged with an act of violence (since only 1 sperm fertilizes the egg). You are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Until the sperm fertilizes the egg the unborn child is hypothetical. After the egg is fertilized the birth of a child is immanent sans any tragic complications.
@Reu360 So what you're saying is that if you come from poverty and make a mistake when you're 15 or 16 and get pregnant, you should be forced to have the child and drop out of school, effectively ending all possibility that you escape from poverty? You raise a good point with the adoption. But let's say for argument's sake, that all of the aborted babies of the last twenty years were put up for adoption instead. Then who floats the bill for that then?
@adisantos1 If a teen gets pregnant the child can be put up for adoption. If she decides to raise the child that is her choice the results of which, good or bad, are not relevant. Adoptions are paid for by the adoptive parents. The adoption cost can also be reduced if the regulations are reduced (very libertarian). However, I ask you, who pays for the abortions? Abortions have been subsidized by tax dollars which is not very libertarian.
@Reu360 Sorry to burst your bubble, but there just aren't many people lining up to adopt these poor inner-city hood babies. The reality of the situation is that these babies would wind up in foster or group homes (tax-payer subsidized of course) and grow up experiencing all sorts of psychological, sexual, and physical abuse, resulting in them becoming enormous drains to society. Now wouldn't it be better if they weren't born at all?
@adisantos1 Your premise is false. For each child adopted there are an about 30 couples wanting to adopt it. With more children available more couples will be able/willing to adopt (due to increased ease and reduced cost). That aside, if your thesis that foster kids are better off never being born we would have no John Lennon, Steve Jobs or Malcolm X. How many adults today who were raised in the foster care system say it would have been better if they were never born? Why do you get to choose?
This has been flagged as spam show
Libertarians don't understand that without regulation, the environment would be destroyed by a few greedy capitalists whose main goal is PROFIT in the short term and completely disregard the earth's future sustainability. Not to mention monopolies would rule because small businesses couldn't compete with the low costs. Discrimination would be allowed. And the system would uphold an even greater aristocracy where only the richest can afford the best education. That's why I'm a liberal.
Mr2h0nest 14 hours ago
libertarianism would be amazing to see in action. unfortunately, it wont happen until theres some sort of crisis where people lose trust in republicans/democrats/liberals/conservatives. but hey, the nazi party started out with only 2000 members, and look where it went.
RESTxINxPIECEZ 1 day ago
I agree with the libertarian stance when it comes to social issues. However I do not feel in any way that it should promote capitalism. Government regulations were introduced into the market because businesses were virtually allowed to enslave their employees prior to that. I personally don't think that any form of macro level economics is right. People should work towards the good of sustaining the communities they live in and not be motivated by financial rewards.
boonskety 3 days ago
i dont agree with this guy BUT whats the name of the background music?
fryem9UP 3 days ago
5 seconds into the video, I lost interest when you said Conservatives are the same as liberals. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
Teapartyla 5 days ago in playlist Political Science Playlist
@Teapartyla they are the same in the sense that they are both trying to impose their views on the entire country or people in general
TheRainSnake 3 days ago
If I Became A Libertarian, I Would Be Automatically Asociated With Ron Paul. If Thats The Case, Screw It, I Have No Party.
deathsagent1 5 days ago
@deathsagent1 you can be libertarian and support another conservative party member. the point of libertarians is that no one is telling you what to think, feel, or how to live your life.
TheRainSnake 3 days ago
@TheRainSnake Yeah But I Honestly Just Became One Like Two Weeks Ago, And Literaly Have Been Asociated With That Guy Like Twelve Times Already...
deathsagent1 1 day ago
I wouldn't want an entirely conservative system, or an entirely liberal system. Nor would I want an entirely Libertarian system. I want a balance where the world consists of more than just 2 horribly polarized parties. I tend to fall into the Libertarian views for most categories, but people argue that an unregulated market would have issues. So would a large, unregulated, corrupt government who makes decisions for us. I'll take the lesser of 2 evils, generally speaking, and keep my freedom.
mmohr81 6 days ago
remember the Articles Of Confederation? didn't work well...
Mikevodka21 6 days ago
@Mikevodka21 libertarianism is hardly the articles of confederation, though.
TheRainSnake 3 days ago
we need to end the two party system. NOW.
Bsliggs 6 days ago
if libertarians don't want to tell people how to live their lives, how do they deal with crime? All law is "forcing people" to a certain moral level.
darksungames 1 week ago
@darksungames You can't maintain a society if murder, rape, and theft are unpunished. This is one of the fundamental tasks of government and any party outside of pure anarchists are going to grant this. Your freedom stops where the next persons begins.
Macbrother 6 days ago
@darksungames
Though someone already responded to you, I'd like to reinforce it. Read the preamble of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Constitution is very Libertarian.
diskpanic 5 days ago in playlist Political Science Playlist
@darksungames
First off, morals are subjective, changing from person to person thus an unstable basis on which to justify laws. I prefer the term ethics as it's more tangible.
Anyway, Libertarians believe one's freedom ends when another's freedom begins. For example a thief takes something that's not his/hers therefore is violating property rights of who they just robbed. That is when use of force is acceptable against the violator.
kristoffersayshi 23 hours ago
"... The ability of people to make reasonable choices" ... OK, I get that.
"... Government .... coercing people to do things they don't want to do,,,"
But why the focus on government when corporations also coerce people to do things they don't want to do? How can people choose when it is not in the best interest of business to give you all the necessary information (or even lie) about their product / service?
Libertarian... brainwashed by big business who brought you this message.
henleythecat 1 week ago
@henleythecat Libertarians propose a free market, corporations are a result of corporatist market system.
Corporations are businesses but not all businesses are corporations.
In a fraud is deincentivized by third-party regulators who have actual incentive to properly regulate, unlike state regulators who get revenue regardless of actual competence. Also the fact there's no artificial barriers to entry ensures that there's always the risk of competition emerging.
crazypants88 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crazypants88
"corporatist market system.".... That is a new one for me.
"third-party regulators" ... Example?
"who have actual incentive to properly regulate," ... Incentives from whom?
"no artificial barriers to entry" ... Big business have a history of creating real barriers to competition.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Real competition (which I believe in) requires rules and referees.
This channel is giving you only one side of the equation.
henleythecat 1 week ago
@crazypants88
Let me put it another way. IMHO, govt regulators should have three goals
1. create a open and level playing field
2. promote competition.
3. reduce the cost of compliance whenever possible (almost never done).
The corporate sponsors of this channel have a economic incentive to convince you that all govt regulations are bad, but that does not mean it is in our economic best interest.
"institute" & professors are only used for marketing their message.
henleythecat 1 week ago
@henleythecat Well your expectations of state regulators is irrelevant to what they actually do
1. They have no incentive to remain a neutral 3rd party, since state regulators are not paid by consent but by mandate they're very susceptible to corruption. Regulation that benefits the established businesses at the detriment of the new businesses is often set in place. Famous example of this is meat inspection act.
2. Again, no incentive for them to comply...
contd
crazypants88 1 week ago
@crazypants88 ... I agree with your comment about what state regulators actually do. That is what we need to fight against.
As for the rest of your comments, I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you should try reading comprehension again.
I'm done arguing with the brainwashed.
henleythecat 1 week ago
@henleythecat Well the only way that wont be done, is to make regulation a privately supplied service. That way regulators have a genuine incentive to provide quality services as thats the only way theyll earn a profit
Please look up the ad hominem fallacy, you make this fallacy in almost every comment I see from you. Its fairly simple, a person's characteristic is irrelevant to his argument. The fact that x sponsored this video is completely irrelevant to the argument's validity
crazypants88 1 week ago
@crazypants88 Who that hell is going to pay for a private regulatory service?
Give me one example of a private regulatory servers anywhere.
henleythecat 1 week ago
@henleythecat Providers, retailers, consumers. It's obviously something people demand, otherwise it would never be provided, state or no state.
Underwriter Laboratories, is a private regulator in the electronic industry.
Even if there were no examples of private regulatory firms, that doesn't prove anything.
By this logic no inventions or new ideas are valid since they've never been employed before.
crazypants88 1 week ago
@crazypants88
How can you say "I want the firefighters who get paid regardless" then turn around and make this privatization argument? Do you not see the parallels? Seriously?
I hate to break this to you, but when you can steer an aircraft carrier through the holes in an argument WHO is making becomes extremely relevant.
donfolstar 1 week ago
@donfolstar Privatization in no way precludes the type of payment I describe, not that I'm arguing for privatization, I'm arguing for free markets. Privatization implies the state letting selected business take over a function, a free market bars no one from entering the market.
contd.
crazypants88 1 week ago
@donfolstar contd.
The point of contention is how the funds are gathered, if it's through, coercion i.e. taxation, libertarians tend to have a problem with that, if it's on a consensual basis, there's no problem. It has nothing to do with with what frequency you pay someone.
crazypants88 1 week ago
@crazypants88
Believing for an instant that a system completely based off consensual relationships and responsible/rational decisions would ever work makes communists look worldly.
The question was not frequency but incentive. There are many instances where a profit motivation is absolutely wrong.
Further, coercion and force would destroy a "free" market almost instantaneously. Any attempts to stop that destruction would require regulation- blam, no free market.
Wake up.
donfolstar 1 week ago
@donfolstar What about all the stuff that's not state related? That's all based on consensual trade and relationships. I mean do you force your friends to be around you? Did you steal your computer?
The question revelealed your ignorance on this matter. What distinguishes privatization/free markets from state funded functions is not how you pay firemen, cops, doctors etc, it's if it's done through taxation or voluntary trade.
contd.
crazypants88 1 week ago
@crazypants88
Ok boss. Now that you have turned to passive insults I am done with you.
Keep dreaming about this fantasy world which, as I will reiterate, makes communism look like a very workable system.
While I am no longer responding to you you should try to finish these sentences:
"Fraud and coercions will not destroy a free market because..."
"Voluntary trade will overcome NIMBY to keep vital services operating by...."
donfolstar 1 week ago
@donfolstar Well it's not meant as an insult, being ignorant is excusable.
I mean you did say things which are blatantly false, like that coercion would destroy a free market and that employing a retainer-type of payment system is not possible in a free market.
Finally, I'm at a loss what "finishing these sentences" proves..
crazypants88 1 week ago
@donfolstar contd.
Fraud or coercion would not destroy a free market, these things will exist no matter the political system. What would destroy or make a free market no longer a free market, would be a state interfering in the market.
crazypants88 1 week ago
@henleythecat contd.
with your expectation and every incentive to be bought out by lobbyist who desire to remove or lessen competition. Which they do.
I mean you can't enter the automobile industry in the US due to regulation.
3 Again, no actual incentive for them to do this.
Again with the ad hominem nonsense. Hitler himself could have funded this, it would mean squat to the actual arguments put forward.
crazypants88 1 week ago
@crazypants88
So tell me, would you feel safer with firemen who get paid regardless of the amount of work they do OR firemen who only get paid when they put out a fire?
Try to follow that two steps forward from the fireman's perspective before answering.
donfolstar 1 week ago
@donfolstar I'd feel better if they get paid regardless. I would think the latter system would incentivize fraud by firefighters as they could be incentivized to start fires to get more money.
crazypants88 1 week ago
My uncle was the Libertarian presidential nominee in 2008 :)
TrueReligionChick57 2 weeks ago
Libertarianism and Minarchism For The Win...
NatedogJr 2 weeks ago
Libertarian means to be an ethnocentric and allow big business to rule over all.
jmitterii2 2 weeks ago
I think many libertarians would dissagree with him on abortion. Life, Liberty and Property. You can't have any of it if your life is taken from you.This is the first of your videos that I have a serious disagreement with. I know what it means to be a libertarian. The government's only valid role is to protect those fundamental rights. Life is the first one!
RebelJeffrey 2 weeks ago
@RebelJeffrey Probably alot of libertarians would disagree with him on abortion. I'm a libertarian and I'm pro-choice but I know of plenty of libertarians who are pro-life. It's one of the few issues libertarians as whole don't agree on.
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
@RebelJeffrey do you control your body or does the fetus control your body?
sniped101 2 weeks ago
Wow, I thought Liberals and Libertarians were the same... but now I KNOW the truth of the matter. I'm so glad great videos like this are on YouTube. I'm going to change my political leanings from Liberal to Libertarian right away, because that's what I really am. :D
Arkveveen 3 weeks ago
what did he say about abortion?
BATTLEFEELD3 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
Libertarianism seems to have been co-opted by people completely focused on the unregulated economy side over personal freedoms. Take this channel for example- almost entirely economic videos. Further, Libertarians are throwing in with the Republican party which does not seem very interested in personal or economic freedom (unless you are a mega-corporation). Get it together movement.
donfolstar 3 weeks ago 7
@donfolstar Well in my mind economic freedom IS personal freedom. What is personal freedom without the freedom to own the fruits of labour, to do what you want provided you're not hurting or conning anybody.
Also corporations are the prime beneficiaries of state intervention and regulations, they are not for free markets in the slightest, well the vast majority of them anyway.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@donfolstar I think you got it!
henleythecat 1 week ago
That's how I am.
vonGleichenT 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorites
Great video, Libertarianism is spreading and it's great to see intelligent, educated individuals representing such a benevolent belief in freedom
AJatethewaffles 1 month ago
Vote Ron Paul 2012! He's the best libertarian
stormspottter 1 month ago 22
@stormspottter I cannot vote for any man who thinks the world is 6000 years old.
CurryCobra 1 week ago
I just came here for the music because it's from Da Mouth...
Jujube814 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crazypants88 It can't, that's the point. It's a big government institution. Why would you not own your weed and why would it be illegal? Private property and personal property are wildly different concepts, your confusion of the two is not an accident. You build a house and plant a field it's your crops and your house. Your effort made them. Would you buy the rights to sunlight? You would if government could feasably control your access to it...like it can with land...
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Until libertarians understand that private property rights are big government theft, extortion and aggression they are nothing more than tools. Take a piece of land not being used and grow your food. Maybe make some goods and wears and barter with them if you want. But do not rely on the government to defend your land "boundry" or you will be forced into paying their exorbent ransoms and/or forced to trade you time and effort with elitists in exchanged for government currency.
ped200014 1 month ago
@ped200014 I think you're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism. Small government, which Libertarians push for, still has the power to defend property and the individual, it just doesn't have the right to dictate how you should live your life, which more Authoritarian political structures push for (such as forcing you to pay other people's university fees or telling you that you can't marry somebody because you're the same gender etc).
northernvoxmedia 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@northernvoxmedia Exactly. The government stealing land and selling it to the elite IS big government. And that's what you want. Economic dictatorship and systematic servitude of the masses to the aristocratic hierarchy by govt force. A plutocracy. It's disgusting enough in itself, your propaganda of populist leftwing egalitarianism makes it all the more insidious. Exactly the means fascism rose to power, complete with an eerie cult following of a primary figurehead.
ped200014 1 month ago
@ped200014 How come private property has existed without a state then?
And really a state can't defend property, at least not without threatening to take it from people first. Everything a state does is enabled by taxation, taxation is payment regardless of consent, it's enforced via the threat of imprisonment or worse.
So no you're completely wrong.
crazypants88 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
Comment removed
ped200014 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crazypants88 Where and when has private land existed without a state? A state defends property through courts and force. It's its primary function. When the colonist came they didn't buy land. They homesteaded. The English later took control of land and sold it back to whomever had the most money thus forcing the rest into servitude of the new land lords. Then came taxes. The european govt destroyed real liberty and created the poor, landless working class directly by land control.
ped200014 1 month ago
libatarian's should not wan to imprisen the poor in their poverty, like it says in teh international freedom without equality is no fredom at all
rictorn 1 month ago
@rictorn social mobility is possible for those that work hard
jonny282 1 month ago
@jonny282 yes of corse it is but as we all know its harder the more right wing a country is, i realy hate teh way the right pretend to want social mobility and poy policies in placce which ebveryone knows make it worse, its a terrible scandel
rictorn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hell there is no such thing as a libatarian on the right, as john stweart mill said teh conservative party is the stupid party
rictorn 1 month ago
Lets be fair-Though the balance of libertarians may be for abortion rights, it is not a core belief and and to frame the discussion in a biased manner is intellectually dishonest. It comes down to this:
As a libertarian, if you believe that a fetus is part of your person-hood, then you will say ending it is your right.
As a libertarian, if you believe that a fetus, at any point, has it's own person-hood, then abortion at that point violates the right to life of that person and is wrong.
ZedFable 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
So for an ideal Libertarian society, we would have to have equal opportunity among all citizens? So in theory, working towards this goal (which would have to be defined so as not to be vague) would be the first step on the road towards a society where an individual truly has the freedom to make choices about their lives.
gamemeister27 1 month ago
@gamemeister27 There is no free market, there will never be a free market, and capital itself will see to that. The buying and selling crap isn't what makes freedom, that is an absurd idea of freedom especially since there isn't even freedom in it since it is contingent on so many other things. The entire libertarian ideology is absurd, ideas of an imaginary free market are absurd, and the constraining of the meaning of life and some false freedom about buying and selling stuff is absurd.
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman Correction, there has been no free market during YOUR lifetime. What we have is a corporate welfare big government centrally planned crony-capitalist economy. It just so happens that in the late 19th century during the international gold exchange and free banking era. When the economy approximated to its best degree the 'crazy and naive' libertarian ideal, that the largest expansion in wealth in human history occurred within one generation. Curious correlation isn't it?
halvepupose1 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@halvepupose1 Your correction is absent a correction. There hasn't been one ever nor ever will be. Late 19th century wasn't nor approximated libertarian fictions. The US was made around serving the interests of the wealthy and relied on the state even then. Considering other factors like immigration, the building up of the west, and that wealth was concentrated with a vast disparity where a minority benefited most not serving most, libertarian nonsense had nothing to do with it or was it great.
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman and we had slowly decreasing prices. meaning your money become more valuable and had budget surpluses every year and paid down the post civil war debt. And most importantly this was all done under an elegant and simple international gold exchange. There were booms and busts, because markets are and always have been cyclical, they seek an equilibrium. But they were short lived, corrective, and healthy and gave rise to further expansion in wealth.
halvepupose1 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@halvepupose1 The state still had a great deal of the service of business and the wealthy, plus it was a time before the wealthy and their bought politicians sought to run up debt deliberately to undo the accomplishments of the people. The booms and busts were not good or healthy, they were recessions and depressions and the majority suffered at the expense of the wealthy few. The damage only lessened thanks to the country being largely agrarian which it is no longer. libertarian fantasies lol
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman do you believe that socialism is the answer? Do you think nationalized industries will increase our standard of living? People of your philosophy constantly point to Europe as a cornucopia of just socialized medicine, transit, labor etc. (my sister lives in France). But fail to point out that this is one-dimensional view in that these societies are owned by none. These welfare states are insolvent and ride on the backs of productive creditor nations. i don't want their policies
halvepupose1 1 month ago
@halvepupose1 People of my philosophy? You don't even know what that is. While I ascribe to no system in use, there are certainly merits to socialism and the nationalization of some industries. Europe practices elements of capitalism and socialism and is an excellent example how the one-dimensional view of capitalism is a failure by comparison. The US is a case in point, the more libertarian the policies, the worse the country has become. From wages, inequality, health, you name it, it is worse
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman would you at least concede that fiat money is not beneficial to a free society and has resulted in the concentration of wealth in the top 1%? From the books I choose to read on economics I believe that although capitalism is not a perfect system, it has brought more people out of poverty than any other system so far designed. And it is exactly the types of nations that depart form the ideals of libertarian society that fair worst.
halvepupose1 1 month ago
@halvepupose1 I've known for a very long time that fiat money is bad, but then that is what capital wants. It isn't something imposed from the Gov. Business, banks, investors of many ilk wanted it and still do. Capitalism is what is broken, ineffective, wasteful, and destructive. Let loose capitalists will burn the earth to a cinder and kill us all just to make one more buck. In fact they probably will.
Navywxman 1 month ago
@halvepupose1 Actually western european countries depart farther from ideals of libertarian society and not only do not fair worse, are far better in every way to that of say the US which is closer to those libertarian ideals. The Europeans know it and they do not want to be like the US, and I don't blame them one bit.
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman I don't have a problem with progressivism provided that it is paid for! Taxing the people through the destruction of currency rather than direct taxation is far more insidious immoral and disruptive to a market economy rather than direct taxation. If libertarians and progressives could unite behind a restored and renewed international gold standard we could do this nation a great service despite our differences in philosophy.
halvepupose1 1 month ago
@halvepupose1 A gold standard will not do much if any good whatsoever to the US. The system, capitalism, is destructive, and capitalists, not others, are the ones who made it so. It is a predatory system and in this day and age will most likely be the end of us all.
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman and who is to say your interpretation of history isn't just as fanciful. I can show you data that supports the long term correlation between monetary policy and GNP expansion. While you base your interpretation largely on qualitative factors. In my opinion, progressives fantasize just as much about a far more absurd goal: income equality.. it cannot be achieved and was already attempted in the collectivist idea called communism. who are these angels that run society in your world?
halvepupose1 1 month ago
@halvepupose1 fanciful interpretation of history? lol hardly, I mentioned very real factors, if you ignore them it is out of willful ignorance. income inequality has never been attempted and in a monetary system it will not be attempted. Libertarians miss that business and corporations are collectivist. That the owning of the state is collectivist. It is just for the in crowd though. Angels? My world? You seem to be projecting onto me. Sorry bud, libertarianism is a fantasy fiction cult
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman yea well I shouldn't have jumped on you about your philosophy cause you're right I don't know what it is. But I fundamentally disagree in your assessment that the U.S. has become increasingly libertarian and therefore we can attribute the problems we see in our country to that shift. Rather I would say quite the opposite is true. The whole bush deregulated the markets thing gets old after a while. Government policy generated the morale hazard.
halvepupose1 1 month ago 2
What would a person be if they believed this. Personal choice (with limited impact on others ie smoking which is no more harmful to others, perhaps less, then the air pollution by vehicles modern industry) should not be impaired by legislation. Yet they also believe that government is needed to supply security (infrastructure, business and environmental regulation, and education (I didn't mention police or military as they are less important to security then those mentioned) for the people.
zzyy79 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
What it means to be a libertarian is to buy into a fantasy fiction cult! To trade in your humanity for some cold, inhuman BS market system that allowed to run rampant has racked up a massive death toll. It is a belief in an imaginary "pure" capitalism that has never nor could ever exist because capitalists themselves wouldn't allow it as it is more profitable to exploit individuals and the state. It is a delusional belief that business WANTS competition lmao!! Time to shed childish things people
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman So how would a free market business "not allow competition"?
And libertarianism never states that businesses want competition and neither is it predicated on that belief. Again how would a business remove the threat of competition.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 Capitalists haven't, don't nor would ever allow a free market system, profit is greater from there not being one. That also assumes that a free market system is something good which nothing indicates it would be. It would actually be pretty unstable, exploitative, and destructive. Libertarianism is absolutely explicit about wanting competition, if you think it doesn't than you need to start reading up on it from the beginning! Ask yourself how does business remove competition.
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman Again, how are they supposed to prevent the free interaction of people exactly? You have to back up your original assertion, not just make more assertions.
I do believe a free market would result in the greatest living standard for all, but that's not what we're discussing here.
Libertarianism is actually explicit about the fact that businesses DON'T want competition, you would know this if you've read or knew anything about libertarianism.
contd.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 businesses aren't people for one so it is far beyond the interaction of people. Business has hindered it in countless ways, not just through the state but through everything from monopolies, dumping products, blackballing employees, dominating the media and information, and always own Gov., countless things are done, you shouldn't need me to tell you. I said Libertarianism is explicit about wanting competition, maybe you need to pay attention and read more on it.
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman Businesses are simply made up of people, so yes it is part of the free interaction of people. The only conceivable way to keep out competition is through state intervention, that's why lobbyism is million dollar industry.
No, businesses don't want competition. Competition benefits the consumer not the supplier. Even if some libertarians were explicit about businesses wanting competition, something I've never heard libertarians say,
contd.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@Navywxman contd.
, indeed the explicitely say the opposite, it's not dependent on the idea that competition will only come about if businesses want it. The only thing it's dependent on is the fact that people are profit seeking, they seek to increase their wealth. The most effective way to do that in a free market is to serve the demands of people, i.e. entering the market.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 As I've told others, there never was, nor will there ever be a free market, it is a fiction that exists only in libertarian fantasies. Capital itself will ensure there is no free market, plus the confining of life to the buying and selling of stuff is ridiculous!
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman Yes there was a free market, in the western territories of the US that were stateless had a free market, the US itself has seen the majority of it's history as a mostly free market. And even if there were no prior examples that wouldn't be an argument either way..
What do you mean by "capital itself will ensure thre is no free market"?
crazypants88 1 month ago
libertarian is a way of beeing.You are against the initiation of force against you your property and the enviroment(that 7 billion people and theyr kids NEED to survive since we have a right to our lives).If a true libertarian society is possible(uncompromised),i dont know.Taxes on sigarettes is still theft for sigarette companyes and libertarians will not introduce a pollution free enviroment.The only real uncompromised libertarian world is anarchy,it just is.just my view
affilinet 1 month ago
@VirginiaVeteran Not only that, but lets be consistent. Why is a women, while driving to an abortion clinic, who swerves her vehicle to hit a protected species (eg a possum) who then aborts its fetus is liable up to 12 months jail, is free to end the life of her own offspring without risk of breaking the law??? Clearly some animals have greater liberty that humans.
ASignOfContradiction 1 month ago
If the fetus/baby can't survive outside it's mothers womb, then in my book it's not a person or a living human being. However, if it can survive independently, let's say at 8 months, then it is murder to abort the baby at that time.
bball44j 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@bball44j Toddlers, elderly(very old) and severly disabled people cant survive without help. So by your book its not a person?
Herimia 1 month ago
@Herimia
Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean survive in terms of getting fed or taken care of. What I meant to say is that if the baby can stay alive without the mom's womb, then he/she is a person. For example, if you take out the baby/fetus at 4 or 5 months there is no way it could survive. However, at some later stage like 8 months, it might. Although this is not a black and white concept.
bball44j 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For anyone interested in Libertarianism, I have comedic video series that I am starting which is on my channel. Ron Paul 2012
CommonSenseLako 2 months ago
I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. I believe freedom is what made this country (U.S.) great, not government interference. I differ with some libertarians on abortion, gay marriage, and national defense. I have no problem with letting gays do whatever they want, but a child raised by a mother and a father is ideal to being raised by a same sex couple or a single parent. Government shouldn't interfere with the economy but it should spend on keeping us safe.
Duke1839 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@Duke1839 you're about as much as a libertarian as glenn beck and sarah palin are. You claim to be for small government, except for on issues you don't agree with, then you want as much government as possible.
adisantos1 2 months ago
"Again, the teenager does not have to keep the child after it is born, there are literally countless people wanting to adopt. "
We already went over this, there aren't countless people wanting to adopt inner-city black children. That's not opinion, that's fact. Again you are cherry picking stats, there are plenty of people that make it out of poverty, but infinitely more that don't. Especially if you want to take away welfare, you're going to make it that much harder for people to escape
adisantos1 2 months ago
@adisantos1 I am not, it is like I said for every child adopted there are 30 couples wanting to adopt it. I know many couples wanting to adopt and race does not matter. My cousins are adopted into a mixed race home. That aside your socialist (and slightly racist) views are not libertarian so are irrelevant to the point at hand. If you are unable to accept the personal liberty of grown adults I don't think you will ever accept it of unborn children.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 Again, you are using personal experiences and isolated incidents as representation as a whole. My views aren't racist, because I'm not offering my personal opinion, I'm offering facts. In my perfect world, there would be a couple willing and ready to adopt every under privileged child in this country, but that simply isn't reality. If that was the case, then why are there so many minority children in group homes? You still haven't answered that question.
adisantos1 2 months ago
@Reu360 Now I'm sure you're going to throw out another isolated example of someone who did well in a group home, but for the vast majority of children they are hell. And how exactly are we supposed to care for these kids without welfare, you still haven't answered that question either.
My fundamental belief is that life doesn't begin at conception, so essentially my views are in line with the libertarian perspective, and aren't socialist in the slightest.
adisantos1 2 months ago
best of both worlds
CaliforniaVolante 2 months ago
This seems fair, relatively honest, respecting of individual rights and liberties. It seems that Libertarians are interested in the best interest of the American people, leaving the people to decide what's best for themselves. It does seem truly good. I guess that's why Liberals really, truly hate it. They hate anything good.
SuperAieee 2 months ago
Do Libertarians believe in the reservation of the right of the individual to keep and bear arms? What about nuclear arms?
JRudolph86 2 months ago
@JRudolph86 I'd guess most libertarians wouldn't be for civilians owning nuclear weapons, but I think it's important that civilians be ready and able to fight their governments if the need arises. There clearly is a gap of power between the small arms that civilians are normally allowed to keep and the weapons that any given military has.
I very much doubt some governments would as willing to oppress their citizens if they could fight back.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@crazypants88 Isn't it un-Libertarian to restrain an individual from doing ANYTHING short of infringing on someone elses life, liberty, or property? Merely owning a nuclear weapon isn't infringing on any of those said things... So in-theory, a true Libertarian should have no objection to someone merely owning a nuclear weapon as it doesn't violate anyone elses natural rights.
JRudolph86 2 months ago
@JRudolph86 Exactly, but not all libertarians would agree with this I assure you, but I do.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@crazypants88 So you have no objection with an individual harnessing the power to lay waste to a city in seconds? I can understand and agree with the statement that people kill people, guns don't.. however accidents do happen and in worst-case-scenario, someone can accidentally get hurt by an unsecured firearm. The trouble with owning a nuke is that thousands of people could die from unsecured nuke. Is the risk worth taking for absolute liberty? Or should we moderate Liberty?
JRudolph86 2 months ago
@JRudolph86 The exact same argument can be made to anyone that has nukes, states included. Yes accidents can happen but unless you can wipe out the knowledge on how to make a nuke, there will always be the threat of nukes. So as a deterrent for nuclear war, people should have equal firepower so there's the threat of mutually assured destruction.
crazypants88 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I suppose-- as long as you know risks and accept responsibilities. Good luck.
shackupyourstruly 2 months ago
Do Libertarians believe an individual has the right to own whatever pet it wants and keep it in its backyard? Say a Siberian Tiger, for example? I've always wanted one!
JRudolph86 2 months ago
I suppose-- as long as you know risks and accept responsibilities. Good luck.
shackupyourstruly 2 months ago
Just because you have small government does not always lend itself to more choices.
soldatna 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Why do Libertarians focus so much on government and not big business? We are so black and white in this country. There has to be a good guy and bad guy. At least with government we have some say. If government purchase land at least we have access to it. There is getting to be a lot conglomerates that are sucking the life right out of this country. Our communities are just starting look like industrial parks.
soldatna 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Don't businesses get big chiefly through government tinkering?
shackupyourstruly 2 months ago
@shackupyourstruly This seems to be the consensus but what do you do when big business has already become big?
soldatna 2 months ago
@soldatna Because the most common issues people have with big business are caused by government. They enable them to incorporate, subsidize them, erect artificial barriers to entry and bail them out when they're failing.
crazypants88 2 months ago
As a libertarian the only part I would disagree with him on is what he says about abortion. The problem with abortion is that it deprives someone of their right to life. It is indisputable that if an unaborted fetus is allowed to be born, assuming no rare complications, it will become a person. Also, premature babies are surviving longer and longer out of the womb. Abortion should treated as an act of violence and dealt with on the local state level.
Reu360 2 months ago in playlist Favorites 7
@Reu360 agreed!
luke23waltz 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@Reu360 I CONCUR!!!!
spudmustang 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Induced abortion may be bad, but, is it any better for a birthed child to become a ward of the state?
shackupyourstruly 2 months ago
@Reu360 Abortion may be an act of violence but you are ignoring the pregnants woman's right to her own body. If a pregnant woman do not wish to have a person living inside her, the fetus is a parasitic entity whose right to life is overriden by the woman's right to her own body.
sotflicka 2 months ago
@sotflicka The woman chose to have sex the direct foreseeable result of which is pregnancy. Libertarians believe that no entity (corporation, government, person) can deprive another entity of their rights. The exception to this is if an entity first acts to infringe another entity's rights in which case the right to self-defense comes into play. Since the unborn child only action is to live (assuming no harm to to the mother) it can't lose it's right to life simply for having the right to life.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 Well so does a condom, please, make sense before you write here.
Lukasinho123 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@Lukasinho123 Condom's prevent a life from being formed. The difference between abortion and a condom is that an abortion is killing a living fetus where as a condom which may prevent a hypothetical fetus from being formed. Since there is no unborn child, no life, it can't have the right to live. Put simply, hypothetical unborn children are not equal to real living unborn children.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 Well it's not a life before it popps out.
Lukasinho123 2 months ago
@Reu360 I'm not sure you realize the problems inherent in this "potential person" argument either. Why is there a right to a future life possessed by a zygote but not by the gametes which are its genesis? Every sperm and egg is a living human cell which has potential to become a complete human being. If "potential humans" have rights to life shouldn't we be having rampant sex to make sure that as many of our sperm and eggs meet so as to realize the "right to life" of potential persons?
dlane0308 2 months ago
@dlane0308 I never said potential person, I said unborn child. With potential person you are correct, you can't protect the rights of a hypothetical person. In order to turn a sperm and an egg into a person action (sex) needs to be taken. With an unborn child the sperm has already fertilized the egg to make an unborn child, the person is no longer hypothetical. No action needs to be taken in order to maintain the life of the unborn child.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 So life begins at conception then? Or being a person begins? So a single cell is a person? No action need be taken to maintain the life of the unborn child? What about the single mother who may not be financially able to care for the child? Or the prison system which this unborn fetus, statistically, would see later in life? Leave other peoples decisions to themselves, it's NOT your business. If you aren't a victim of her decision, then it's none of your freaking business.
mcapps1 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@mcapps1 1) an individuals life begins at conception 2) AFTER the child is born action does need to be taken to care for the child. That is why child assistant programs are available as well as adoption. 4) using your logic that unless I am the victim it is none of my business the oppression of the North Koreans is acceptable, the genocide by the Nazis is justified and the systematic rapes in Darfur are tolerable. The victim here is the unborn child which has no selfdefense so it is my business.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 What you said was that if a fetus is allowed to be born it will *become* a person, implying that a fetus is a potential person. Look at your post. "No action must be taken to maintain the life of the child after the sperm has fertilized the egg." What?? What do you think a pregnancy is if not action on the part of the mother's body? Do you not think that women should have control over their bodies?
dlane0308 2 months ago
@dlane0308 the first action that is taken is sex which is a choice the woman takes (sans rape) with the foreseeable consequence being child barring. Thus, she had the choice to not be pregnant. This is not like homosexuality or drug use, those are victimless crimes. Abortion destroys the life of the unborn child. Once pregnant, the child will grow inside the mother till it is born. The mothers actions are passive, with abortion, they become active.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 The purpose of most sex in the modern world is not to bear children, so it is not as if by choosing to have sex a woman is choosing to have children. In cases of abortion, the bearing of children is certainly not wanted. When you say that having a child is "passive," what you are saying is that the woman's body is doing something that she doesn't want it to do, without her choice. Abortion gives her control over the parts of her body where she previously didn't have it. cont...
dlane0308 2 months ago
@dlane0308 This comes back to my ski analogy. A skier skis down a hill for enjoyment. The skier, like the mother, is aware of the risk and even though both use protection it doesn't always work. Everyone expects the skier to live with the consequences of his/her choice, why is it different for the mother? At what point is the mother responsible. If she has the child and doesn't care for it is that acceptable? By having sex the woman takes on the responsibility to carry the child to birth.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 ...cont. Pregnancy is an active process in that it requires the mother's body. To say that it is simply passive in the sense that the woman doesn't have to input any mental effort is to miss the point. It involves and requires active input from her body, so she should have a choice in the matter. It doesn't matter that in some primitive state women had no active choice in the matter, now they do, and I think they should, at the least up to the point of viability.
dlane0308 2 months ago
@dlane0308 Americans have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Americans have the right to be hired as airplane pilots but as a pilot you can't quite your in the middle of a flight. Americans have the right to drive cars, but you can't drive recklessly without getting a ticket. People take actions and make choices everyday which have inherent responsibility. Sex is the same thing. You can't have sex then kill your unborn child. We are civilized, not savages.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 It is an indisputable fact that sperm is an essential requirement to become a fetus, therefore, masturbation should treated as an act of violence and dealt with on the local state level. Sperm has a right to life.
mcapps1 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@mcapps1 I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. Under that same logic every woman who has had a minstrel cycle should be charged with an act of violence. Every man who has sex should be charged with an act of violence (since only 1 sperm fertilizes the egg). You are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Until the sperm fertilizes the egg the unborn child is hypothetical. After the egg is fertilized the birth of a child is immanent sans any tragic complications.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 So what you're saying is that if you come from poverty and make a mistake when you're 15 or 16 and get pregnant, you should be forced to have the child and drop out of school, effectively ending all possibility that you escape from poverty? You raise a good point with the adoption. But let's say for argument's sake, that all of the aborted babies of the last twenty years were put up for adoption instead. Then who floats the bill for that then?
adisantos1 2 months ago
@adisantos1 If a teen gets pregnant the child can be put up for adoption. If she decides to raise the child that is her choice the results of which, good or bad, are not relevant. Adoptions are paid for by the adoptive parents. The adoption cost can also be reduced if the regulations are reduced (very libertarian). However, I ask you, who pays for the abortions? Abortions have been subsidized by tax dollars which is not very libertarian.
Reu360 2 months ago
@Reu360 Sorry to burst your bubble, but there just aren't many people lining up to adopt these poor inner-city hood babies. The reality of the situation is that these babies would wind up in foster or group homes (tax-payer subsidized of course) and grow up experiencing all sorts of psychological, sexual, and physical abuse, resulting in them becoming enormous drains to society. Now wouldn't it be better if they weren't born at all?
adisantos1 2 months ago
@adisantos1 Your premise is false. For each child adopted there are an about 30 couples wanting to adopt it. With more children available more couples will be able/willing to adopt (due to increased ease and reduced cost). That aside, if your thesis that foster kids are better off never being born we would have no John Lennon, Steve Jobs or Malcolm X. How many adults today who were raised in the foster care system say it would have been better if they were never born? Why do you get to choose?
Reu360 2 months ago
Comment removed
adisantos1 2 months ago