The first two minutes are pretty good, but after that you end up doing the same thing Republicans and Democrats do to each other - they show the other group in the poorest light possible using hyperbole. There are dumb people like this, but you try to make it seem like all Tea Party people are alike. The Tea Party was different people (libertarians, consers, repubs, demos) organizing under one basic premise - govt is too involved in day to day life. This video only detracts from that message...
Libertarians are divided on the issue of abortion. I see it as an act of violence (not because of any religious beliefs) but because the fetus has inheritance rights and medically is a person (a doctor can be sued of malpractice if he harms the fetus). In any case it is a 10th amendment issue since its not explicitly stated in the constitution..
Pretty much everything except the points on abortion and Obama being a fascist/socialist is right on. Abortion is not a religious issue it is a human rights issue, abortion is a violation of the libertarian principle of non aggression because it the initiation of force against an innocent person. The religious right may do a disservice to this by making it a religious issue but the facts are still the facts. And socialism and fascism in theory are difference but in practice are the same thing.
I agree with everthing except the abortion part that one is really difficult because i want to protect the freedoms of a person before they born because i belive that in many ways abortion is murder
@owenander No, Ron Paul is pro-life, but not all libertarians are pro life. I am pro-choice and let me explain why. I just believe it's the womans choice and also being an abortion doctor is a whole entire business to earn a living off. The governent shouldn't ban that. I'm a guy, but would I ever want my girlfriend or wife to get one? NEVER! But I can't enforce my views on others.. that's why we are libertarians. VOTE RON PAUL
Divide and conquer! For Obama to go to school indonesia you had to become an Indonesian citizen, to do this you had to renounce your American citizenship, making one ineligible. further the receipt form was analyzed and concluded to be a "crude fake" they try to mix in the Muslim hating bigotry with the valid birth issue to confuse the issue. Why has Obama spent millions fighting to not have to provide the long form?, and many libertarians are pro life! Divide and conquer! Democratic hit piece
Actually, socialist and fascist are more related than this robot libertarian thinks. While the video does reflect some great ideas on the Libertarian's side, the tea party girl isn't a great representation of a tea party person. I know a lot of tea party Libertarians who sound nothing like this chick. In fact, I did go to 1 or 2 local tea party rallies and didn't see any of this religious talk at all. It was all about taxes, money, and stay the hell out of our private lives.
@luminousnerd I think it obscures the educational value that this could have. Instead it merely seems bitter. It's pretty clear the Tea Partier in this conversation is ignorant as hell. This sucks, to say the least.
Some libertarians think abortion should be illegal, but those that think that still think it should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and when it endangers the health of the mother
@Dahlia1695 not 100% true, it was taken over by neo-conservative Christians. If they were conservatives they would actually support the limited government that the true tea-partiers call for.
@janenba352 Since when did conservatives EVER stand for limited government? They only talk the limit talk when they're out of power and only look limited when compared to liberalism. Only the Libertarian Ron Paul actually walks the walk. The real major difference between Neocons and Paleocons is who and what they want the thugerments guns on.
If any of the movements have shown Libertarians something it's that neither Liberals (or Lie-berals) and Conservatives (or Thug-servatives) can't be trusted. Buckely's Fusionism has largely failed and Dr. Paul's campaigns have shed light on how conservatives really feel about libertarians. People like Jack Hunter are one of the very very very few exceptions.
Your exposition of the "gay marriage" issue is a STRAW MAN.
First, there is nothing LIBERTARIAN about the current position of gay marriage activists.
"Marriage," strictly as a legal term, has a well established DEFINITION within COMMON LAW. The most ANTI-LIBERTY position you can take is to allow activists to UNILATERALLY impose EX POST FACTO changes to common law legal definitions!
If this is too complicated for you to understand, you have no business discussing these issues.
@UncleIrv As a libertarian I myself think the governement has no say in genders in marriage and find it ridiculous that they can control it in the first place. If anything its the church that should rabble about it, and we can't do anything about that, but they can still legally be wed and recognized.
Look to everyone here, anything like abortion or sexuality is something governements have no right to control, it voilates or freedom, if we ever truly did have freedom.....
Your reasoning rests on premises that are artificially narrow.
Marriage does have CONTRACT ramifications. Therefore it remains that you cannot alter contracts EX POST FACTO by changing common law definitions without due process.
With abortion, sex is not the issue. TAKING A HUMAN LIFE is the issue. To ignore that ramification is decidedly ANTI-libertarian.
You illustrate the UTOPIAN side of Libertarianism, which is alien to the Classical Liberalism of the Founders.
@UncleIrv A fetus is hardly human. I mean yeah it's unethical to have an abortion because you were stupid and had unprotected sex but its different for some situations
Sorry, but your comment has utterly no basis in fact.
A fetus is 100% human. It is a human being at a very early stage of development. This is just a biological fact. You would need to be completely ignorant of the most basic biology to claim otherwise.
See, this is what AMAZES me about pro-abortion people. If they simply argued that it is ethical to kill embryos, they would at least be arguing honestly. To argue that embryos "are not human" is insultingly dishonest.
Anti-abortion laws pertain to human decency not religious beliefs. How can you state that the tea party feels abortion is wrong due only to religious beliefs? I agreed with the first two arguments about Global involvement and Gay rights, but your last argument about abortion was created from the false premise that abortion is only disliked by religious people.
Isn't a large portion of tea party members libertarian and anti-war? There's a lot of diversity within the tea party. Ron Paul's a tea party supporter. You're depicting the more conservative ones.
@annonymous The difference between OWS and the Tea Party is that the former is asking the government that is wronging them to wrong someone else for their benefit. Tea Party folks want less government period.
While the libertarian here is right on most of these issues, this is a silly straw man discussion. There are social conservatives who can intellectually defend their views. I know this is just a funny video but anyone can feel like they are smart when they pretend that everyone with whom they disagree is this stupid.
That being said, I agree that there are plenty of tea partiers who think this way.
1) Prove it yourself ..."So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it"
2) Not only has he funded FOTF- he has this to say, he believes in the supposed "homosexual agenda."
3) Yes, he is. Americans For Prosperity has been funding him for a while.
4) "But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that, either..." cont'd
1) No. I am a capitalist who believes a little regulation never hurts, and that the rich and their corporations have acted irresponsibly due to free reign that has left countless out of work and a country in recession.
2) So, by greed you trade your dignity for a hypocrite?
3) "Out of $11,150 received, these six donors represent 72% of the total, and one of those donors is Americans for Prosperity. A visit to the Ron Paul Ohio website lists those donors as co-sponsors"
@outinsider 1) Fair enough. If you're a capitalist, then what problem do you have with the principle of self-ownership?
2) How the heck am I greedy? I have VALUES.
3) He's received a LOT more than $11,150. If you understand anything about libertarian history, you know of the schism between the Mises/Paul camp and the Koch/Cato camp.
1) I do not have a problem with self-ownership. I have a problem with people preaching it and not actually practicing it. In Ron Paul's case, preaching it as means to own anyone under him. He already has the cult of personality down.
2) Yes, monetary.
3)The article in which I referenced was in relation to monies donated from the Kochs to Americans for Prosperity. And, since Ron Paul is not essentially a libertarian by actual social definition terms, he does not qualify.
@outinsider 1) What the fuck are you talking about? He doesn't own slaves. X_X
2) No... it's called the non-aggression principle.
3) What? He's not a LIBERTINE, but he is a libertarian. He doesn't believe in practicing most of the "social liberties", but he does not believe the government should ban them.
2) Right, have you checked your butt for their stamp mark ?
3) Emma Goldman was a libertarian. Ron Paul is a fraud. He's sold you on the "libertarian" principles he has been spewing out of his mouth, when actually he is far from what a true libertarian is.
She was a libertarian socialist. She believed that government's power should be limited regarding privacy but still believed that a government is supposed to care for its constituency. That is libertarianism in the European sense. None of that Ron Paul nonsense. But, I guess that doesn't matter because you do not have the balls to be able to be intellectually challenged in debate. You just want your views confirmed to make up for your lack of conviction.
>"She believed that government's power should be limited regarding privacy but still believed that a government is supposed to care for its constituency."
No she didn't. She was a fucking anarchist. The only difference between her and normal libertarians is she hates capitalism and thinks nobody should be allowed to own property.
@outinsider Do you even know who Emma Goldman is? She's an anarcho-feminist icon. If you're really gonna resort to the "wikipedia can be edited" defense, you must be trolling.
Right, he believes only churches should deal with this matter-"If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values, but you can’t do it through legislation because force doesn’t work. But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that, either." But, if government is out of marriage entirely, how will marriages be recognized?
@outinsider Marriage has been a matter of common law for centuries. This whole needing-a-license-to-marry is a recent development (originally to regulate miscegenation).
Really? Well, we all know Ron Paul wants to turn back time with the elimination of everything the civil rights movements of the sixties and seventies brought to law, so this doesn't come as a surprise.
Actually, yes he does. Your white savior is a Judas Iscariot.
"“If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.”- RP on if he would have voted in the time of the Civil Rights Act.
Actually it does. If you have any real sense of American history, African Americans, by the rhetoric of the Constitution, were considered 3/5ths of a person due to their slave status, and even though they were emancipated in 1865(I know Tea Partiers hate Lincoln), Reconstruction laws created the poll tax which did not make them social equals. If the government did not intervene and establish the Civil Rights Act as law, then the majority of the population couldn't vote.
@outinsider I'm pretty sure the courts struck down those laws during the 1950s. Nobody's against a law mandating equality before the law, we're against a law that forced businessowners not to discriminate in their private affairs, which is what the Civil Rights Act of 1965 did. It's an unbelievable powergrab by the fed.
But, enforcing that businessowners not discriminate even if their private beliefs suggest otherwise is not considered unbelievable? Obviously, the government was just responding to the times of the people, which is what the Founding Father's idealistically intended. The federal government is not the enemy- it only becomes the enemy when the people make it so. Stripping down the federal government will not solve our nation's problems either, and suggesting that will solve no problems
@outinsider When the government is violating our privacy and putting us in prison for putting "bad" chemicals in our bodies, yes, the federal government is the problem.
The remarkable thing about libertarians is that we do no believe in utilitarian ethics - government is not bad because it does bad things, it is bad when it has the power to do bad things. It is the system that is immoral, not merely the way it is being used.
@slartybardfast7 Yes, they are. I'm glad a lot of people here are self-proclaimed libertarians but still believe abortion is wrong. Ron Paul, whom libertarians love, is pro-life. It's not a religious argument they are making. Christian religion says killing a child is wrong, but science tells us an embryo is a child.
I agree with all of libertarian values except abortion, genetically speaking fetuses are equal to humans and humans don't stop developing until around age 23, so my question to you is, when is it right to kill a human being even if it cant feel?
@aaronmoravek Be forewarned, there's different types of Libertarians. This video DOES NOT speak for many Libertarians. True Libertarians value life above law, and that any laws in place pertaining to abortion should removed. That would be taking one's life, and at the same time, one's liberty. It should not be mandated that a person be considered a person at "X" time. The life process starts at conception, and that truth cannot be debated.
Im not American but i like America and it dont deserve to die the people on the top that fuck it up are the ones that deserv to go to jail Ron Paul 2012.
Now I see why Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. RP is not a Pro-Choice Atheist. Anyway, I do not give the Tea Party any more of my time and money. Where were these people during Tea Party 2007? It has been hijacked from the "original intent" just like the constitution was. RP is the only candidate with a plan to cut real spending and they are all on the 9-9-9 bandwagon right now, which Grows government. What a joke...but sad, not funny.
As for the social issues in the Tea Party, it is almost like comparing swords and sabres. The Tea Party is not about any social issue, however most Tea Party members are socially conservative. Thus there is allot of cross over between groups with similar memberships especially at rallies. This is why you see the signs. There is also a fine line between opposing something and opposing funding something, that is often blurry.
This is why I can never be a Libertarian. First the TEA Party does not endorse social issues. Second they are not Republicans only, my TEA Party groups are made up of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Constitutionalists, and Natural Law. Their religions also vary from Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Morman, Catholic etc. Some of us are also in other groups that further define us, but we all agree that the government is too big. T=taxed E=enough A=already party.
@gramifran1 The government is not too big, multinational conglomerate too big to fail corporations who have a stranglehold over the government are too big.
It shouldn't be illegal to have an abortion, it should be illegal to perform one. That doesn't contradict freedom since the baby has the right not to be aborted
this is not a representation of me! a veteran and tea party supporter. what makes you think this is a validation of your point of view? for God so loved the WORLD~ that means all men. God is no respector of persons try reading the Word! He respects conditions and how we deal with them. This is sad we should be against the out of control government. by the way body soul and spirit not the same words or meanings. who cares where obama is from or not from he's at the healm of this missguided ship !
The person who wrote the script for the Tea Partier... does not portray the true beliefs of most Tea Partiers NOR of any TRUE Christian. Just one point of many... a Christian would NEVER say it's okay to hate a gay person.Even if it was a script from a real interview... the "tea partier" was not articulate and had some wrong facts. The worst argumentative point..."whatever..." Ugh! ... that was a dumb "skit."
@bweezy123 The script is accurate enough.... While most, and I say most verrryy loosely, tea partiers may not hate gay people they seek to take away someone's right to make them a 2nd class citizen. At best it is ignorance and at worst hatred. Besides that, libertarians and tea partiers would stand no ground against socialists. Libertarians get half-way there, and just fail to connect the dots, while tea partiers are an almost fascist phenomena.
@BeboBebopson Reeeeally? Can you give me a rational number on your "most" comment? Tea Party issues specifically relate to smaller government and economic responsibility of Congress. Gay rights is not mentioned in the Tea Party agenda. The object of the Tea Party is to spend less money on government, stop crony Capitalism in Congress, lower taxes, and increase available jobs, thus allowing hard working people to get jobs and support their families. Where do you get your information?
@bweezy123 16 percent of tea party activists support gay marriage rights while 40 percent oppose it. -New York Times/ CBS poll. The Tea Party Nation came out with a statement saying allowing gay marriage would doom America, whatever that means. It doesn't really matter, congress's approval is 9% now that the tea party has seats, that does not bode well for you. The tea party is a dying breed, just realize you're wingnuts who don't know what their talking about and join the occupy movement.
In the interests of clarity I wish "libertarians" would start referring to themselves as plutocrats. The word libertarian refers to a form of socialism. To say laissez capitalists like Mises or Hayek are libertarians is an Orwellian abuse of the term. It's the kind of 1984ish newspeak libertarians claim to hate.
It's in a woman's body. Somehow, that's the most essential property you can own, your own body. if there is anything the government shouldn't have any say over, it's what happens in your own body.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The government shouldn't have any say regardless of in or out of your body, house, country etc. The only exception to this ideal is if one prevents another's life. We shouldn't decide who lives or who dies ANYWHERE unless it's an act of protection for your own life.
I believe there should be no government, but that's a whole other debate. It's the woman's body that supports the life. If she wishes not too, that's her choice, not yours. Self-ownership mate, an unborn child lives off the mother inside her body, her own property. if she wishes it not too, no one can prohibit this.
Wrong. The government does not have to protect all life, it has to protect rights, rights exist only for moral actors. A blastocyst is not a moral actor.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I don't really believe there should be a government either, popular vote wins though I suppose. I identify more with the "libertarian-socialist" ideal.
Not in agreement. Blastocyst, mentally retarded etc...it doesn't matter...we don't have the right to decide who lives or dies...let alone determine which group is a "moral actor". Your message is not synonymous with liberty, we can't own another. That's called slavery, an enemy of liberty. I support liberty.
It does, but that doesn't mean it should. Some things should not be subject to popular vote. After all, popular vote is just tyranny by slight majority.
I too have come to identify with libertarian socialist ideals lately. I was already a civil libertarian, but I'm starting to tilt to libertarian socialism after having read and researched more about it and what I previously adhered, free market capitalism.
If you can't own another person, than how can you defend owning what's inside them, living and feeding of them, using their energy?
I agree we don't have the right to decide who lives or dies, but I don't consider a blastocyst a "who", I consider it a "what". The "who" is the woman. You can't decide for a "who".
I don't think we're going to reach any agreement on this issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.
You cannot have rights if they violate those of others. An unborn child's right to life violate the rights of a woman to engage in potentially lethal activities to the unborn child (smoking, drinking, extreme sports, punching one's own stomach) that she would otherwise have the right to do with her own body. So obviously there is a conflict of rights here, which means you cannot escape making a priority of greater rights.
To Continue: when rights would have to be prioritized, you cannot escape the simple fact, that a woman would be enslaved to the unborn child if the child's right to life supercedes her right to her own body. The other way around, the child is not enslaved because rather than the woman needing the child, the child needs the woman. This dependency means one is a slave while the other isn't. The enslaver by default has less rights.
the capitalist tea party was funded by koch brothers - thier idea of freedom is the freedom to not have to pay taxes or have enviromental restrictions on thier oil companies. freedom to buy the tea party and fund think tanks and buy politicians - they each have 22 bilion and want to eliminate minimum wage. the ows protest is real- there is a better way and no its not norwegian socialist system ( worlds highest median income and happiest people) its even better -watch zeitgeist moving forward
Man, libertarians remind me of classical liberalism. I find it funny that libertarians relabel themselves when they're the same thing. Its a good philosophy that worked for the founding of the US.
Oh, and Tea Party started as an economic protest against the bailouts of the big banks but, surprisingly, is now funded by big banks and big corporations. Hence, the Tea Party is now just a radical sect of the Republican Party.
BTW NEOCONS, READ VON CLAUSEWITZ! YOU PUSH, THEY PUSH BACK HARDER!
@algrand90 Although Libertarians often say that rights are absolutes because they come from God, what I said is still essentially the Libertarian position. I do believe you are being purposely misleading.
even abortion is not a government issue. it doesnt affect other people whether one person decides to abort a baby because if you're living you can't be aborted and therefore it can'tbe considered criminal in the sense that a criminal may also violate your rights. unless they went aborting other people's babies forcefully it's not a crime. the rejection of allowing an abortion is not a non excludable good therefore not a government issue. it's up to the doctor to decide whether they want to.
i think i agree with the libertarian on all aspects besides abortion. killing is wrong on any level. a woman's body does belong to her, but the fetus is a completely separate person. there is another solution if she is not willing to raise the child- like adoption. there are many couples who cannot conceive and same-sex couples who want a family. life is the greatest gift, to take it away from a baby human seems completely wrong.
do you agree with insest marriages do you agree with with assisted suicide (in a libertarian world you can also found a suicide assisting company people will pay you to kill them) do you agree with water privatization sea privatization ???,in a libertarian world you can import 1000 pandas from the china and kill them in front of people because they are your property you can also practice pedeophilia with a 12 years old child if he agrees WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD !!!!!!!!!!!
@algrand90 that was quite the rant. i do not agree with insect marriages because of the high morality rate, it doesn't make sense, to me, to allow a behavior where there can be innocent casualties. i wouldn't call assisted suicide- suicide. i would call that murder of a overwhelmed and deeply sad individual. that is not acceptable to me. can you please send links of all the stories/articles that you are referring to with the pandas, water privatization, ect? those are some ridiculous remarks.
@kiarg100 I am a Libertarian, but what worries me is the idea of complete economic freedom. If a company grows large enough, then competitors can not exist because they would simply undersell any emerging threats right out of business. It is done quite frequently in African states, for example, where regulation is only a theory and no real checks and balances are present. Don't understate this point please, cause it's a major obstacle for the ideology
first off let me tell that you are contradicting yourself by saying that you are libertarian and denying the right to assisted suicide (body property) and incest marriage(the freedom of choosing your partner)
concerning the pandas,they are an endangered species,my question is how can we dissuade someone(who let suppose doesnt like pandas)-in a libertarian legal system- to not import and kill a animal which faces extinction ????
@algrand90 First understand that a right is an absolute fact concerning the way intelligent beings must treat each other in order to prosper among each other. This is why capitalism as the system which fully ackowledges all true rights is the system in which the most prosperity is possible, for anybody. With this as a given, your right to own yourself is an absolute and you can only either ackowledge it or not. Even if it is your will to be a slave, it is still wrong, and should not be allowed.
@algrand90 i am not contradicting myself. people can find their own ways of killing themselves w/o the help of others. i believe people own their own bodies and should be able to do with them what they will as long as they're not causing harm to another individual body (human/animal). is this not a libertarian value? if so, the libertarians will not be leading the panda massacre. incest falls into that value as well.yes, marry whomever, but there needs to be restrictions when lives are at stake.
i think you are a conservative or an ultraliberal-conservative because libertarians DO recognize the right to suicide AND assisted suicide(search for walter bollok a famous libertarian allumni who also believes that adults have the right to have sex with a consent child "an under 16 years old minor") they also recognize abortion and voluntary slavery (ALL THIS IN THE NAME OF BODY OWNERSHIP, PROPERTY RIGHT , THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND FREE MARKET!!!!!
@algrand90 i think i may agree with you. i don't know i am a true libertarian, all i meant was that i agreed with the character above except with the idea about abortion. i am still trying to wrap my head around every aspect of political parties and what they really stand for and what other parties think they stand for. although, do you believe walter bollok may be an extreme example of libertarianism? all the claims above seem rather extreme...
@algrand90 I've searched for a few different spellings of this "Walter Bollok" and found nothing. Please provide your own link to prove you did not just make him up. Regardless, Libertarian ideology is not so singular that it has no inner debates. Surely there are even different degrees of Libertarianism, and there are other distinct but very similar ideologies. Criticizing some of the things that some Libertarians believe is not valid, as a critique of other things believed by others of them.
ROFL. still rolling... My ribs are hurting. This is hilarious.
glamkitten24 1 week ago
Wasn't Thomas Jefferson a Deist?
BoxheadTheGriefer 2 weeks ago
Put every political system/political party on their own damn island and be done with it
BoxheadTheGriefer 2 weeks ago
Allah means father
sweetone1896 2 weeks ago
shouldn't run a government on your religion
drunkglitch 3 weeks ago
The first two minutes are pretty good, but after that you end up doing the same thing Republicans and Democrats do to each other - they show the other group in the poorest light possible using hyperbole. There are dumb people like this, but you try to make it seem like all Tea Party people are alike. The Tea Party was different people (libertarians, consers, repubs, demos) organizing under one basic premise - govt is too involved in day to day life. This video only detracts from that message...
ToSaveANationDotCom 3 weeks ago
Libertarians are divided on the issue of abortion. I see it as an act of violence (not because of any religious beliefs) but because the fetus has inheritance rights and medically is a person (a doctor can be sued of malpractice if he harms the fetus). In any case it is a 10th amendment issue since its not explicitly stated in the constitution..
ltajambi 1 month ago
I'm a libertarian but I still have a conservative belief on abortion.
Meh oh well, I guess there's all sorts of shades in every political party.
We need to identify the true political enemy here though, it aint the Tea Party. It's those damn Leftists and Neocons.
1337wafflezz 1 month ago
How is it that Libertarians are the only people whose political views don't have logical fallacies, but there are so few of us?
Vindigary 1 month ago
Libertarian FTW
RUDY2295 1 month ago
Pretty much everything except the points on abortion and Obama being a fascist/socialist is right on. Abortion is not a religious issue it is a human rights issue, abortion is a violation of the libertarian principle of non aggression because it the initiation of force against an innocent person. The religious right may do a disservice to this by making it a religious issue but the facts are still the facts. And socialism and fascism in theory are difference but in practice are the same thing.
BladeEdge86 1 month ago
I agree with everthing except the abortion part that one is really difficult because i want to protect the freedoms of a person before they born because i belive that in many ways abortion is murder
SUBinfinit 1 month ago
donate to ron paul
BobbyH2012 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=3jbTxbY6-Oo
ronpaulfan1 1 month ago
@owenander Libertarians are split on the issue of abortion.
freakylocz14 1 month ago
lol xD
"drugs are bad".
reminds me of Mr. Mackey from SouthPark.
PsikoProductions 1 month ago
Libertarians are pro-life
owenander 1 month ago
@owenander No, Ron Paul is pro-life, but not all libertarians are pro life. I am pro-choice and let me explain why. I just believe it's the womans choice and also being an abortion doctor is a whole entire business to earn a living off. The governent shouldn't ban that. I'm a guy, but would I ever want my girlfriend or wife to get one? NEVER! But I can't enforce my views on others.. that's why we are libertarians. VOTE RON PAUL
TheSouthpaw1993 1 month ago
Divide and conquer! For Obama to go to school indonesia you had to become an Indonesian citizen, to do this you had to renounce your American citizenship, making one ineligible. further the receipt form was analyzed and concluded to be a "crude fake" they try to mix in the Muslim hating bigotry with the valid birth issue to confuse the issue. Why has Obama spent millions fighting to not have to provide the long form?, and many libertarians are pro life! Divide and conquer! Democratic hit piece
14bigthor88 1 month ago
@14bigthor88 where does it say so in the Indonesian or American constitution?
Mahmood42978 1 month ago
why don't the cars ever move?
RoyalOilPainsPicture 1 month ago
Actually, socialist and fascist are more related than this robot libertarian thinks. While the video does reflect some great ideas on the Libertarian's side, the tea party girl isn't a great representation of a tea party person. I know a lot of tea party Libertarians who sound nothing like this chick. In fact, I did go to 1 or 2 local tea party rallies and didn't see any of this religious talk at all. It was all about taxes, money, and stay the hell out of our private lives.
TheRealGeekmom 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
/watch?v=yDW0av0XOyw&list=LLlTeS9GudF7U7WUweY8K4EQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video
ThePeopleForRonPaul 2 months ago
Well this isn't biased at all!
lilhunkeswizzle 2 months ago
Comment removed
superclaydude 2 months ago
Comment removed
superclaydude 2 months ago
@lilhunkeswizzle Bias isn't the point... he made several clear reasons why the current state of the Tea Party is illogical.
luminousnerd 2 months ago
@luminousnerd I think it obscures the educational value that this could have. Instead it merely seems bitter. It's pretty clear the Tea Partier in this conversation is ignorant as hell. This sucks, to say the least.
lilhunkeswizzle 1 month ago
Some libertarians think abortion should be illegal, but those that think that still think it should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and when it endangers the health of the mother
atormanen 2 months ago
Some fo the tea party is libertarians.
heatbucspies55 2 months ago
lol "I'll pray for you." You nailed it !!!
kokocipher 2 months ago 2
lol I love this video, good job.
kokocipher 2 months ago
This title doesn't make sense. The Tea Party was started by Libertarian's then taken over by Conservative Christian Republicans.
Dahlia1695 2 months ago 26
@Dahlia1695 not 100% true, it was taken over by neo-conservative Christians. If they were conservatives they would actually support the limited government that the true tea-partiers call for.
janenba352 2 months ago
@janenba352 Since when did conservatives EVER stand for limited government? They only talk the limit talk when they're out of power and only look limited when compared to liberalism. Only the Libertarian Ron Paul actually walks the walk. The real major difference between Neocons and Paleocons is who and what they want the thugerments guns on.
chevydriver1123 1 month ago
@chevydriver1123 decades ago
janenba352 1 month ago
@Dahlia1695 you are absolutely right and therefore true libertarians and ron paul supporters should distance themselves form the tea party movement.
davidreefer 2 months ago
@Dahlia1695 theres nothing wrong with that though we basically support small govt and thats really all that matters
sk8erfreak9242 1 week ago
Very good points made.
CollinsCab 2 months ago
If any of the movements have shown Libertarians something it's that neither Liberals (or Lie-berals) and Conservatives (or Thug-servatives) can't be trusted. Buckely's Fusionism has largely failed and Dr. Paul's campaigns have shed light on how conservatives really feel about libertarians. People like Jack Hunter are one of the very very very few exceptions.
chevydriver1123 3 months ago 2
Libertarians founded the tea party.
MrSafetymeeting 3 months ago
Your exposition of the "gay marriage" issue is a STRAW MAN.
First, there is nothing LIBERTARIAN about the current position of gay marriage activists.
"Marriage," strictly as a legal term, has a well established DEFINITION within COMMON LAW. The most ANTI-LIBERTY position you can take is to allow activists to UNILATERALLY impose EX POST FACTO changes to common law legal definitions!
If this is too complicated for you to understand, you have no business discussing these issues.
UncleIrv 3 months ago
@UncleIrv As a libertarian I myself think the governement has no say in genders in marriage and find it ridiculous that they can control it in the first place. If anything its the church that should rabble about it, and we can't do anything about that, but they can still legally be wed and recognized.
Look to everyone here, anything like abortion or sexuality is something governements have no right to control, it voilates or freedom, if we ever truly did have freedom.....
Trashcansam123 3 months ago
@Trashcansam123
Your reasoning rests on premises that are artificially narrow.
Marriage does have CONTRACT ramifications. Therefore it remains that you cannot alter contracts EX POST FACTO by changing common law definitions without due process.
With abortion, sex is not the issue. TAKING A HUMAN LIFE is the issue. To ignore that ramification is decidedly ANTI-libertarian.
You illustrate the UTOPIAN side of Libertarianism, which is alien to the Classical Liberalism of the Founders.
UncleIrv 3 months ago
@UncleIrv A fetus is hardly human. I mean yeah it's unethical to have an abortion because you were stupid and had unprotected sex but its different for some situations
Trashcansam123 3 months ago
@Trashcansam123
Sorry, but your comment has utterly no basis in fact.
A fetus is 100% human. It is a human being at a very early stage of development. This is just a biological fact. You would need to be completely ignorant of the most basic biology to claim otherwise.
See, this is what AMAZES me about pro-abortion people. If they simply argued that it is ethical to kill embryos, they would at least be arguing honestly. To argue that embryos "are not human" is insultingly dishonest.
UncleIrv 3 months ago
Anti-abortion laws pertain to human decency not religious beliefs. How can you state that the tea party feels abortion is wrong due only to religious beliefs? I agreed with the first two arguments about Global involvement and Gay rights, but your last argument about abortion was created from the false premise that abortion is only disliked by religious people.
MrMrbadzik 3 months ago
thank god for libeterian
Rasterius 3 months ago
Isn't a large portion of tea party members libertarian and anti-war? There's a lot of diversity within the tea party. Ron Paul's a tea party supporter. You're depicting the more conservative ones.
Onion836 3 months ago
@Onion836 The more conservative ones are the majority right now...hence: AVERAGE Tea Partier.
emightis 3 months ago
Is there a Libertarian vs Liberal video? That would be equally funny.
ilazernerd 3 months ago 17
@annonymous The difference between OWS and the Tea Party is that the former is asking the government that is wronging them to wrong someone else for their benefit. Tea Party folks want less government period.
MasterElecBob 3 months ago
Pretty accurate depiction of the typical tea party remember.
YourZabbas 3 months ago
While the libertarian here is right on most of these issues, this is a silly straw man discussion. There are social conservatives who can intellectually defend their views. I know this is just a funny video but anyone can feel like they are smart when they pretend that everyone with whom they disagree is this stupid.
That being said, I agree that there are plenty of tea partiers who think this way.
darlinglittlemammy 3 months ago
'he's also a nazi atheist muslim' ROFL
SanguineBullet667 3 months ago
the tea party allows for government to spend way too much on the military industrial complex. that's one of the largest differences.
SanguineBullet667 3 months ago
this is the standard thinking of tea-partiers. if you arnt a libertatian, you are brainwashed or an idiot.
toSTONEiGO 3 months ago
1) Ron Paul is a fraud.
2) This was interesting to compare actual libertarianism with Tea Party libertarianism.
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider How is he a fraud.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
1) He views people as property
2)He has helped fund Focus On The Family for years
3)He is funded by the Koch Brothers via Americans For Prosperity
4)He is against two gay people getting legally married
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider 1) No he doesn't, 2) Prove it, 3) No he isn't, 4) Misrepresenting his beliefs.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
1) Prove it yourself ..."So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it"
2) Not only has he funded FOTF- he has this to say, he believes in the supposed "homosexual agenda."
3) Yes, he is. Americans For Prosperity has been funding him for a while.
4) "But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that, either..." cont'd
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider 1) There's a difference between a principle of self-ownership and believing "people are property". Are you a communist?
2) Who gives a fuck? I'm LGBT and I still support him. There are more important things at stake.
3) This Koch bogeyman is so tiresome. Do you have proof?
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
1) No. I am a capitalist who believes a little regulation never hurts, and that the rich and their corporations have acted irresponsibly due to free reign that has left countless out of work and a country in recession.
2) So, by greed you trade your dignity for a hypocrite?
3) "Out of $11,150 received, these six donors represent 72% of the total, and one of those donors is Americans for Prosperity. A visit to the Ron Paul Ohio website lists those donors as co-sponsors"
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider 1) Fair enough. If you're a capitalist, then what problem do you have with the principle of self-ownership?
2) How the heck am I greedy? I have VALUES.
3) He's received a LOT more than $11,150. If you understand anything about libertarian history, you know of the schism between the Mises/Paul camp and the Koch/Cato camp.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
1) I do not have a problem with self-ownership. I have a problem with people preaching it and not actually practicing it. In Ron Paul's case, preaching it as means to own anyone under him. He already has the cult of personality down.
2) Yes, monetary.
3)The article in which I referenced was in relation to monies donated from the Kochs to Americans for Prosperity. And, since Ron Paul is not essentially a libertarian by actual social definition terms, he does not qualify.
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider 1) What the fuck are you talking about? He doesn't own slaves. X_X
2) No... it's called the non-aggression principle.
3) What? He's not a LIBERTINE, but he is a libertarian. He doesn't believe in practicing most of the "social liberties", but he does not believe the government should ban them.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
1)He owns you.
2) Right, have you checked your butt for their stamp mark ?
3) Emma Goldman was a libertarian. Ron Paul is a fraud. He's sold you on the "libertarian" principles he has been spewing out of his mouth, when actually he is far from what a true libertarian is.
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider Emma Goldman was a socialist. Shoulda figured you were a troll. Dunno why I took the bait anyway.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
She was a libertarian socialist. She believed that government's power should be limited regarding privacy but still believed that a government is supposed to care for its constituency. That is libertarianism in the European sense. None of that Ron Paul nonsense. But, I guess that doesn't matter because you do not have the balls to be able to be intellectually challenged in debate. You just want your views confirmed to make up for your lack of conviction.
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider >"She was a libertarian socialist."
Right. Aka, insane.
>"She believed that government's power should be limited regarding privacy but still believed that a government is supposed to care for its constituency."
No she didn't. She was a fucking anarchist. The only difference between her and normal libertarians is she hates capitalism and thinks nobody should be allowed to own property.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
Wow, what Texas-produced history book did you get that out of?
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider Wikipedia
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
That resource is questionable. But, have you consulted others? Or, like your political philosophy, was that the "easy" way out?
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider Do you even know who Emma Goldman is? She's an anarcho-feminist icon. If you're really gonna resort to the "wikipedia can be edited" defense, you must be trolling.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
I know how Emma Goldman is. I don't think you don't. But that's okay, you don't know who Ron Paul really is anyway.
outinsider 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outinsider >"I know how Emma Goldman is."
And you're denying she's an anarchist?
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
"I think marriage should be between a single man and a single woman. And the federal government shouldn’t be involved."- his words
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider Key phrase being "shouldn't be involved". He believes in the government getting out of ALL marriage.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
Right, he believes only churches should deal with this matter-"If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values, but you can’t do it through legislation because force doesn’t work. But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that, either." But, if government is out of marriage entirely, how will marriages be recognized?
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider Marriage has been a matter of common law for centuries. This whole needing-a-license-to-marry is a recent development (originally to regulate miscegenation).
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
Really? Well, we all know Ron Paul wants to turn back time with the elimination of everything the civil rights movements of the sixties and seventies brought to law, so this doesn't come as a surprise.
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider No he doesn't, but thanks for playing!
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
Actually, yes he does. Your white savior is a Judas Iscariot.
"“If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.”- RP on if he would have voted in the time of the Civil Rights Act.
outinsider 3 months ago
Comment removed
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@outinsider Yes, and I would have voted against that act too. Doesn't make me a racist.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
Actually it does. If you have any real sense of American history, African Americans, by the rhetoric of the Constitution, were considered 3/5ths of a person due to their slave status, and even though they were emancipated in 1865(I know Tea Partiers hate Lincoln), Reconstruction laws created the poll tax which did not make them social equals. If the government did not intervene and establish the Civil Rights Act as law, then the majority of the population couldn't vote.
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider I'm pretty sure the courts struck down those laws during the 1950s. Nobody's against a law mandating equality before the law, we're against a law that forced businessowners not to discriminate in their private affairs, which is what the Civil Rights Act of 1965 did. It's an unbelievable powergrab by the fed.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
But, enforcing that businessowners not discriminate even if their private beliefs suggest otherwise is not considered unbelievable? Obviously, the government was just responding to the times of the people, which is what the Founding Father's idealistically intended. The federal government is not the enemy- it only becomes the enemy when the people make it so. Stripping down the federal government will not solve our nation's problems either, and suggesting that will solve no problems
outinsider 3 months ago
@outinsider When the government is violating our privacy and putting us in prison for putting "bad" chemicals in our bodies, yes, the federal government is the problem.
The remarkable thing about libertarians is that we do no believe in utilitarian ethics - government is not bad because it does bad things, it is bad when it has the power to do bad things. It is the system that is immoral, not merely the way it is being used.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Madfoot713
So, in your opinion, what is the point of government at all if its always the problem?
outinsider 3 months ago
u got the clothing styles backwards commie faggot
jxhensley 3 months ago
I agree I am a libertarian, but I do not agree with abortion.
buffalohunter95 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012!
stephenabm 3 months ago
Poor straw-man arguments.
slartybardfast7 3 months ago
@slartybardfast7 Yes, they are. I'm glad a lot of people here are self-proclaimed libertarians but still believe abortion is wrong. Ron Paul, whom libertarians love, is pro-life. It's not a religious argument they are making. Christian religion says killing a child is wrong, but science tells us an embryo is a child.
phil8888 3 months ago
@phil8888 No it doesn't.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
I agree with all of libertarian values except abortion, genetically speaking fetuses are equal to humans and humans don't stop developing until around age 23, so my question to you is, when is it right to kill a human being even if it cant feel?
aaronmoravek 3 months ago
@aaronmoravek Be forewarned, there's different types of Libertarians. This video DOES NOT speak for many Libertarians. True Libertarians value life above law, and that any laws in place pertaining to abortion should removed. That would be taking one's life, and at the same time, one's liberty. It should not be mandated that a person be considered a person at "X" time. The life process starts at conception, and that truth cannot be debated.
yooperd 3 months ago
@yooperd >"The life process starts at conception"
That is insane. Why should a zygote be granted all the rights of a human being?
Madfoot713 3 months ago
@Napkin65 where>>??? only las vegas
folladordeprostis 3 months ago
ron paul!
hugoo941 3 months ago
Hope ron paul would legalize prostitution,we need whores to suck our cocks
folladordeprostis 3 months ago
@folladordeprostis lol
harrisonconstantinou 3 months ago
"i will pray for you" lol it pisses me off when when they say that
steroidsR4fantastic 3 months ago
Im not American but i like America and it dont deserve to die the people on the top that fuck it up are the ones that deserv to go to jail Ron Paul 2012.
Saura74 3 months ago
Now I see why Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. RP is not a Pro-Choice Atheist. Anyway, I do not give the Tea Party any more of my time and money. Where were these people during Tea Party 2007? It has been hijacked from the "original intent" just like the constitution was. RP is the only candidate with a plan to cut real spending and they are all on the 9-9-9 bandwagon right now, which Grows government. What a joke...but sad, not funny.
isabella2cents 3 months ago
Hey a lot of libertarians don't support abortion though because it's violence against another person.
dubified89 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I don't care!" I love that
dubified89 3 months ago
As for the social issues in the Tea Party, it is almost like comparing swords and sabres. The Tea Party is not about any social issue, however most Tea Party members are socially conservative. Thus there is allot of cross over between groups with similar memberships especially at rallies. This is why you see the signs. There is also a fine line between opposing something and opposing funding something, that is often blurry.
Booger414 4 months ago
This is why I can never be a Libertarian. First the TEA Party does not endorse social issues. Second they are not Republicans only, my TEA Party groups are made up of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Constitutionalists, and Natural Law. Their religions also vary from Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Morman, Catholic etc. Some of us are also in other groups that further define us, but we all agree that the government is too big. T=taxed E=enough A=already party.
gramifran1 4 months ago
@gramifran1 The government is not too big, multinational conglomerate too big to fail corporations who have a stranglehold over the government are too big.
BeboBebopson 4 months ago
It shouldn't be illegal to have an abortion, it should be illegal to perform one. That doesn't contradict freedom since the baby has the right not to be aborted
mart83648 4 months ago
Baby's are human beings. A fetus is not the woman's body
mart83648 4 months ago
this is not a representation of me! a veteran and tea party supporter. what makes you think this is a validation of your point of view? for God so loved the WORLD~ that means all men. God is no respector of persons try reading the Word! He respects conditions and how we deal with them. This is sad we should be against the out of control government. by the way body soul and spirit not the same words or meanings. who cares where obama is from or not from he's at the healm of this missguided ship !
jpt0558 4 months ago
Libertarians live in a fantasy world in which people are rational...
BeboBebopson 4 months ago
T.axed E.nough A.lready. Period. Signed a Tea Party Voter.
MadMarkPhx 4 months ago
The person who wrote the script for the Tea Partier... does not portray the true beliefs of most Tea Partiers NOR of any TRUE Christian. Just one point of many... a Christian would NEVER say it's okay to hate a gay person.Even if it was a script from a real interview... the "tea partier" was not articulate and had some wrong facts. The worst argumentative point..."whatever..." Ugh! ... that was a dumb "skit."
bweezy123 4 months ago
@bweezy123 The script is accurate enough.... While most, and I say most verrryy loosely, tea partiers may not hate gay people they seek to take away someone's right to make them a 2nd class citizen. At best it is ignorance and at worst hatred. Besides that, libertarians and tea partiers would stand no ground against socialists. Libertarians get half-way there, and just fail to connect the dots, while tea partiers are an almost fascist phenomena.
BeboBebopson 4 months ago
@BeboBebopson Reeeeally? Can you give me a rational number on your "most" comment? Tea Party issues specifically relate to smaller government and economic responsibility of Congress. Gay rights is not mentioned in the Tea Party agenda. The object of the Tea Party is to spend less money on government, stop crony Capitalism in Congress, lower taxes, and increase available jobs, thus allowing hard working people to get jobs and support their families. Where do you get your information?
bweezy123 4 months ago
@bweezy123 16 percent of tea party activists support gay marriage rights while 40 percent oppose it. -New York Times/ CBS poll. The Tea Party Nation came out with a statement saying allowing gay marriage would doom America, whatever that means. It doesn't really matter, congress's approval is 9% now that the tea party has seats, that does not bode well for you. The tea party is a dying breed, just realize you're wingnuts who don't know what their talking about and join the occupy movement.
BeboBebopson 4 months ago
In the interests of clarity I wish "libertarians" would start referring to themselves as plutocrats. The word libertarian refers to a form of socialism. To say laissez capitalists like Mises or Hayek are libertarians is an Orwellian abuse of the term. It's the kind of 1984ish newspeak libertarians claim to hate.
perdondaris 4 months ago
those are not true Tea Partiers. that's a representation of a fucking neo-con who's co-opted the Tea Party.
the real tea party was founded by libertarians who support ron paul
dab0331 4 months ago
Drugs are bad, mmkay?
rosstripi 4 months ago
I will pray for you, best ending ever. and this is all totally true, you basically described my parents with the Tea Party activist.
urbanterror59 4 months ago
Ron Paul is the father of the Tea Party and the only Tea Party candidate and he's not anything like this.
luminousnerd 4 months ago
lol
JeannotvanBerlo123 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm in agreement for the most part except what's ALREADY OBVIOUS...An unborn child is NOT the woman's body.
SuperIrvinJ 4 months ago
I'm in agreement for the most part except what's ALREADY OBVIOUS...An unborn child is NOT the woman's body.
SuperIrvinJ 4 months ago
@SuperIrvinJ
It's in a woman's body. Somehow, that's the most essential property you can own, your own body. if there is anything the government shouldn't have any say over, it's what happens in your own body.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The government shouldn't have any say regardless of in or out of your body, house, country etc. The only exception to this ideal is if one prevents another's life. We shouldn't decide who lives or who dies ANYWHERE unless it's an act of protection for your own life.
SuperIrvinJ 4 months ago
@SuperIrvinJ
I believe there should be no government, but that's a whole other debate. It's the woman's body that supports the life. If she wishes not too, that's her choice, not yours. Self-ownership mate, an unborn child lives off the mother inside her body, her own property. if she wishes it not too, no one can prohibit this.
Wrong. The government does not have to protect all life, it has to protect rights, rights exist only for moral actors. A blastocyst is not a moral actor.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I don't really believe there should be a government either, popular vote wins though I suppose. I identify more with the "libertarian-socialist" ideal.
Not in agreement. Blastocyst, mentally retarded etc...it doesn't matter...we don't have the right to decide who lives or dies...let alone determine which group is a "moral actor". Your message is not synonymous with liberty, we can't own another. That's called slavery, an enemy of liberty. I support liberty.
SuperIrvinJ 4 months ago
@SuperIrvinJ
"popular vote wins though I suppose"
It does, but that doesn't mean it should. Some things should not be subject to popular vote. After all, popular vote is just tyranny by slight majority.
I too have come to identify with libertarian socialist ideals lately. I was already a civil libertarian, but I'm starting to tilt to libertarian socialism after having read and researched more about it and what I previously adhered, free market capitalism.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SuperIrvinJ
If you can't own another person, than how can you defend owning what's inside them, living and feeding of them, using their energy?
I agree we don't have the right to decide who lives or dies, but I don't consider a blastocyst a "who", I consider it a "what". The "who" is the woman. You can't decide for a "who".
I don't think we're going to reach any agreement on this issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SuperIrvinJ
You cannot have rights if they violate those of others. An unborn child's right to life violate the rights of a woman to engage in potentially lethal activities to the unborn child (smoking, drinking, extreme sports, punching one's own stomach) that she would otherwise have the right to do with her own body. So obviously there is a conflict of rights here, which means you cannot escape making a priority of greater rights.
tridentmovies 4 months ago
@SuperIrvinJ
To Continue: when rights would have to be prioritized, you cannot escape the simple fact, that a woman would be enslaved to the unborn child if the child's right to life supercedes her right to her own body. The other way around, the child is not enslaved because rather than the woman needing the child, the child needs the woman. This dependency means one is a slave while the other isn't. The enslaver by default has less rights.
tridentmovies 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the capitalist tea party was funded by koch brothers - thier idea of freedom is the freedom to not have to pay taxes or have enviromental restrictions on thier oil companies. freedom to buy the tea party and fund think tanks and buy politicians - they each have 22 bilion and want to eliminate minimum wage. the ows protest is real- there is a better way and no its not norwegian socialist system ( worlds highest median income and happiest people) its even better -watch zeitgeist moving forward
MrIzzyDizzy 4 months ago
Man, libertarians remind me of classical liberalism. I find it funny that libertarians relabel themselves when they're the same thing. Its a good philosophy that worked for the founding of the US.
Oh, and Tea Party started as an economic protest against the bailouts of the big banks but, surprisingly, is now funded by big banks and big corporations. Hence, the Tea Party is now just a radical sect of the Republican Party.
BTW NEOCONS, READ VON CLAUSEWITZ! YOU PUSH, THEY PUSH BACK HARDER!
aldreato 4 months ago
This is awesome.
theopenmind05 4 months ago
what a tool of a video. homos are not talked about in the new testament nor are they said to die in the new testament.
second this video is a turd as it just hits on hot button topics that are used to divert attention from real issues.
farce
citan84 4 months ago
@citan84
did u get the point though?
okohiaj 4 months ago
@algrand90 Although Libertarians often say that rights are absolutes because they come from God, what I said is still essentially the Libertarian position. I do believe you are being purposely misleading.
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
though i totally disagree with walter block and the whole libertarian utopia in general i think he is one of the few not contradicting himself
algrand90 4 months ago
Nazi Atheist Muslim? Obama must actually be pretty badass
shanemosser 4 months ago
even abortion is not a government issue. it doesnt affect other people whether one person decides to abort a baby because if you're living you can't be aborted and therefore it can'tbe considered criminal in the sense that a criminal may also violate your rights. unless they went aborting other people's babies forcefully it's not a crime. the rejection of allowing an abortion is not a non excludable good therefore not a government issue. it's up to the doctor to decide whether they want to.
maxgunn555 4 months ago
So funny and true. Ron Paul 2012.
gotitans999 4 months ago 16
I support American liberties. Ron Paul 2012!
polarbearanne 4 months ago 26
Libertarians don't necessarily support abortion at all stages of pregnancy
ElJefer 4 months ago
"He is an indonesian kenyan!"
ElJefer 4 months ago
Lol "Are you saying I don't support myself?"
ElJefer 4 months ago
i think i agree with the libertarian on all aspects besides abortion. killing is wrong on any level. a woman's body does belong to her, but the fetus is a completely separate person. there is another solution if she is not willing to raise the child- like adoption. there are many couples who cannot conceive and same-sex couples who want a family. life is the greatest gift, to take it away from a baby human seems completely wrong.
kiarg100 4 months ago
@kiarg100
do you agree with insest marriages do you agree with with assisted suicide (in a libertarian world you can also found a suicide assisting company people will pay you to kill them) do you agree with water privatization sea privatization ???,in a libertarian world you can import 1000 pandas from the china and kill them in front of people because they are your property you can also practice pedeophilia with a 12 years old child if he agrees WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD !!!!!!!!!!!
algrand90 4 months ago
@algrand90 that was quite the rant. i do not agree with insect marriages because of the high morality rate, it doesn't make sense, to me, to allow a behavior where there can be innocent casualties. i wouldn't call assisted suicide- suicide. i would call that murder of a overwhelmed and deeply sad individual. that is not acceptable to me. can you please send links of all the stories/articles that you are referring to with the pandas, water privatization, ect? those are some ridiculous remarks.
kiarg100 4 months ago
@kiarg100 I am a Libertarian, but what worries me is the idea of complete economic freedom. If a company grows large enough, then competitors can not exist because they would simply undersell any emerging threats right out of business. It is done quite frequently in African states, for example, where regulation is only a theory and no real checks and balances are present. Don't understate this point please, cause it's a major obstacle for the ideology
EarlRegent 4 months ago
@EarlRegent i was unaware about the underselling of companies; i will look into it. thank you for information.
kiarg100 4 months ago
@kiarg100
first off let me tell that you are contradicting yourself by saying that you are libertarian and denying the right to assisted suicide (body property) and incest marriage(the freedom of choosing your partner)
concerning the pandas,they are an endangered species,my question is how can we dissuade someone(who let suppose doesnt like pandas)-in a libertarian legal system- to not import and kill a animal which faces extinction ????
algrand90 4 months ago
@algrand90 First understand that a right is an absolute fact concerning the way intelligent beings must treat each other in order to prosper among each other. This is why capitalism as the system which fully ackowledges all true rights is the system in which the most prosperity is possible, for anybody. With this as a given, your right to own yourself is an absolute and you can only either ackowledge it or not. Even if it is your will to be a slave, it is still wrong, and should not be allowed.
eggory 4 months ago
@kiarg100
suince its this pandas are his property(and libertarians cant accept property right violation) ?????
algrand90 4 months ago
@algrand90 i am not contradicting myself. people can find their own ways of killing themselves w/o the help of others. i believe people own their own bodies and should be able to do with them what they will as long as they're not causing harm to another individual body (human/animal). is this not a libertarian value? if so, the libertarians will not be leading the panda massacre. incest falls into that value as well.yes, marry whomever, but there needs to be restrictions when lives are at stake.
kiarg100 4 months ago
@kiarg100
i think you are a conservative or an ultraliberal-conservative because libertarians DO recognize the right to suicide AND assisted suicide(search for walter bollok a famous libertarian allumni who also believes that adults have the right to have sex with a consent child "an under 16 years old minor") they also recognize abortion and voluntary slavery (ALL THIS IN THE NAME OF BODY OWNERSHIP, PROPERTY RIGHT , THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND FREE MARKET!!!!!
algrand90 4 months ago
@algrand90 i think i may agree with you. i don't know i am a true libertarian, all i meant was that i agreed with the character above except with the idea about abortion. i am still trying to wrap my head around every aspect of political parties and what they really stand for and what other parties think they stand for. although, do you believe walter bollok may be an extreme example of libertarianism? all the claims above seem rather extreme...
kiarg100 4 months ago
@algrand90 correction: all the claims from you* , not above.
kiarg100 4 months ago
@algrand90 I've searched for a few different spellings of this "Walter Bollok" and found nothing. Please provide your own link to prove you did not just make him up. Regardless, Libertarian ideology is not so singular that it has no inner debates. Surely there are even different degrees of Libertarianism, and there are other distinct but very similar ideologies. Criticizing some of the things that some Libertarians believe is not valid, as a critique of other things believed by others of them.
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
i'm really sorry for the misspelling i meant walter block search for libertarian perpesctives on suicide and slavery contracts
algrand90 4 months ago
@algrand90 You're right, some libertarians do hold those views, but not all.
eggory 4 months ago