Libertarianism doesn't fail, the breif period the usa was Libertarian it was at its best not corpratism and socialism have come and the world has gone to pot coincidence? i think not
To the video maker, if you have a point then remake this video in a much more direct manner please. Write down your points before you make the video so its watchable, and try not to deviate too much.
Im not going to invest 1.5 hours to watch a series of videos that may or may not make a point. If you did have a point to make its a shame this video ruined it. Be more concise in the future, thumbs this so he sees it plox
Libertarianism fails because it is all theory and never practical. Raul Paul is the king of idealism but fails every obvious practical solution that any classical liberal would spot in seconds. Don't over think it.
War seems like a folly for left libertarians, but it is entirely possible for a completely voluntary military force to exist. When anarchists had control in spain they had a fully functioning military that was all volunteer. The only reason they lost is that facists are tenacious bastards and europe had alot of them at the time.
"The basics of health and nutrition are all well understood and generally accepted by the vast majority of the population". Really? The vast majority believe that diet and nutrition are only relevant to a person's weight. And based on your prior statements I would have to guess that you're on board with them.
i love anarchists because it is the only true belief in the human spirit, that humans need not a government to be kind to each other. but unfortunately, that blind belief is unrealistic, and we are hurtful towards each other, that is why i am libertarian.
Socialism is not, in my opinion, the best way to run an economy. When you set up all of these safety nets for people and have a government regulated economy, you only hurt the entrpenurial system. The best way to run an economy is to leave people live their lives. Look at Hong Kong, when the British ruled, they simply maintained order and safety. Then in only 50 years, the city boomed and went from a slum to the modern, rich city it is today.
@tcfent clearly no amount of education or intelligence will have any effect on the mind of the rat in this video link..and that friends is the worst kind of Stupidity...Educated,well read,articulate HORSE SHIT.
worse than being simply DUMB- because your fucking mental retardation can be acted on and effect innocent people.
I have to say one thing my friend... You speak so much yet you don't say anything... You are soooooo stuck in you head you don't have a clue as to the SIMPLE truths of nature/reality.
@stefbot Hi ! Great video man, I have a question though.
Could you explain to me what would happen if the last company for some reason suddenly and completely unexpected (perhaps there was an accident, a tornado, a fire, whatever I don't know) lost a lot of money or resources and therefore *had* to sell it ?
Could this problem even arise ? If not then please help me understand why not.
Thx. Now I'm gonna check some of your other videos.
The only thing I can agree with, is that philosophy and economics in todays education system is lacking. It is by design.
Great example of how dumb things are now with education and economics. Check out the new monopoly game where you swipe a card and a tower does all the accounting for you and the deals are managed by the computer tower. You don't even have to roll dice and up how many squares you move anymore.
You can see this even with people at registers who can not count change!
I agree with what he is saying for the most part. But in my opinion the reasons libertarianism fails is simpler than that. Most people are lazy they would have to think more in a libertarian society. They want to have someone do it for them, so they would rather say to the government you guys fix it. I personally love philosophy and I wish more people would study it to some degree. But those that want power and control wish that philosophy would completely go away it allows for free thinking.
Very nice of you to respect my, "backwards religious views." I belies in Jesus Christ and the Bible. I also believe in abolishing the income tax and legalizing prostitution.
Also, libertarian theology isn't concerned about your morals. All I was saying is that you shouldn't alienate Christians from being libertarians. I'm as libertarian as you are, and I became that way through theology. The form of Christianity that I subscribe to does not have as an aim to make anyone more moral... Morality and Christianity are different debates. You dot know how to percent my arguments because you're used to Calvinists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell.
Libertarianism fails because most people are immoral retards who expect government handouts and refuse to believe 2+2=4. That fucking simple, no complex explanations are needed
Guys he is an anarchist. He is close to a liberitarian but respectfully different. I really enjoy his point of view but have never figured out how to get past the topic of war. If we were anarchist - how do we protect ourselves from other countries that want to take our land by force (war). I feel we would be fragmented and unable to stop them. Hence, I am a libertarian and not an anarchist.
@jpollard117 still proves the point is that fragmented groups can join together to stop much larger groups, which was your original concern. the fact that they were technically small states does not matter.
@Tallaias Those military conflicts were complicated and based on well trained army versus untrained army. He actually wants no government. The Greeks had government, although small as you point out.
Actually, organized peaceful anarchy's sort of turn into libertarian market based societies anyways. At least it becomes free market control by arms race. We could fight wars too, just think about it as a conglomerate of mercenary corporations in an anarchist region opposing a country. In many ways it would also be the most effective military ever created, unrestricted by rules of war, and generally untargetable...
@jjrglobal And what man would that be? What angel will take care of all of us for no money. Who would pay the men to man the weapons. Donations? Taxes - look out sounds like force. I wish that anarchism could work but there are so many evil men that would use force - just look at our own country - force is part of our culture.
You've never listened to Stef's explanation for all these questions have you. Go to his website and listen to his explanations, they're very well though out and practical. His idea is that we have the capability to wipe out anyone with the press of a button, so our military could be reduced to a size where taxes would be completely voluntary and so small that people would pay the miniscule amount, like leaving a tip at a restaurant. No force, contribute if you want to, or not.
@jjrglobal I have listen to alot of his stuff and that explanation lacks detail. For instance: what if they only take el paso or brownsville? Do we go full nuke? What if the offender is not clear - like some of todays terror groups. Lots of holes in the thought process.
Agreed. His point is that if we did away with the hundreds of foreign bases and thousands of troops overseas full time, along with all the entitlements and government agencies that everyones tax burden would be so small that it would be an embarrassment not to pay it, like not leaving a tip at a restaurant. Not much difference from Libertarian views
@jpollard117 There is an anarchist response to defense against war and attacks actually. He does explain it in another video. Find it, because it makes sense and is logically consistent.
Nationalism, materialism, consumerism, propaganda, poor education, corruption, lack of cooperation between individuals, and I can go all day. Basically the lack of individual and mass discipline is the root cause. Why is entertainment so big in the western world?
Are you trying to alienate "religious" libertarians? Besides being pro-life (to us, non-coercion in fullness) we agree perfectly. I have to say most libertarians I talk to are libertarian Christians, that is to say that we hold a theologically libertarian set of beliefs that drive us to become politically libertarian.
We believe that the great gift God gave to mankind was total free will. This free will gives us both tyranny and freedom, love and hate. As God made mankind with certain natural
@asonoflove wrong..Libertarians would not care about religion and what you worship...It has nothing to do with how one governs. The bible does not make you more moral than me and I am a libertarian....you need to look up the actual meaning...
Stefan, you're an asshole for giving me that quick heart attack when I saw the title of this video. Keep up the good work! Love your local Libertarian!
That stuff about family at the end is just way off base. Perhaps you need to read some evolutionary psychology. My problem with libertarians generally is they think of humans as these idealized intellectual units of thought and action, when in reality we are just the latest greatest ape with our own evolved peculiarities.
There IS a REAL media blackout of anything with the word Libertarian in it. The FCC controls the media and yet has enabled media monopolies like Time Warner owned by military indistrial complex companies like G.E. who WANT eternal war and who just happen to be the REAL companies who control the minds of the sheeple. Your little radio show doesn't do squat to influence more than the 100 or so loyal listeners you have despite how successful you think it is. Time Warner controls 3/4ths of the media
@Libertyracer "There IS a REAL media blackout of anything with the word Libertarian in it"
There's no Libertarian "blackout" in the media. You guys pull this blackout victim card all the time. I tune into CNN every now and then, there's often a segment with the "Libertarian point of view" espoused. It is under promoted, but so is Ralph Nader. The problem mainly lies in the 2 party system, not some anti-libertarian conspiracy theory.
Sorry Stefen, but I've never heard of you and although I'm sure your show is nice and has the proper perspective I think you should look at your coverage numbers and see how many hundreds of people actually listen to your show.
Sorry but the REAL reason no one votes Libertarian is because the average person has no clue about politics which they perceive as slimey (correctly with the current self-serving slimeballs in office) so they zone out when you talk politics (they don't want to hear it).
Or perhaps the REAL reason might be that people are more comfortable voting for the "lesser evils" they think they know (Left and Right) that their families have always voted for since to them Libertarianism is an unknown? Why is it an unknown; don't they read about politics or listen to this guys obscure radio show? NO THEY DON'T! Ask the average dolt on the street about Libertarianism and 90% dont have a clue what it stands for so there's no way they'd vote for it over their comfort zone party
The thing is that a lot of Austrian economics is based on mathematical concepts such as emergence, complexity and chaos theories that many mathematicians are still struggling with so think how long it will take for those concepts to filter down through society. Look at evolution, it is much easier to understand than these other ideas and it's still having trouble being accepted 150 years on.
Economics is not understood by people partly because it is not provable and testable in the classroom, but primarily because public schoolteachers are employed by the government, and they --as parasites-- have a vested interest in not teaching history, philosophy, or economics. None of these three subjects is accurately or adequately taught, because parasites don't educate against parasitism. ...It is as simple as that. No need for your palm and fingers... Well, except for... cough cough...
Libertarians really haven’t thought about there views in any deep or critical it seems to be, because if they did they would be pure libertarians. I understand the reasons for becoming a libertarian because its appealing to people that dislike the current system but are not willing to challenge the foundations of capitalism. There is also the problem that the government is so weak it would be unlikely to enforce any of tenets of this ideology.
this argument is shod, the real argument against monopolies is that they can exist as long as they serve the consumer. If they fail the consumer and their services or products can be supplied better or cheaper, an entrepreneur will stand in and serve the consumers who wish to change provider.
@murrchops Unfortunately that simple doesn’t happen in the real world. Also businesses can form cartels that can control prices and use alternative means of keeping the consumers and other competition from interfering. it’s an idea that simple cannot work when put into practice. There have been experiments don’t with libertarianism that have shown it is an unworkable theory. Also game theory puts light on its fails as well.
I think the problem is... Libertarians want to believe they're the only visionaries because they're the only one's chasing the unicorn. Most people know it doesn't exist. We all want a better future, freedom, justice, prosperity, security, but we have to take realistic steps to get there. They believe that civilization will self-regulate... seems sloppy. I don't want to live in the mountains and own a bunch of guns. We all share this place, so we have to find a plausible way to progress.
Libertarians are the only people who believe in free will. Some are idiots, sure, but i suppose we are such a small party because the media forces us into this false democrat/republican dichotomy. You don't have to choose between homophobic Republicans who will tell you what's right and wrong, or Democrats who aim for a paternalistic society. Sure, vote for Obama. These bailouts and welfare extensions are a changing of the people's diaper, nothing more.
@Billymaysfan6837 Yeah but your only solution is more of what we already have? Its seems silly on its face. I like socialism but I am no where near as dogmatic in my assumptions about the practicality of it. We need more democracy not less government. This is an idea that has been drilled into peoples head by a 50 year long propaganda effort by entrenched interests within the society. The idea of the supremacy of the individual is treated as axiomatic which it shouldn’t be.
all these negative posts towards Stefbot... I have to assume that you haven't listened/read attentively to his works. Folks: Stefbot is brilliant. period. Do u expect to have such profound subjects explained to you in a tidy 2 minute session? This isn't Fox News, it's True News!!! Says quite a bit about the average person's attention span...sheesh!!
Stef - Keep it up! at least you're getting to some people!!! I admire you!!
@kingkarl4444 Okay, I love Stef's stuff and agree with this...but you just dropped a magnificent example of the argument from authority:
"Folks: Stefbot is brilliant. period."
As if that proves anything. Again, I agree with Stefan on a great deal of what he has to say, but you sound like a Jim Jones kool aid drinker, brah. If you disagree with someone's analysis of Stef's argument, explain why. Don't just say he's smarter than them.
the problem with this stupid fuck is that he doesn't understand any of these subjects, but he has chosen to go on to youtube like other blathering idiots and slobber about them....what pisses me off is that he got 29 minutes with this stupid video, if he only had 10 minutes he could have summarized his ignorance more rapidly...i know these subjects from particle physics, to cosmology to libertarian philosophy and his grasp of the subjects is extremely shallow, this may work on lame chics though
@whothehellgivesadamn Tell you what, defend libertarianism against my charges against it. See if your theory holds up to logic and reasoned debate. If you think he is so stupid then prove it.
@thesparitan WHAT A STUPID, STUPID DUMBFUCK...ALLRIGHT, FIRST OFF WHO WAS THE GREATEST SCHOLAR OF LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY, HE WAS ALIVE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO....LETS START WITH THAT SUCK WAD AND THEN WORK UP YOU STUPID SLIME BAG SACK OF SHIT
@whothehellgivesadamn What is wrong with you? You seem to have major anger management issues. I change my mind, I would rather not engage with you in any dialog beyond this one, which is ending now because you have shown the mental instability one would find in a paranoid schizophrenic. Good day, and please get check out by a licensed therapist of good standing.
@whothehellgivesadamn The first Libertarian scholar lived thousands of years ago? hahaha. No, he didn't. That's like saying Jesus was a Muslim. You're a little far off, buddy!
The man who brought Libertariasm to the USA was Herbert Spencer. He was a Social Darwinist. Kind of funny, because he was so anti-God; yet Evangelical Christians follow his ideas with such religious fervor.
Show me one example of any Founding Father using the word "Libertarian" and I'll give you $1,000. Seriously.
@KPattonArt123 yea dumbfuck, this just shows your common ignorance you fucking piece of garbage....the greatest deepest document ever explaining the full spectrum of real liberty was produceda couple of thousand years ago and you are such an ignorant piece of garbage you don't even know what im talking about what a god damn joke....and no it aint jesus you dumb sack of shit...you don' even have 1,000 dollars why don't you make it ten thousand fuckwad.
@whothehellgivesadamn Fine, make it $10,000. Make it as much as you want. Just show me where the Founding Fathers ever used the word "Libertarian" and it's yours. Be sure to post your reference. You can find the majority of the Founding Fathers original writings on Google Books or at your local library, if you've never read them.
Also,cursing & acting angry doesn't prove your point.It only shows that you're uneducated and you take Rush Limbaugh's words as gospel truth.Someday you'll grow up.
Adam Smith advocated free trade? Have you ever actually read his writings? He was against Free trade: he advocated Protectionism. Nearly all of our Founding Fathers did. Libertarianism and lassiez-faire economics wasn't even created until 19th century France-- 75 years after we signed the Declaration of Independance. The first Libertarian President we had was Grover Cleveland. Our Founding Fathers were neither Libertarian or Liberal. They were Conservative.
@kokofan50 Voting was decided on a state by state basis up until the 20th century. The Constitution/Federalist Papers/etc only created how many representatives there would be from each state; but the states themselves decided how the voting would occur.
@kokofan50 If you're referring to the 2/3 clause, then you don't understand American Southern history. The South wanted to count slaves in their census to get a lot of representatives in Congress, but didn't want to let Slaves be allowed to vote. The North said there shouldn't be any slavery, so they need to free their slaves to count them in the census. The South refused to sign the Constitution if the North wouldn't allow them to count/keep slavery. So the North negotiated with them, and...
@kokofan50 2/3 was decided upon because it still gave them a slight majority in population and voting power. This was a long term plan meant to abolish slavery through Congress.
Their plan went forward, and worked. Unfortunately the South fought against it and--slavery, combined with the differing ideas of Protectionism in the North against the Capitalism of the South-- led to the Civil War.
In the end, the North got to abolish slavery, and the South got to eventually establish Capitalism.
@TheProgressistViewer Um, I said that Adam Smith didn't advocate free trade. He, along with most of our Founding Fathers, were Protectionists. They believed in high tariffs, mostly to keep trade, commerce, and jobs within America. In the 17-1800's Europe had super cheap labor, much like China today. They wanted to keep jobs in America, so they had high tariffs to keep jobs/trade here.The South during the civil war was the first to really practice Capitalism here, and their economy collapsed.
@TheProgressistViewer Adam Smith advocated free trade? Have you ever actually READ Adam Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations"? You can read the original writings for free on Google books. Why don't you read it yourself, and tell me what you think after reading Chapter two, which is entitled: "Chapter 2 "on Restraints upon the Importation of Such Goods from Foreign Countries that which can be produced in America"
@KPattonArt123 The chapter is called: "on Restraints upon the Importation of Such Goods from Foreign Countries that which can be produced at home" not in America, Smith was a brit btw not an american....
@KPattonArt123 ''No regulation of commerce can increase the quantity of industry in any society beyond what its capital can maintain. It can only divert a part of it into a direction into wich it might not otherwise have gone; and it is by no means certain that this artificial direction is likely to be more advantageous to the society than that into wich it would have gone of its own accord.'' Again, he his puttting tariffs down here.. Right? Tell me you were kiding?
@TheProgressistViewer Adam Smith believed in "unequal free trade." You have free trade in markets that are advantageous to your nation (things you can't manufacture, that you must import), while having high tariffs on markets that are advantageous to your nation (things that you can manufacture yourself).
@TheProgressistViewer "By restraining, either by high duties, or by absolute prohibitions, the importation of such goods from foreign countries as can be produced at home, the monopoly of hte home market is more or less secured to the domestic industry employed in producing them."
@KPattonArt123 I know ur very limited intellectualy, so please try to concentrate. again : ''No regulation of commerce can increase the quantity of industry in any society beyond what its capital can maintain. It can only divert a part of it into a direction into wich it might not otherwise have gone; and it is by no means certain that this artificial direction is likely to be more advantageous to the society than that into wich it would have gone of its own accord.'' Is this a protectionist?
@KPattonArt123 Yes I read that part, what he is saying is that if you have tariffs on a certain product or service, you give the industries at home a monopoly on industries at home, but he then goes on to explain why this is a bad thing.
@TheProgressistViewer No, Adam Smith hated Monarchy. The spent all of his time fighting it. He hated being economically involved with Monarchies in France, England, and the Netherlands. He wanted an independant nation, which had no ties to Europe. That included economic ties.
Get a degree in American History and Economics before discussing this with me. You're clearly uneducated on this issue, whereas I'm a professor in this field.
@KPattonArt123 Its really bothering to me that an idiot like you, who reads Adam Smith and thinks he his arguing against free-trade can be a professor.
@TheProgressistViewer Most of the Founding Fathers advocated tariffs. That's why the average tariff was 35% up until the Civil War. We did not get rid of Protectionism until Grover Cleveland. Read the economic differences between the North and South that led up to the Civil War.You'll be surprised who advocated Capitalism/Free Trade, and who advocated Protectionism.
The only pro-Capitalist Founding Father was Thomas Jefferson, and even he believed in things such as progressive taxes.
@KPattonArt123 Jefferson did believe in progressive taxes at some point, but turned away from it at some point. Rush Limbaugh? Im a libertarian, wich means I pretty much hate the guy, get real....
@KPattonArt123 Oh and here is another one ; ''How far it may be proper to impose taxes upon the importation of foreign goods, in order not to prevent their importation but to raise a revenue for government, I shall consider hereafter when I come to treat of taxes.Taxes imposed with a view to prevent, or even to diminish importation, are evidently as destructive of the revenue of the customs as of the freedom of trade. '' Now did you actually read the whealt of nations? or were you kidding?
@TheProgressistViewer You actually proved my point, moron. Reread what you just pasted. (And read the entire chapter in context, btw) It says that taxing importations are good to raise revenue for government, and diminish importation, which increases manufacturing in America. He then stated that free trade is destructive.
Try reading the whole book.
Yes, I've read the Wealth of Nations. I'm an economics professor.
@TheProgressistViewer Of course Smith was a Brit and not an American, you moron. There was no such thing as America before America was founded. How stupid are you? Adam Smith is cited today as the Founding Father of Capitalism, not of the USA. His ideas were instrumental to the development of our economy.
But aside from that, not all of the Founding Fathers were born in America. Thomas Paine was British. Alexander Hamilton was born in the Caribbean. Wilson was born in Scotland. etc etc
@TheProgressistViewer Adam Smith the Libertarian, or Adam Smith the Conservative? How about checking out his book, "On the Wealth of Nations," with such great articles as Article 2 "Taxes upon Profit, or upon the Revenue arising from Stock." Or maybe Article 3 "Taxes upon the wages of Labour." How about his Free Trading beliefs in Chapter 3 "Of the extraordinary Restraints upon the Importation of Goods of almost all Kinds"
Get your head out of Rush Limbaugh's ass and study some history.
@KPattonArt123 ''There is no certain criterion by wich we can determine on wich side what is called the balance between any two countries lies, or wich of them exports to the greatest value. National prejudice and animosity, prompted always by the private interest of particular traders, are the principles wich generally direct our judgment upon all questions concerning it'' Does this fucking sound like a guy arguing against free-trade??? I just read the article, he's denoucing tariffs...get real
I tried this argument with a colleague of mine to explain why someone cannot buy a circular piece of land around a city and enclose it. He came up with the example: "But what if the people buying up all the pieces of land around the city secretly family members that are targeting a land monopoly enclosing the city." It made me think of the Rothschild banking cartel of the early 19th century....
The reason philosophy is different from those other sciences is because the object is different. Modern science is necessarily about those things that can be measured. Philosophy is about things that give measurable things intelligibility. It's a greater science, it's the thing by which other sciences are known. You cannot have the same standards for philosophy as you do for lower sciences. dumbass. oh, Ron Paul sucks.
lol I can imagine how many fellow libertarians didn't get far enough into this video to realize he's not just another socialist fuck criticizing freedom, but a libertarian explaining why OUR doctrine hasn't been able to take off
Because I don't support sweat shops you nailed that on the head, libretarianism does not work in my own collectivist ideals of a society working together.
@trademestuff Sweat shops are bad news, but they beat the hell out of subsistence farming. The do gooders might have a warm tingly feeling when they don't buy things from sweat shops, but in reality they just end up making the poor poorer.
Your palm-fingers analogy is great for every thing without proprietary systems and copyrights. Sony basically achieved that with DvD and then Blu ray. Out of the goodness of their hearts they allow companies to make Blu-rays and DvDs as long as they pay Sony a heft licences per unit.
Sony really only grant licences because government's would just change the law if sony took something so core like DvD's and bluray 100% proprietary, but don't think companies haven't tried. Apple for example....
A free marked monopoly will become very inefficient after a while, and when they start to rise the prices they will eventually sow the seeds for competing businesses to be created...
1) Barriers to entry. Right now it would be impossible to get into say the x86 CPU market. The capital requires would turn away any investment. You would have to do it alone privately. So take a hypothetical 'oil prince' if he decides to challenge Intel he would be would be literally decades behinds. Everything is patented. Lets say after 40yrs in 2050 this new company could compete in products....
2) .. why not have just bought intel shares in 2010?
@CmdrTobs It is not impossible to go into the CPU, GPU marked,, Apple has just announced their own new GPU chip... I think its because they're not satisfied with intel and AMDs prices... Companies recieving and using such devices in their own products can transform and modify, innovate, create their own... Just like Apple did.... My point is not valid if the government is using force to keep that Monopoly...
@bjarnet3 I don't know where you are getting that from. Apple definitely do not make any CPUs, or GPUs You are clearly mistaken. If you are talking about openCL, that is software NOT hardware.
In fact the opposite is true to what you say, until 2007? apple was the ONLY consumer desktop computer manufacturer not buying CPU's from the two x86 chip manufactures Intel & AMD (80/19%) market share respectively. Ofc they couldn't keep up with the investment of those two so 'powerPC chip' is gone.
@bjarnet3 No, that's a Smasung chip. Everybody in the tech business knows it. I won't lambaste you for not knowing. Though let me tell you that not only is it not manufactured by Apple, they didn't design it either its simply a ARM S-O-C which are all designed by ARM computers in England. They are the only RISC cpu designers in the world (patients). You either use their latest licences or use there free licences (which will be an 1980's era chip fine for controlling say a car alarm)
@bjarnet3 Another-thing you should know is that there not that many factories in the world capable of making 45mn chips like the A4. Intel owns most of them for making there x86 class desktop CPU's. At $3B just to set up a factory companies like Apple definitely don't own any. This is what I mean by 'Barriers to entry'
Google the 'Samsung's galaxy S'. Since they own the factory they have given their phone the better SOC and given Apple the the slower Cortex SOCs.
@bjarnet3 Oh btw, You seem focussed here the A4 is a ARM processor so thats the Iphone and Ipad. AMD(Gpu's) and intel(x86 cpus) still and will do gfx and cpus for apple for time to come. Rest in peace powerPC.
@bjarnet3 Your point is valid when it comes to coffee shops and high street bars etc.... Particularity brands, were 99% of the value is added in marketing and psycho-manipulation when in reality the product cost pennies stitched in India.
Outside that, competition is pretty dead in many industries.
Also, the foundations of economics was penned before modern psychology. I wonder what Ricardo, smith or Marx would have thought about advertising to children and brand conditioning techniques.
First, underscoring all physical sciences are philosophic concepts. In fact, most famous scientists studied philosophy.
Second, the fact that Science has progressed this far in 100 years plays against you - before then science had not progressed as dramatically. Further, you can't compare philosophy to physical sciences like that. It's apples and oranges.
Third, logic. That's it. That's all I have to say.
why do negative videos about libertarianism pop up first when you do a search. Interesting.... Just an observation. and who is this guy. who does he work for , what is his practice.
@paulhasarrived He's a philosopher, and a libertarian anarchist himself. He's pretty smart, watch his videos, it will likely change your views dramatically.
@paulhasarrived Oh noes, you cracked it. The government brain wave machine has deliberatly sabotaged youtube search results. shhhhhh, put your tin foil hat on right away!!!!!!
@Viktir666 yes, the government is colluding with corporations because of the harmful self-interests of career politicians....the Constitution is a piece of toilet paper to these government politicos.
BE FREE. WE CAN GOVERN OURSELVES AS THE FISH DO IN THE SEA.
Economics as a "science" has not become a true discipline simply because it has ALWAYS been politicized. Even back to Adam Smith's tome. Think about it. From Smith, to Keynes, to Galbraith, to the monetarists, etc.. All have been promoted or demoted based on how well they "fit" with a particular government's agenda. Only the Austrians, it seems, emphasizes HUMAN action, rather than government manipulation. Therefore, it is not promoted in state-supported schools and thought.
@Jollyprez Economics is not a "Science." It is a pseudo-science, at best. It does not use empiricism in its true form, for it makes assumptions based on theories and conjecture, rather than data collected from controlled sample populations. Further, the tendency to extrapolate these conjectures, (which are based on ridiculous "ceterus peribus" assumptions), so pervert the scientific method as to be no more valid than using a Quija Board to divine out reality.
@bestgodzillaman We're agreeing on main principles. Please note the quotes around "science" to denote that the term was used skeptically. My only point was that economics is perverted to push forward a particular state's agenda. Therefore, anything postulated by the various schools of economics is suspect on its face.
@ManicStreetStevO We know the Spaniards married the women, and often times murdered the men. Same is true of the Huns. The Vikings did no less. The Kings of Scotland eventually became all of Viking descent, and so did England and Ireland. They were not of Hun descent. George Washington is a Norman Viking name, so are most of the Framers. The Anglo Saxons were never conquered by Huns either. Today, our culture of Scandanavian descent is no longer the majority but the Hun is.
@ManicStreetStevO Wrong! According to your Hegelian unreasoning, Hispanics in South America are Mayan, yet South America has many cultures conquered by one, the Spanish. Hence we say Spanish, or Hispanic. German Philosophers like yourself, need to understand that when conquered, which is not always violent, (your hegelian will jump all over the narrow meanings of that word), the new culture is subject to the new customs. Scandanavians were never conquered by Huns, and neither was England.
@ManicStreetStevO Hitler's overregulations in 1934 are no different then liberals or conservative overregulations are today in America. And like Hitler we are continueing to pass more and more regulations, this week alone the Fascists past more Financial regulations. Psychopaths are regulators and vice versa. We are well on our way to Nazi Germany's 1943-45, all we need is time because we have the insanity.
Germanic peoples are NOT of scandanavian origin. Sorry. The Huns invaded Germany, and stayed there for 100 years. Their men married the women of Germany. Scandanavians were not touched by the Huns neither was Britain nor France. and neither did the Scandis setttle Germany like they did England, Scotland, Ireland and France. The Hegalian dialect is too many lies.
@ManicStreetStevO It's Hegellian dialect here that makes you unbeleivable. I never said sole at all. Not once. Your culture, your philosophy, your need to vicrtimize and villainize groups an especially individuals, promps you to the same lies that german philosophers are guilty of. I am a recovering co-dependant, who now understands the lieing that comes from fraudelent authoritarians. It sems you are hopelessly addicted to such a system of lies.
This is ignorant. Can people not rule themselves? I believe in liberty and self determination.
TheDeadbeatHero 2 days ago
Libertarianism doesn't fail, the breif period the usa was Libertarian it was at its best not corpratism and socialism have come and the world has gone to pot coincidence? i think not
TheAlexagius 2 weeks ago
This guy is an utter FAIL, he doesnt speak anything but jibberish about vacationing and the fword
cwood4ever 1 month ago
Libertarian: Sidious, Vader
Conservative: Luke Skywalker
I-am-the-center-of-the-universe-ism: Han Solo
:p
dfdtdfdx 1 month ago
@mrgeestacksalot be honest, no matter how you disagree with him, his IQ is probably higher than yours.
dorianleakey 1 month ago
To the video maker, if you have a point then remake this video in a much more direct manner please. Write down your points before you make the video so its watchable, and try not to deviate too much.
Im not going to invest 1.5 hours to watch a series of videos that may or may not make a point. If you did have a point to make its a shame this video ruined it. Be more concise in the future, thumbs this so he sees it plox
nigrah8ter 2 months ago
Libertarianism fails because it is all theory and never practical. Raul Paul is the king of idealism but fails every obvious practical solution that any classical liberal would spot in seconds. Don't over think it.
iMaDeMoN2012 3 months ago 2
4 minutes in and i've heard nothing of value...and i'm bored. libertarianism rules.
GoBucks2828 5 months ago 4
@GoBucks2828 You should have waited five. Your loss.
iMaDeMoN2012 3 months ago
War seems like a folly for left libertarians, but it is entirely possible for a completely voluntary military force to exist. When anarchists had control in spain they had a fully functioning military that was all volunteer. The only reason they lost is that facists are tenacious bastards and europe had alot of them at the time.
ZombiBuddy 6 months ago
I really tried but I could only make it 10 minutes on this video.
paullie6719 6 months ago
"The basics of health and nutrition are all well understood and generally accepted by the vast majority of the population". Really? The vast majority believe that diet and nutrition are only relevant to a person's weight. And based on your prior statements I would have to guess that you're on board with them.
paullie6719 6 months ago
i love anarchists because it is the only true belief in the human spirit, that humans need not a government to be kind to each other. but unfortunately, that blind belief is unrealistic, and we are hurtful towards each other, that is why i am libertarian.
ThePurelogic 7 months ago
zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz Has he finished yet?
nikolayzou 8 months ago
Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak Yak
nikolayzou 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
nikolayzou 8 months ago
How can you say something has failed if you haven't really had it?
nikolayzou 8 months ago
God....you gotta listen to this idiot babble about nothing for the first 2 minutes before he gets to the topic
chris3035 8 months ago
what is wrong with this guys nose? he can't leave it alone for 10 seconds
goldgoblin 8 months ago
@goldgoblin lol
nikolayzou 8 months ago
1:17 is where the video starts.
TheDubJake 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Socialism is not, in my opinion, the best way to run an economy. When you set up all of these safety nets for people and have a government regulated economy, you only hurt the entrpenurial system. The best way to run an economy is to leave people live their lives. Look at Hong Kong, when the British ruled, they simply maintained order and safety. Then in only 50 years, the city boomed and went from a slum to the modern, rich city it is today.
DukeofUSA 8 months ago
some aspects libertarianism is flawed, but most aspects of it are very good for people for it puts more power to the individuals,
WVlandnwater 8 months ago
Libertarians are experts at Articulate STUPIDITY.
what a fuckin RETARD.
matako07 9 months ago
@matako07 and yet your articulate tongue is so more educated and inlightened...........your Odoyle Rules!!!!, mentality is so much more convincing
tcfent 9 months ago
Comment removed
matako07 9 months ago
Comment removed
matako07 9 months ago
@tcfent clearly no amount of education or intelligence will have any effect on the mind of the rat in this video link..and that friends is the worst kind of Stupidity...Educated,well read,articulate HORSE SHIT.
worse than being simply DUMB- because your fucking mental retardation can be acted on and effect innocent people.
This guy should be gangbeaten
matako07 9 months ago
I have to say one thing my friend... You speak so much yet you don't say anything... You are soooooo stuck in you head you don't have a clue as to the SIMPLE truths of nature/reality.
Healing6arts9 9 months ago
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
jesbeard 9 months ago
This is probably a really offensive thing to say, but that bandana makes you look like you have cancer. ;) I'm just sayin.
Adlasyn 9 months ago
@stefbot Hi ! Great video man, I have a question though.
Could you explain to me what would happen if the last company for some reason suddenly and completely unexpected (perhaps there was an accident, a tornado, a fire, whatever I don't know) lost a lot of money or resources and therefore *had* to sell it ?
Could this problem even arise ? If not then please help me understand why not.
Thx. Now I'm gonna check some of your other videos.
ToxinalX 9 months ago
@stefbot I think you need to change the title of the video :P
tehsuperepicpwnzor 9 months ago
The only thing I can agree with, is that philosophy and economics in todays education system is lacking. It is by design.
Great example of how dumb things are now with education and economics. Check out the new monopoly game where you swipe a card and a tower does all the accounting for you and the deals are managed by the computer tower. You don't even have to roll dice and up how many squares you move anymore.
You can see this even with people at registers who can not count change!
flippyflappy1 9 months ago
I agree with what he is saying for the most part. But in my opinion the reasons libertarianism fails is simpler than that. Most people are lazy they would have to think more in a libertarian society. They want to have someone do it for them, so they would rather say to the government you guys fix it. I personally love philosophy and I wish more people would study it to some degree. But those that want power and control wish that philosophy would completely go away it allows for free thinking.
jartherp 10 months ago
Monopolies do happen... usually utilities such as transportation or energy.
GoldenSilence333 11 months ago
Very nice of you to respect my, "backwards religious views." I belies in Jesus Christ and the Bible. I also believe in abolishing the income tax and legalizing prostitution.
asonoflove 11 months ago
Sorry the phone likes the critique my comments.
asonoflove 1 year ago
Also, libertarian theology isn't concerned about your morals. All I was saying is that you shouldn't alienate Christians from being libertarians. I'm as libertarian as you are, and I became that way through theology. The form of Christianity that I subscribe to does not have as an aim to make anyone more moral... Morality and Christianity are different debates. You dot know how to percent my arguments because you're used to Calvinists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell.
asonoflove 1 year ago
Libertarianism fails because most people are immoral retards who expect government handouts and refuse to believe 2+2=4. That fucking simple, no complex explanations are needed
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
Guys he is an anarchist. He is close to a liberitarian but respectfully different. I really enjoy his point of view but have never figured out how to get past the topic of war. If we were anarchist - how do we protect ourselves from other countries that want to take our land by force (war). I feel we would be fragmented and unable to stop them. Hence, I am a libertarian and not an anarchist.
jpollard117 1 year ago
@jpollard117 remember that the fragmented Greek city-states defeated the Persian empire multiple times.
Tallaias 11 months ago
@Tallaias Hence the name city-state
jpollard117 10 months ago
@jpollard117 still proves the point is that fragmented groups can join together to stop much larger groups, which was your original concern. the fact that they were technically small states does not matter.
Tallaias 10 months ago
@Tallaias Those military conflicts were complicated and based on well trained army versus untrained army. He actually wants no government. The Greeks had government, although small as you point out.
jpollard117 10 months ago
@jpollard117
As he explains in another video a few atomic nukes would be enough to deter any foreign country from taking over, since it would be suicide.
xknowledgeisfreex 10 months ago
@jpollard117
Actually, organized peaceful anarchy's sort of turn into libertarian market based societies anyways. At least it becomes free market control by arms race. We could fight wars too, just think about it as a conglomerate of mercenary corporations in an anarchist region opposing a country. In many ways it would also be the most effective military ever created, unrestricted by rules of war, and generally untargetable...
Daharen 6 months ago
@jpollard117 Great point man! Stef covers important topic in his book "Practical Anarchy"
jaminunit 6 months ago
@jpollard117
Are you kidding? We have more nuclear warheads than the rest of the planet combined, times 1000. One man can protect this country
jjrglobal 6 months ago
@jjrglobal And what man would that be? What angel will take care of all of us for no money. Who would pay the men to man the weapons. Donations? Taxes - look out sounds like force. I wish that anarchism could work but there are so many evil men that would use force - just look at our own country - force is part of our culture.
jpollard117 6 months ago
@jpollard117
You've never listened to Stef's explanation for all these questions have you. Go to his website and listen to his explanations, they're very well though out and practical. His idea is that we have the capability to wipe out anyone with the press of a button, so our military could be reduced to a size where taxes would be completely voluntary and so small that people would pay the miniscule amount, like leaving a tip at a restaurant. No force, contribute if you want to, or not.
jjrglobal 6 months ago
@jjrglobal I have listen to alot of his stuff and that explanation lacks detail. For instance: what if they only take el paso or brownsville? Do we go full nuke? What if the offender is not clear - like some of todays terror groups. Lots of holes in the thought process.
jpollard117 6 months ago
@jpollard117
Agreed. His point is that if we did away with the hundreds of foreign bases and thousands of troops overseas full time, along with all the entitlements and government agencies that everyones tax burden would be so small that it would be an embarrassment not to pay it, like not leaving a tip at a restaurant. Not much difference from Libertarian views
jjrglobal 6 months ago
@jpollard117 There is an anarchist response to defense against war and attacks actually. He does explain it in another video. Find it, because it makes sense and is logically consistent.
TimothyADonaghue 6 months ago
This is the first video of Stef's I ever saw; my first introduction to Freedomain Radio all those years ago. So nostalgic.
Fetchdafish 1 year ago
Why does liberty fail?
Nationalism, materialism, consumerism, propaganda, poor education, corruption, lack of cooperation between individuals, and I can go all day. Basically the lack of individual and mass discipline is the root cause. Why is entertainment so big in the western world?
Jononutoob 1 year ago
Capitalism has not failed...we have failed to live by Capitalism....kinda simple.
IKSDoomie 1 year ago
Is this about Canadian Libertarians or American Libertarians? They are somewhat different from my understanding
therealjarett 1 year ago
What's with all the thumbs down? this is really good stuff.
Paralyt1c 1 year ago
From what company did you buy your sunglasses? Luxottica or Safilo?
egadzooks 1 year ago
Are you trying to alienate "religious" libertarians? Besides being pro-life (to us, non-coercion in fullness) we agree perfectly. I have to say most libertarians I talk to are libertarian Christians, that is to say that we hold a theologically libertarian set of beliefs that drive us to become politically libertarian.
We believe that the great gift God gave to mankind was total free will. This free will gives us both tyranny and freedom, love and hate. As God made mankind with certain natural
asonoflove 1 year ago
@asonoflove wrong..Libertarians would not care about religion and what you worship...It has nothing to do with how one governs. The bible does not make you more moral than me and I am a libertarian....you need to look up the actual meaning...
IKSDoomie 1 year ago
@asonoflove As long as I don't have to pay taxes or have my business heavily regulated, then I'll respect your backwards relgious views
EyeAmTheIlluminati 1 year ago
A stupendous display of economic analogous explanation.
kalebman5000 1 year ago
Stefan, you're an asshole for giving me that quick heart attack when I saw the title of this video. Keep up the good work! Love your local Libertarian!
straydoglogic 1 year ago
it'd be nice if you quit rambling and just get to the point.
sakonhagakure 1 year ago 13
@sakonhagakure
He's got to spend 20 minutes exhibiting his pseudo-intelligence first.
Casually, on a cruise, with sunglasses on.
spunkets 4 months ago
That stuff about family at the end is just way off base. Perhaps you need to read some evolutionary psychology. My problem with libertarians generally is they think of humans as these idealized intellectual units of thought and action, when in reality we are just the latest greatest ape with our own evolved peculiarities.
pithier 1 year ago
lol lying about global warming lol thats perfect did eny one else catch that roflmao
justiandginger 1 year ago
...is he british or something?? i hear an accent come through on some words but then not at all on others....wierd.
gsukrw06 1 year ago
@gsukrw06 Ohhhhh CANADA...
You can tell with "proh-gress." Dead giveaway
bwood21390 1 year ago
There IS a REAL media blackout of anything with the word Libertarian in it. The FCC controls the media and yet has enabled media monopolies like Time Warner owned by military indistrial complex companies like G.E. who WANT eternal war and who just happen to be the REAL companies who control the minds of the sheeple. Your little radio show doesn't do squat to influence more than the 100 or so loyal listeners you have despite how successful you think it is. Time Warner controls 3/4ths of the media
Libertyracer 1 year ago
@Libertyracer "There IS a REAL media blackout of anything with the word Libertarian in it"
There's no Libertarian "blackout" in the media. You guys pull this blackout victim card all the time. I tune into CNN every now and then, there's often a segment with the "Libertarian point of view" espoused. It is under promoted, but so is Ralph Nader. The problem mainly lies in the 2 party system, not some anti-libertarian conspiracy theory.
AntiBSMan 1 year ago
Sorry Stefen, but I've never heard of you and although I'm sure your show is nice and has the proper perspective I think you should look at your coverage numbers and see how many hundreds of people actually listen to your show.
Sorry but the REAL reason no one votes Libertarian is because the average person has no clue about politics which they perceive as slimey (correctly with the current self-serving slimeballs in office) so they zone out when you talk politics (they don't want to hear it).
Libertyracer 1 year ago
Or perhaps the REAL reason might be that people are more comfortable voting for the "lesser evils" they think they know (Left and Right) that their families have always voted for since to them Libertarianism is an unknown? Why is it an unknown; don't they read about politics or listen to this guys obscure radio show? NO THEY DON'T! Ask the average dolt on the street about Libertarianism and 90% dont have a clue what it stands for so there's no way they'd vote for it over their comfort zone party
Libertyracer 1 year ago
The thing is that a lot of Austrian economics is based on mathematical concepts such as emergence, complexity and chaos theories that many mathematicians are still struggling with so think how long it will take for those concepts to filter down through society. Look at evolution, it is much easier to understand than these other ideas and it's still having trouble being accepted 150 years on.
jimberkt 1 year ago
You only have to watch it for a minute and a half to see that he's libertarian. Easy up on the trolling guys.
jimberkt 1 year ago
Interesting analysis. Good podcast.
etzel33 1 year ago
Economics is not understood by people partly because it is not provable and testable in the classroom, but primarily because public schoolteachers are employed by the government, and they --as parasites-- have a vested interest in not teaching history, philosophy, or economics. None of these three subjects is accurately or adequately taught, because parasites don't educate against parasitism. ...It is as simple as that. No need for your palm and fingers... Well, except for... cough cough...
libertarianjury 1 year ago
So freedom fails?
AroundSun 1 year ago
That was boring as hell
tenkins 1 year ago
Libertarians really haven’t thought about there views in any deep or critical it seems to be, because if they did they would be pure libertarians. I understand the reasons for becoming a libertarian because its appealing to people that dislike the current system but are not willing to challenge the foundations of capitalism. There is also the problem that the government is so weak it would be unlikely to enforce any of tenets of this ideology.
thesparitan 1 year ago
this argument is shod, the real argument against monopolies is that they can exist as long as they serve the consumer. If they fail the consumer and their services or products can be supplied better or cheaper, an entrepreneur will stand in and serve the consumers who wish to change provider.
murrchops 1 year ago
@murrchops Unfortunately that simple doesn’t happen in the real world. Also businesses can form cartels that can control prices and use alternative means of keeping the consumers and other competition from interfering. it’s an idea that simple cannot work when put into practice. There have been experiments don’t with libertarianism that have shown it is an unworkable theory. Also game theory puts light on its fails as well.
thesparitan 1 year ago
I think the problem is... Libertarians want to believe they're the only visionaries because they're the only one's chasing the unicorn. Most people know it doesn't exist. We all want a better future, freedom, justice, prosperity, security, but we have to take realistic steps to get there. They believe that civilization will self-regulate... seems sloppy. I don't want to live in the mountains and own a bunch of guns. We all share this place, so we have to find a plausible way to progress.
mrbucketface 1 year ago
Libertarians are the only people who believe in free will. Some are idiots, sure, but i suppose we are such a small party because the media forces us into this false democrat/republican dichotomy. You don't have to choose between homophobic Republicans who will tell you what's right and wrong, or Democrats who aim for a paternalistic society. Sure, vote for Obama. These bailouts and welfare extensions are a changing of the people's diaper, nothing more.
Billymaysfan6837 1 year ago
@Billymaysfan6837 Yeah but your only solution is more of what we already have? Its seems silly on its face. I like socialism but I am no where near as dogmatic in my assumptions about the practicality of it. We need more democracy not less government. This is an idea that has been drilled into peoples head by a 50 year long propaganda effort by entrenched interests within the society. The idea of the supremacy of the individual is treated as axiomatic which it shouldn’t be.
thesparitan 1 year ago
all these negative posts towards Stefbot... I have to assume that you haven't listened/read attentively to his works. Folks: Stefbot is brilliant. period. Do u expect to have such profound subjects explained to you in a tidy 2 minute session? This isn't Fox News, it's True News!!! Says quite a bit about the average person's attention span...sheesh!!
Stef - Keep it up! at least you're getting to some people!!! I admire you!!
kingkarl4444 1 year ago 8
@kingkarl4444 thanks, trolls be just da noize :)
stefbot 1 year ago 6
@kingkarl4444 i like fox news... and i'm not a troll.
TheYtml 1 year ago
@kingkarl4444 Okay, I love Stef's stuff and agree with this...but you just dropped a magnificent example of the argument from authority:
"Folks: Stefbot is brilliant. period."
As if that proves anything. Again, I agree with Stefan on a great deal of what he has to say, but you sound like a Jim Jones kool aid drinker, brah. If you disagree with someone's analysis of Stef's argument, explain why. Don't just say he's smarter than them.
bwood21390 1 year ago
@kingkarl4444
jesus christ stop sucking this loser not-even-pseudo-intellectuals dick
GnomesAmok 11 months ago
@kingkarl4444
you are clearly a stef-drone, cult of personality anyone?
GnomesAmok 8 months ago
the problem with this stupid fuck is that he doesn't understand any of these subjects, but he has chosen to go on to youtube like other blathering idiots and slobber about them....what pisses me off is that he got 29 minutes with this stupid video, if he only had 10 minutes he could have summarized his ignorance more rapidly...i know these subjects from particle physics, to cosmology to libertarian philosophy and his grasp of the subjects is extremely shallow, this may work on lame chics though
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn Tell you what, defend libertarianism against my charges against it. See if your theory holds up to logic and reasoned debate. If you think he is so stupid then prove it.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan WHAT A STUPID, STUPID DUMBFUCK...ALLRIGHT, FIRST OFF WHO WAS THE GREATEST SCHOLAR OF LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY, HE WAS ALIVE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO....LETS START WITH THAT SUCK WAD AND THEN WORK UP YOU STUPID SLIME BAG SACK OF SHIT
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn What is wrong with you? You seem to have major anger management issues. I change my mind, I would rather not engage with you in any dialog beyond this one, which is ending now because you have shown the mental instability one would find in a paranoid schizophrenic. Good day, and please get check out by a licensed therapist of good standing.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn The first Libertarian scholar lived thousands of years ago? hahaha. No, he didn't. That's like saying Jesus was a Muslim. You're a little far off, buddy!
The man who brought Libertariasm to the USA was Herbert Spencer. He was a Social Darwinist. Kind of funny, because he was so anti-God; yet Evangelical Christians follow his ideas with such religious fervor.
Show me one example of any Founding Father using the word "Libertarian" and I'll give you $1,000. Seriously.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 yea dumbfuck, this just shows your common ignorance you fucking piece of garbage....the greatest deepest document ever explaining the full spectrum of real liberty was produceda couple of thousand years ago and you are such an ignorant piece of garbage you don't even know what im talking about what a god damn joke....and no it aint jesus you dumb sack of shit...you don' even have 1,000 dollars why don't you make it ten thousand fuckwad.
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn Fine, make it $10,000. Make it as much as you want. Just show me where the Founding Fathers ever used the word "Libertarian" and it's yours. Be sure to post your reference. You can find the majority of the Founding Fathers original writings on Google Books or at your local library, if you've never read them.
Also,cursing & acting angry doesn't prove your point.It only shows that you're uneducated and you take Rush Limbaugh's words as gospel truth.Someday you'll grow up.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
there is nobody with a grasp of basic science huh ? Stefbot has never been to mississippi.
rllang01 1 year ago
Adam Smith advocated free trade? Have you ever actually read his writings? He was against Free trade: he advocated Protectionism. Nearly all of our Founding Fathers did. Libertarianism and lassiez-faire economics wasn't even created until 19th century France-- 75 years after we signed the Declaration of Independance. The first Libertarian President we had was Grover Cleveland. Our Founding Fathers were neither Libertarian or Liberal. They were Conservative.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago 2
@KPattonArt123 no, they weren't coservative. who got to vote in england. who got to vote in the U.S. even limited as it was.
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 Voting was decided on a state by state basis up until the 20th century. The Constitution/Federalist Papers/etc only created how many representatives there would be from each state; but the states themselves decided how the voting would occur.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KPattonArt123 you missed my point.
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 If you're referring to the 2/3 clause, then you don't understand American Southern history. The South wanted to count slaves in their census to get a lot of representatives in Congress, but didn't want to let Slaves be allowed to vote. The North said there shouldn't be any slavery, so they need to free their slaves to count them in the census. The South refused to sign the Constitution if the North wouldn't allow them to count/keep slavery. So the North negotiated with them, and...
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@kokofan50 2/3 was decided upon because it still gave them a slight majority in population and voting power. This was a long term plan meant to abolish slavery through Congress.
Their plan went forward, and worked. Unfortunately the South fought against it and--slavery, combined with the differing ideas of Protectionism in the North against the Capitalism of the South-- led to the Civil War.
In the end, the North got to abolish slavery, and the South got to eventually establish Capitalism.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer Um, I said that Adam Smith didn't advocate free trade. He, along with most of our Founding Fathers, were Protectionists. They believed in high tariffs, mostly to keep trade, commerce, and jobs within America. In the 17-1800's Europe had super cheap labor, much like China today. They wanted to keep jobs in America, so they had high tariffs to keep jobs/trade here.The South during the civil war was the first to really practice Capitalism here, and their economy collapsed.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 Adam Smith avocated free-trade, Hamilton didnt, but the others did not. What u are saying is complete non-sense
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer Adam Smith advocated free trade? Have you ever actually READ Adam Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations"? You can read the original writings for free on Google books. Why don't you read it yourself, and tell me what you think after reading Chapter two, which is entitled: "Chapter 2 "on Restraints upon the Importation of Such Goods from Foreign Countries that which can be produced in America"
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KPattonArt123 The chapter is called: "on Restraints upon the Importation of Such Goods from Foreign Countries that which can be produced at home" not in America, Smith was a brit btw not an american....
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 ''No regulation of commerce can increase the quantity of industry in any society beyond what its capital can maintain. It can only divert a part of it into a direction into wich it might not otherwise have gone; and it is by no means certain that this artificial direction is likely to be more advantageous to the society than that into wich it would have gone of its own accord.'' Again, he his puttting tariffs down here.. Right? Tell me you were kiding?
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer Adam Smith believed in "unequal free trade." You have free trade in markets that are advantageous to your nation (things you can't manufacture, that you must import), while having high tariffs on markets that are advantageous to your nation (things that you can manufacture yourself).
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer "By restraining, either by high duties, or by absolute prohibitions, the importation of such goods from foreign countries as can be produced at home, the monopoly of hte home market is more or less secured to the domestic industry employed in producing them."
--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol 1, p 272
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 I know ur very limited intellectualy, so please try to concentrate. again : ''No regulation of commerce can increase the quantity of industry in any society beyond what its capital can maintain. It can only divert a part of it into a direction into wich it might not otherwise have gone; and it is by no means certain that this artificial direction is likely to be more advantageous to the society than that into wich it would have gone of its own accord.'' Is this a protectionist?
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 Yes I read that part, what he is saying is that if you have tariffs on a certain product or service, you give the industries at home a monopoly on industries at home, but he then goes on to explain why this is a bad thing.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 Adam Smith hated protectionism, he spends pretty much all his time fighting it.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer No, Adam Smith hated Monarchy. The spent all of his time fighting it. He hated being economically involved with Monarchies in France, England, and the Netherlands. He wanted an independant nation, which had no ties to Europe. That included economic ties.
Get a degree in American History and Economics before discussing this with me. You're clearly uneducated on this issue, whereas I'm a professor in this field.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 Its really bothering to me that an idiot like you, who reads Adam Smith and thinks he his arguing against free-trade can be a professor.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 Stop making shit up. Hamilton was the only one that I know of to have advocated tariffs
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer Most of the Founding Fathers advocated tariffs. That's why the average tariff was 35% up until the Civil War. We did not get rid of Protectionism until Grover Cleveland. Read the economic differences between the North and South that led up to the Civil War.You'll be surprised who advocated Capitalism/Free Trade, and who advocated Protectionism.
The only pro-Capitalist Founding Father was Thomas Jefferson, and even he believed in things such as progressive taxes.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 Jefferson did believe in progressive taxes at some point, but turned away from it at some point. Rush Limbaugh? Im a libertarian, wich means I pretty much hate the guy, get real....
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 Oh and here is another one ; ''How far it may be proper to impose taxes upon the importation of foreign goods, in order not to prevent their importation but to raise a revenue for government, I shall consider hereafter when I come to treat of taxes.Taxes imposed with a view to prevent, or even to diminish importation, are evidently as destructive of the revenue of the customs as of the freedom of trade. '' Now did you actually read the whealt of nations? or were you kidding?
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer You actually proved my point, moron. Reread what you just pasted. (And read the entire chapter in context, btw) It says that taxing importations are good to raise revenue for government, and diminish importation, which increases manufacturing in America. He then stated that free trade is destructive.
Try reading the whole book.
Yes, I've read the Wealth of Nations. I'm an economics professor.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 Adam Smith was not one of the founding fathers, he was a brit u moron.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer Of course Smith was a Brit and not an American, you moron. There was no such thing as America before America was founded. How stupid are you? Adam Smith is cited today as the Founding Father of Capitalism, not of the USA. His ideas were instrumental to the development of our economy.
But aside from that, not all of the Founding Fathers were born in America. Thomas Paine was British. Alexander Hamilton was born in the Caribbean. Wilson was born in Scotland. etc etc
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer I think you must have misread what I wrote, or mistaken what someone else wrote as mine.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 I ment he never took position in favor of tarifs, I miswrote, I was drunk when I replied.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer Adam Smith the Libertarian, or Adam Smith the Conservative? How about checking out his book, "On the Wealth of Nations," with such great articles as Article 2 "Taxes upon Profit, or upon the Revenue arising from Stock." Or maybe Article 3 "Taxes upon the wages of Labour." How about his Free Trading beliefs in Chapter 3 "Of the extraordinary Restraints upon the Importation of Goods of almost all Kinds"
Get your head out of Rush Limbaugh's ass and study some history.
KPattonArt123 1 year ago
@KPattonArt123 ''There is no certain criterion by wich we can determine on wich side what is called the balance between any two countries lies, or wich of them exports to the greatest value. National prejudice and animosity, prompted always by the private interest of particular traders, are the principles wich generally direct our judgment upon all questions concerning it'' Does this fucking sound like a guy arguing against free-trade??? I just read the article, he's denoucing tariffs...get real
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
He's very bright but he's all over the map.
Families are destructive and that's why economics 'doesn't work'?
30 minutes of rambling to get to that??
Now I know why libertarianism fails.
AshtonPhoto 1 year ago
I tried this argument with a colleague of mine to explain why someone cannot buy a circular piece of land around a city and enclose it. He came up with the example: "But what if the people buying up all the pieces of land around the city secretly family members that are targeting a land monopoly enclosing the city." It made me think of the Rothschild banking cartel of the early 19th century....
alalelalex 1 year ago
The reason philosophy is different from those other sciences is because the object is different. Modern science is necessarily about those things that can be measured. Philosophy is about things that give measurable things intelligibility. It's a greater science, it's the thing by which other sciences are known. You cannot have the same standards for philosophy as you do for lower sciences. dumbass. oh, Ron Paul sucks.
soopermexican 1 year ago
Stop with the irritating introductory banter and get to the point.
anneha 1 year ago
HE'S A LIBERTARIAN GUYS!
lol I can imagine how many fellow libertarians didn't get far enough into this video to realize he's not just another socialist fuck criticizing freedom, but a libertarian explaining why OUR doctrine hasn't been able to take off
hbrtmran 1 year ago 36
Because I don't support sweat shops you nailed that on the head, libretarianism does not work in my own collectivist ideals of a society working together.
trademestuff 1 year ago
@trademestuff Sweat shops are bad news, but they beat the hell out of subsistence farming. The do gooders might have a warm tingly feeling when they don't buy things from sweat shops, but in reality they just end up making the poor poorer.
jimbo525SE 1 year ago
Right on Right on !!! I thought i wasnt going to like your vids but your on the money :)))
jaay334 1 year ago
Your palm-fingers analogy is great for every thing without proprietary systems and copyrights. Sony basically achieved that with DvD and then Blu ray. Out of the goodness of their hearts they allow companies to make Blu-rays and DvDs as long as they pay Sony a heft licences per unit.
Sony really only grant licences because government's would just change the law if sony took something so core like DvD's and bluray 100% proprietary, but don't think companies haven't tried. Apple for example....
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
A free marked monopoly will become very inefficient after a while, and when they start to rise the prices they will eventually sow the seeds for competing businesses to be created...
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@bjarnet3 I feel you are overlooking:
1) Barriers to entry. Right now it would be impossible to get into say the x86 CPU market. The capital requires would turn away any investment. You would have to do it alone privately. So take a hypothetical 'oil prince' if he decides to challenge Intel he would be would be literally decades behinds. Everything is patented. Lets say after 40yrs in 2050 this new company could compete in products....
2) .. why not have just bought intel shares in 2010?
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs It is not impossible to go into the CPU, GPU marked,, Apple has just announced their own new GPU chip... I think its because they're not satisfied with intel and AMDs prices... Companies recieving and using such devices in their own products can transform and modify, innovate, create their own... Just like Apple did.... My point is not valid if the government is using force to keep that Monopoly...
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@bjarnet3 I don't know where you are getting that from. Apple definitely do not make any CPUs, or GPUs You are clearly mistaken. If you are talking about openCL, that is software NOT hardware.
In fact the opposite is true to what you say, until 2007? apple was the ONLY consumer desktop computer manufacturer not buying CPU's from the two x86 chip manufactures Intel & AMD (80/19%) market share respectively. Ofc they couldn't keep up with the investment of those two so 'powerPC chip' is gone.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs 27.jan.2010 "Apple Launches Its Own CPU, the 1GHz A4" Search it yourself...
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@bjarnet3 No, that's a Smasung chip. Everybody in the tech business knows it. I won't lambaste you for not knowing. Though let me tell you that not only is it not manufactured by Apple, they didn't design it either its simply a ARM S-O-C which are all designed by ARM computers in England. They are the only RISC cpu designers in the world (patients). You either use their latest licences or use there free licences (which will be an 1980's era chip fine for controlling say a car alarm)
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@bjarnet3 Another-thing you should know is that there not that many factories in the world capable of making 45mn chips like the A4. Intel owns most of them for making there x86 class desktop CPU's. At $3B just to set up a factory companies like Apple definitely don't own any. This is what I mean by 'Barriers to entry'
Google the 'Samsung's galaxy S'. Since they own the factory they have given their phone the better SOC and given Apple the the slower Cortex SOCs.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@bjarnet3 Oh btw, You seem focussed here the A4 is a ARM processor so thats the Iphone and Ipad. AMD(Gpu's) and intel(x86 cpus) still and will do gfx and cpus for apple for time to come. Rest in peace powerPC.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@bjarnet3 Your point is valid when it comes to coffee shops and high street bars etc.... Particularity brands, were 99% of the value is added in marketing and psycho-manipulation when in reality the product cost pennies stitched in India.
Outside that, competition is pretty dead in many industries.
Also, the foundations of economics was penned before modern psychology. I wonder what Ricardo, smith or Marx would have thought about advertising to children and brand conditioning techniques.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
this man is a moron. but then again what could you expect from a guy that seemed so excited to be out of his "lair"
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702
Have anything to back that up or just throwing out bullshit for the fun of it?
Zen5012 1 year ago
God listening,, great ideas... Thumbs up! I'm your new subscriber...
bjarnet3 1 year ago
RE: Philosophy being useless.
First, underscoring all physical sciences are philosophic concepts. In fact, most famous scientists studied philosophy.
Second, the fact that Science has progressed this far in 100 years plays against you - before then science had not progressed as dramatically. Further, you can't compare philosophy to physical sciences like that. It's apples and oranges.
Third, logic. That's it. That's all I have to say.
No problems RE: anti-libertarianism.
CgStv 1 year ago
Racism was the law of the land at that time in history and government still discriminates with affirmative action routines.
Libertarianism is self-governance and the ultimate freedom for all.
H204Real 1 year ago
why do negative videos about libertarianism pop up first when you do a search. Interesting.... Just an observation. and who is this guy. who does he work for , what is his practice.
paulhasarrived 1 year ago
@paulhasarrived He's a philosopher, and a libertarian anarchist himself. He's pretty smart, watch his videos, it will likely change your views dramatically.
Sivels 1 year ago
@paulhasarrived Oh noes, you cracked it. The government brain wave machine has deliberatly sabotaged youtube search results. shhhhhh, put your tin foil hat on right away!!!!!!
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Im not shure if i agree with you, your words are to big.
FFarmerCharlie 1 year ago
In my opinion, the reason Libertarianism fails is because USA is corrupt and the constitution isn't being followed.
Viktir666 1 year ago
@Viktir666 yes, the government is colluding with corporations because of the harmful self-interests of career politicians....the Constitution is a piece of toilet paper to these government politicos.
BE FREE. WE CAN GOVERN OURSELVES AS THE FISH DO IN THE SEA.
H204Real 1 year ago
Economics as a "science" has not become a true discipline simply because it has ALWAYS been politicized. Even back to Adam Smith's tome. Think about it. From Smith, to Keynes, to Galbraith, to the monetarists, etc.. All have been promoted or demoted based on how well they "fit" with a particular government's agenda. Only the Austrians, it seems, emphasizes HUMAN action, rather than government manipulation. Therefore, it is not promoted in state-supported schools and thought.
Jollyprez 1 year ago
@Jollyprez Economics is not a "Science." It is a pseudo-science, at best. It does not use empiricism in its true form, for it makes assumptions based on theories and conjecture, rather than data collected from controlled sample populations. Further, the tendency to extrapolate these conjectures, (which are based on ridiculous "ceterus peribus" assumptions), so pervert the scientific method as to be no more valid than using a Quija Board to divine out reality.
bestgodzillaman 1 year ago
@bestgodzillaman We're agreeing on main principles. Please note the quotes around "science" to denote that the term was used skeptically. My only point was that economics is perverted to push forward a particular state's agenda. Therefore, anything postulated by the various schools of economics is suspect on its face.
Jollyprez 1 year ago
@Jollyprez Oh yeah, teachers are in on it. Who else? The fairies?
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@ManicStreetStevO We know the Spaniards married the women, and often times murdered the men. Same is true of the Huns. The Vikings did no less. The Kings of Scotland eventually became all of Viking descent, and so did England and Ireland. They were not of Hun descent. George Washington is a Norman Viking name, so are most of the Framers. The Anglo Saxons were never conquered by Huns either. Today, our culture of Scandanavian descent is no longer the majority but the Hun is.
dons123111 1 year ago
@ManicStreetStevO Wrong! According to your Hegelian unreasoning, Hispanics in South America are Mayan, yet South America has many cultures conquered by one, the Spanish. Hence we say Spanish, or Hispanic. German Philosophers like yourself, need to understand that when conquered, which is not always violent, (your hegelian will jump all over the narrow meanings of that word), the new culture is subject to the new customs. Scandanavians were never conquered by Huns, and neither was England.
dons123111 1 year ago
@ManicStreetStevO Hitler's overregulations in 1934 are no different then liberals or conservative overregulations are today in America. And like Hitler we are continueing to pass more and more regulations, this week alone the Fascists past more Financial regulations. Psychopaths are regulators and vice versa. We are well on our way to Nazi Germany's 1943-45, all we need is time because we have the insanity.
dons123111 1 year ago
Germanic peoples are NOT of scandanavian origin. Sorry. The Huns invaded Germany, and stayed there for 100 years. Their men married the women of Germany. Scandanavians were not touched by the Huns neither was Britain nor France. and neither did the Scandis setttle Germany like they did England, Scotland, Ireland and France. The Hegalian dialect is too many lies.
dons123111 1 year ago
There are theistic libertarians. I wonder if this guy would boot them out of the movement if he was running things.
CrossoverManiac 1 year ago
Are you familiar with Lyndon LaRouche's science of physical economy?
thepostman1 1 year ago
@ManicStreetStevO It's Hegellian dialect here that makes you unbeleivable. I never said sole at all. Not once. Your culture, your philosophy, your need to vicrtimize and villainize groups an especially individuals, promps you to the same lies that german philosophers are guilty of. I am a recovering co-dependant, who now understands the lieing that comes from fraudelent authoritarians. It sems you are hopelessly addicted to such a system of lies.
dons123111 1 year ago