These arguments don't hold up if you imagine a situation where one man owns all property. And the idea of one man owning all property is just the opposite of property being shared out with absolute equality. Libertarian fundamentalism is as impractical and as wilfully obstructive to humanity's well-being as communism. We'd all despise the idea that the sun and the air could be owned by someone. So why celebrate the idea of land ownership as being positive?
Silence may have no voice but a misdirected one is far more harmful. This is why I chose to be a libertarian and encourage others to give this a chance. For those who are unsure of what a libertarian is, it can be easily summed up with only two words -- constitutional conservative.
not all Libertarians are pro-abortion-choice, Some view that abortion violates the natural right to live. I love how he talks about how we got our bodies from our parents and yet he believes our mothers have a natural right to execute us in the womb. btw I'm a Pro-Life Libertarian
In fact, did you know left-wingers like FDR, during the 1930s, themselves oftentimes thought that one of the reasons for the Wall St. crash and Depression, as stupid as it sounds, was "too much competition"?? TOO MUCH competition?? Lol. More competition is closer to what economists usually refer to as "perfect competition", which, ironically, isn't really competition in much of a business sense. Perfectly competitive markets aren't all that powerful.
@whoo689 It was FDR and his cronies who put forth the National Recovery Administration, which literally CARTELIZED business. It allowed businesses to set up their own cartels, and the big businesses, naturally, had a lot more say in what the cartel agreements were like. Therefore, they could punish ANY small business that didn't do things to their liking and keep profits for themselves.
Gov't stupidity can work both ways. Regulation doesn't always work but it doesn't hurt sometimes either.
@whoo689 However, generally speaking, less regulation is better for the economy. We only need the minimum, and we're far beyond the minimum. Of course, luckily, we're still a far cry from communist states or even European regulatory structures.
Hong Kong is usually ranked number 1 on economic freedom, but their economy is pretty vibrant. I have yet to hear of many complaints regarding "child labor" or anything related to massive inequality from over there.
@whoo689 Singapore has a pretty small gov't and free market economy. However, their kids are educated pretty well, they have a fairly high standard of living for such a small nation, AND their healthcare system is ranked 6th best even by the WHO. However, Singapore's system is a far cry from national healthcare or socialized medicine. What they have is closer to a free-market HC system with private HC or medical savings accounts for everyone.
@whoo689 Japan is another oddity. Despite its heavy regulation, it can still survive and prosper economically. It's the 2nd or 3rd-largest economy worldwide. AND their welfare state is pretty small, comparatively speaking. Unions were never a huge thing in Japan, and keiretsus are generally considered to be a more 'humane' corporate structure. Not only that, but Japanese CEOs don't make nearly as much as American. They also consider themselves equal to their workers.
@whoo689 If anything, whether or not regulation adn welfare states are needed depends on the society, NOT this left-wing notion that all democratic market societies need a lot of both.
@whoo689 Plus, America did have a pretty vibrant "market" of helping the poor long before the New Deal came into being, as well as the War on Poverty. If the ultimate goal of the War on Poverty was to end poverty altogether, why is it still at an average of 12% nowadays? The record doesn't seem to show it working for the last few decades. Time for a new approach, liberals? Maybe the welfare-state was doomed to fail from the beginning? Maybe it was necessary only for a fraction?
@whoo689 Let's see, Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden. They all have SOCIALIZED MEDICINE(welfare) and they all have a HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING THAN THE US. Hmmmmm, how could that be? You can't have any Socialist policies AND a high standard of living?
Libertarianism would actually make things worse in terms of equality. Lower taxes and less regulation equates to more wealth consolidation. Not a good idea and in the long run would most likely lead to an enormous wealth gap, similar to what we see today in Latin American, although Hugo in Venezuela is trying to change that.
@itrainsinoctober: Actually, there is good reason to believe that wealth consolidation had been augmented by the growth of central government. Hugo Chavez is a petty dictator of course, and his actions to restrain the press in Venezuela have shown his true colors.
The children of the wealthy get the best education, can live in the safest neighborhoods, can afford the highest quality of food and get the best medical care. What you libertarians fail to understand, continually, is that freedom is a meaningless term without equality, both economic and social.
@itrainsinoctober Re: "freedom is a meaningless term without equality, both economic and social." Spoken like someone who has never been struck by a police officer.
You actually just made the case for Libertarianism... that our current Keynesian economic system is not working.
The filthy rich only occurs because of lobbyists and government officials intervening in the market to allow monopolies through passing laws that create barriers to entry that reduce competition.
In order for their to be equal results, not equal opportunity, as you're proposing.. requires you to confiscate someone else's labor, ie theivery.
@itrainsinoctober Everything you mention is not the government's concern. Government exist to secure a person's already existing natural rights since people can't do that on their own without it. Don't cry about helping the poor because you are still able to do that all you want. No one will inhibit you from doing that so go at it.
@timbosforporn Because of the natural phenomenon of wealth consolidation by the few, TAXES and REGULATION are a necessity in a Capitalist society. It's very simple.
@itrainsinoctober The byproduct of freedom is 'something bad' so that freedom has to be removed. What if the byproduct of freedom speech or association was the creation of the KKK? Should we get rid of freedom of speech then or freedom of association? What is the basis of your authority over others that gives you the right to take away their freedom?
@timbosforporn You can either have a govenment or anarchy. The current policies were created by individuals, and many of those policies will continue to be shaped by our current government. I think most Americans value freedom of speech so hopefully that will continue to be unimpeded.
@itrainsinoctober You still did not answer the question of what is the basis for your or anyone elses authority to dictate what other people do in other people's lives. Is it just your personal will on what you think other people should be doing and if so then why should freedom of speech or any other freedom you think is important be immune to that?
@timbosforporn It isn't my authority to dictate. Every society has different rules that have been established by "the people". So it's the same as I said before, you can have either have government or anarchy.
@itrainsinoctober OK but then where do 'the people' get the authority to dictate what other people do if they have the same authority that you do which is none at all? Where do they get the power if no member has such an authority?
@timbosforporn You live in a society that was established before you were born. The people of that society created certain rules and guidelines on how that society should function. Then u were born. The rules are in place. The only societies without rules are anarchist, none of which exist today. So the only way to exist without any rules would be to buy an island or something, but even that is going to fall under someone's flag. But if you had some land you could live "off the grid."
@timbosforporn Have u read The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin? That might be right up your alley. I'm reading it now, it was written in 1892. You can download the pdf on the net. It's about 120 pages or something.
@itrainsinoctober Let's take France, for example. Before the French Revolution, 3% of the people held only 97% of the wealth. Think about that for a moment. WHY was it like this? Because the state made it that way! The king and his nobles bandied together to take away all the wealth and prevented the people from having their own. Did you know Robin Hood is NOT the fictional liberal character everyone claims he is, too? Look it up. He resisted state power that took away wealth.
If the people HAD BEEN allowed a free market to sell and make something of themselves in pre-Revolution France, why would 97% of the people have only 3% of the wealth? If the monarchist monopoly hadn't existed, the wealth would be much more readily available. I'll agree to some extent with you on the less regulation side, although it's not clear how much less regulation you're thinking of particularly.
Lower taxes? no... Taxes are coercive and take money.
@itrainsinoctober Letting people keep more of what they earn, including the lower classes, benefits all. So what if there's a gap between the highest and lowest wages? I'm so sick of this bullshit fallacy. Your fallacy is not supported by any credible economist.
"Wage gap, wage gap." Please... It doesn't MATTER what the gap is between the richest and poorest. What matters is if people have the opportunities to obtain a decent living and make something of themselves.
@itrainsinoctober Focusing on some stupid wage gap between a wealthy CEO who runs a Fortune 500 company and keeps it successful, which is pretty damn tough (quit acting like you can do it or I can do it), and some peon who dropped out of HS and works at McDonalds is just ridiculous. Economics is RELATIVE. We should never get so caught up in absolutes. That's what led to the idiocy of trade protection, and it's what's keeping you from seeing the truth on wages.
@itrainsinoctober Plus, as Gabriel Kolko and James Weinstein pointed out, many of the so-called "Progressives" of the late 1800s/early 1900s were actually big businessmen THEMSELVES who wanted protection from "too much" competition that they saw was eating into a lot of their profits. In every big sector of the economy, they moved to get gov't to protect big business against small business, starting with the ICC. Corporatism is just as big a threat as "laissez-faire".
@itrainsinoctober America didn't really even have laissez-faire for all that long, maybe a century at the most, after the Constitution was ratified. So to blame free markets for all our woes, esp. today, is just fallacious and nonsensical. Yes, minimal regulation is good, but too much regulation can stifle.
@itrainsinoctober Wrong! taxation is the ultimate wealth consolidation. Especially when you finally understand that the government is not going to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. They take the money from everyone who has any and enact policy that is helps the money powers that got them elected. Then they throw a couple pennies to the idiots who voted them in.
@itrainsinoctober Im a venezuelan and let me tell you something,since Hugo Chaves is here ,there is more poverty than ever.Hugo chavez is nothing but a dictator and the whole country is worst because he is here.
The "business cycle" is caused by the Federal Reserve. That's why America had this boom/bust cycle both before and after Nixon eliminated the gold standard. How many (non war related) recessions did America have prior to 1913 when the Fed was established?
Thanks! After one year of reading everything I could about Libertarians. I have converted and will vote Libertarian. I have voted Republican in the past and struggled hard with this last election. I will vote Libertarian so long as they keep the same principles they portray now. Thanks for the video!
You mentioned that you were going to join the Army and then you allude that you turned them down because of your Libertarian views. I nearly joined the Marine Corps a few months ago and I also turned them down - two weeks before I would have commissioned - because of my Libertarian views. I'd have to say, Atlas Shrugged may have saved my life. It has, beyond doubt, changed my world view.
Was the Mises article on Sweden the one that made reference to the inefficiency of the garbage collection system? I read that article about 2 years ago and it was surpising and informative.
Just want to commend you on your lecture and on keeping the posture when some dude blankly accused your ideas of being silly. If this was meant for the general public, it seems like you'd get a warmer response if you'd stick to specific policy proposals, and state the rationale in tangents.
picapauengracado: Thank you for the kind words. This speech was delivered to a libertarian campus group. You are quite right that general audiences are more likely to respond to a different presentation.
Funny I seem to remember responding to this but somehow my reply never showed up. I guess Dick doesnt approve comments that are in disagreement with his.
BD: The burden of proof lies with people like you who advocate using force rather than peaceful means to achieve your social goals. Government monopolies are inferior to competitive market actors in the provision of all goods and services.
Force? Because the market isn't perfectly competitive, taking a laissez faire approach doesn't yield the best results.
I'm not saying government intervention = good. I just disagree with the libertarian stance that government intervention in industry is always a bad thing. I think the government needs to help account for market failures. It can be very effective in jump-starting industries with high capital requirements or regulation where companies have no incentive to regulate themselves.
Define "Market Failure".. Good intentioned people tend to define it as the market not producing products or prices that they themselves would prefer. When Pres Bush declared "The Free Market has failed" what he meant was it failed to produce his desired results. The reality was the market was working perfectly. If banks make bad loans, the market ushers them out of business and new better run banks emerge. Markets NEVER fail. Even with stimulus pkgs the market will still function properly anyway
So what about NAMBLA? They want to fuck little boys, should they have the right to do so? I'm a tad confused about that, because if the government doesn't say "don't fuck little boys" I'm pretty sure they would go and do so...
Are you guys for the rights of serious child molesters too? I seem to agree with most of what you mentioned, but I'm a little confused on how you would deal with this.
that is agansit the libertarian view becuase that is not consenting sex between adults, however, for some reason, the ACLU that thinks it's just fine!
I see no real difference in the Republican views on taxes and the Libertarian view. I think it is just a new facade being put on a very old and ugly party.
Badmuffy: Republicans almost invariably believe in taxes. Radical libertarians do not. Further, those Republicans who do reject some form of taxation or another do so for utilitarian reasons. Libertarians take a principled stance against all theft, including those thefts perpetrated by government.
Noones like to pay taxes but it is a civic duty. How is it theft if the people benefitting from the improvements in society that their tax dollars pay for?
The trouble is you see each person as being totally isolated from his neighbors. In reality when your neighbor has a mental illness and your taxes help pay for his treatment that may well save your life or the life of one of your kids.
You can't be there 24 hours a day to protect them. Sooner of later you have to depend on society for help. And don't expect charity will handle it. That might have worked 400 years ago in a tiny population where everyone knows each other, but not anymore.
Badmuffy and skateforpeace are suffering from a common disease. They accept the pablum that the two party system offers them. Accepting taxes is like learned helplessness. I am disabled. I live off Social Security Disability, and the rules make it hard for me to improve myself. I have never paid a dime of taxes in my life, and I feel like a slave every time I have to take that monthly check to survive, because NO ONE should depend on government for squaduche.
Well all I can say is if you don't feel you need assistance stop taking it. Don't ask me to feel sorry for you because you have more than you need. Escpecially when you are trying to deprive other people who really need the money of the same help that you yourself are taking advantage of.
I know the rules of disability suck. But if you really want to help people try changing the laws, don't try to break the system comletely because there are other people who actually depend on it.
and yes, I have been disabled my entire life. The rules say I cant work or I lose my assistance. But, when I try to make something of myself, I have to report every dime I make and they take HALF of what I make in order for me to keep what I have. If you want me to survive, let me survive on my own. If you want me to be dependent, which crushes my will to survive, then give me enough to live a decent life.
I am not suffering from a disease. That's the problem with you conservative you are not able to tolerate other people with oppsing viewpoints. In fact anyone who doesn't think like you is automatically either stupid or brainwashed or diseased. You can never accept that other people might know everything you do and just came to a different conclusion.
Crying "civic duty" doesn't change the fact that taxes are taken at the point of a gun. The mafia actually does provide "protection" when they extort money from local businesses, but this fact does not negate the fact that the initial act of extortion was unjust.
Dick said it nicely in this video what is the difference between someone pointing a gun to your head and taking your wallet or the government threatening imprisonment because you do not want to give them your wallet? I'm sorry but the ends do not justify the means and they never will. Just because your money is stolen on the premise of good intentions does not change the fact that it is still stolen from you and it is still theft.
I am a Scottish libertarian but there are very few of people like me because most Scots hate(ed) Maggie Thatcher. Scotland and the whole of Britain must be more neoliberal or libertarian!
"the problem of externality" would not exist in a Libertarian government because if everything were privately owned, polluting land/area other than your own would be a violation of someones property rights and would thus go to court. If people chose not to send their kids to school, it would leave less competition for those willing to work, learn and be prosporous. With no welfare, the unschooled would have to produce or let their laziness kill them (Evolution at its best).
By the way. Look into social capital when you discuss the case of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Many scholars claim that our socialdemocratic welfare system works because of a very high degree of social capital.
In short externality means, that every deal between two people has effects on people who are not involved in the deal. These people need a voice in the deal. Here the state comes with rules, regulations and laws.
Evironmental pollution is an extarnality for instance.
The state must regulate to protect third parties from extarnalities.
If a huge group of people decides to not send their kids to school, this decision has an externality effect on the society. Stupidity, that effects everyone.
Sarah Palin is going to win it. Not all feminist are the stereotypical cookie cutter tree hugger type. we are the republican conservative type, much smarter than men, blacks, and democrats. nobama. Palin is the rock star now, no longer is obama. now even the incompetent macho redneck types will have to vote for a woman, they don't have a choice. YESSSS!!!
HAHAHA! Fuck you. :) "tree hugger" "smarter than men, blacks and democrats"? HAHAHA! I hope you are joking, if you are then I like you and you are funny if not then fuck you and you are a stain on the mattress of society. GObama!!!!
The ultra wealthy are driven by the capitalist system to perpetually accumulate more and more wealth (at the expense of everyone else), but they recognize that this process, if allowed to proceed at it's 'natural course' will invariably lead towards revolution (just like it did back in the first half of the 20th century). In countries where capitalism was in even more dire straits, fascism developed to save it from its death throes, but things didn't get quite that extreme here.
Why would the wealthy 'restrict their brethren'? Simple, to prevent the re-establishment of the same sort of conditions which occurred in the early 20th century, which led to considerable civil unrest, widespread social upheaval, and a massive economic depression which threatened to spark a revolution here in this country--all from your beloved laissez faire capitalist system.
Do you enjoy being a hypocrite? Clark drew a valid point against your argument, that the government is composed mostly of the hyper wealthy, and then asked what exactly made you think those same wealthy that you all but say are pure evil would restrict their brethren and themselves in any shape way or form. Instead you have tried to victimize yourself by accusing him of name calling and refusing to even attempt to repute any of his points.
The govt. is--at the higher and more meaningful levels--composed of the 'hyper wealthy' or those beholden to them. Thus, the current state of affairs is pretty much 'the best of all possible worlds' for the small coterie of ultra wealthy businessmen and bankers who own this country. Why would they abandon their imperialist course, when it enriches them so? Their wars and interventions into the affairs of other countries benefits them (at our expense).
My substantive criticism is that advocating the concentration of power as a means of moderating the concentration and abuse of power is futile and self-contradictory. Again, please drop the trolling and make a serious contribution to the discussion. I would be happy to help you understand why liberty from coercion is both ethically and economically superior to living in statist chains.
"Socialist" is a descriptive term, not a purely pejorative one.
The rich also like the idea of removing government to keep it from hindering their power and ability to exploit others.
So when libertarians stop stating false absolutes (liberal people want the government to do EVERYTHING for them) then intelligent people might see them as both honest and worth listening to. Until then, it sounds like hyperbole and propaganda.
It is amusing that Uncle Banana and Lord Kinbote (both socialists, apparently) seem to believe that the government is both composed of rich oligarchs and yet could somehow be expected to constrain these same oligarchs.
"It is amusing that Uncle Banana and Lord Kinbote (both socialists, apparently) seem to believe that the government is both composed of rich oligarchs and yet could somehow be expected to constrain these same oligarchs."
So how was my comment "dishonest"? I am not trying to "fool" anyone. I am neither rich nor powerful—I just believe in the sovereignty and dignity of the individual human. You are advocating collective domination of the individual, which I think is far more like slavery than wage labor, which is only possible because capitalists have forgone present consumption in favor of saving and planning ahead. As you admit, wage labor is far preferable to subsistence farming.
Well, if my understanding of your position from your comments is incomplete or incorrect, why not elaborate? What is it that you advocate? My position is simple: no one is so weak that they would not be better off being free from coercion. Property rights exist because we live in a world of scarce resources. Abridging property rights results in waste, and thus in a lower average standard of living.
What's your take on Dr Paul's running as a Republican this year? Must be hard for the LP, but one could say it does expand the popularity of the movement...
Peace from Canada.
N.
I enjoyed your video, you had some guts to organize these meetings.
Libertarians recognize the plain truth that men in government are still men, and are thus subject to the same temptations as other men. Why socialists want to specially empower some men to rule over others is confusing, given what we know about people who are placed into positions in which they are given arbitrary authority over others (See Zimbardo, etc.).
The rich like and support the invasion and domination of other nations. They like the system of client states used by the US govt. to project its power and influence around the world. They get off on stomping on third world nations like Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Hati, and Iraq. It makes them feel tough and macho, makes them wealthier, and also sends a message to anybody thinking about plotting a course independent from the imperialist orbit.
There is little or no reason for working people to support libertarianism, as libertarianism seeks to empower those that oppress and exploit them in the accumulation of their wealth. Libertarianism won't appeal to the wealthy, because they like huge immensely profitable no-bid defense contracts stemming from massive invasions paid for by the rest of us. The rich--with perhaps a few exceptions here and there--like imperialism.
In actuality one is dependent upon others for nearly all the things that one requires to sustain oneself. That is to say that human social existence necessarily implies a series of interdependencies thus precluding any possibility of a truly independent existence or self sufficiency. I.E., we're all in this together, homeslice...
This is an irrelevant straw man. Libertarians want the government to stop throwing obstacles in front of market actors. A libertarian society would involve more voluntary social interactions, not fewer.
A person who has only his labor to sell in your beloved marketplace, will necessarily exist in state of perpetual servitude towards those who own the means of production--that or go live as animals in the woods. Therefore, libertarianism seeks to reduce most humans to the state of perpetual servitude, or to barbarism. Besides, the current rich and powerful owners of this country like imperialism way too much to abandon it. Your libertarianism will never supplant the current social order.
Incorrect. Most of the people I buy goods and services from are small business owners. I own the means to my own productions and cultivation of the land I own, and have considered starting my own business. At the time I do sell my labor to a rich corporation for feasible wages and benefits but I don't particularly like the way they operate. Such is life.
However the federal government that you keep giving power, yes even the 'socialists', regularly pander to these hyper rich business men.
Rather it is the house Democrats handing out subsidies to oil companies or Stalin NOT equally distributing wealth (defying the core principal of communism by doing so) giving a governing body too much power over its citizenry is a terrible idea. As with the corporations, who I agree are terrible, they are self serving and power hungry. Just I can avoid doing business with a company I dislike. I can not boycott a government that enforces its laws on me through mass force.
In the end Socialism, no matter how good the intentions of its purveyors, can only end in authoritarian oppression. In almost all modern examples the wealthy continue to benefit from the actions of such governments while the middle and lower classes get the shaft, so to speak.
Socialism is merely enabling the biggest most wicked corporation of them all, the government, absolute control.
Socialism has never been tried on the scale capitalism has been tried. Capitalism has created great wealth, and has considerably built up the productive infrastructure of the world, but the windfall invariably ends up in the hands of a small coterie of extremely wealthy people. Most of the people of planet earth are NOT benefiting from the capitalist system.
A republican govt. allows for more accountability than a corporation, with decisions privately made in a board room versus a public meeting with elected, recall-able officials who actually have to answer to the public that elected them. Corporations=unaccountable private tyrannies.
What does individual self-sufficiency have to do with anything? Libertarians are pro-market. We _celebrate_ the division of labor because it makes everyone better off. It is the voluntary division of labor among individuals acting in self-interested cooperation which best raises the standard of living--a rising tide lifts all ships.
This is a reactionary, pro-capitalist ideology that wants liberty for the wealthy and servitude for everybody else under the misleading guise of liberty for everybody.
UncleBanana: I'd be happy to compare bank balances with you. I am not rich, I have never been rich, and I don't know if I ever will be rich. I am just anti-slavery because I believe in the dignity and individual sovereignty of every person, no matter what they own otherwise. Collectivists want to impose their own arbitrary views on everyone else. I don't think I own anybody but myself, unlike you.
In a society where most people are workers, and a tiny minority are owners--the establishment of a social order which further 'frees the hand' of the owners will serve only to further immiserate and impoverish the workers. Barely scraping out a subsistence in the service of owners hardly sounds like an ideal and truly 'free' existence.
That was an amazing video, I am very grateful you put it up here on youtube. I am 16 and just starting to get involved with the goverment. After hopfully throwing away the bias of pro democrat that i grew up with i am trying right now to make a decsion on what i beilive is best for the country. I am not saying your video turned me liberatrian, (i prefer some safty nets even if they can get out of hand). But watching your video exposed me to another side of politcs that the regular media doesnt.
You're very well spoken, but you look fairly young too. What university are you/have you attended at what point in your college career/post career was this filmed?
what does he mean when he says (at about 1:40) "...if you didn't have right to the stuff that you had gathered, ...then you wouldn't have much incentive to make extra...". Does he mean that you only "work" b/c the property you can acquire when you do so (by getting paid) becomes yours, you own it, therefore this is an incentive?
It's more like, you wouldn't work for something unless that something that you worked for became yours. Since, logically, only someone other than you can own what you acquired with your labor, there would be no incentive to do work if everything you worked for went to someone else. Thus, the only incentive to work is to gain that which you acquire through labor.
I meant that the ability to own things gives us the ability to set things aside for the future, to engage in personal and organization economic planning and calculation, and to generally raise the standard of living.
I hope to God(who i believe is imaginary) our next president will be Ron Paul. I cant imagine our country with another robot powered by special interests.
Libertarians are Dixiecrats. Rationalizing cheap labour by using the buzz phrases, "States rights," and, "Free trade." Libertarians are no more concerned about the Constitution then the Democrat slavers of 1850. They are self-serving SOBs.
Baloney. It is advantageous for capitalists to bring production costs down to the lowest level possible because this makes goods cheaper for everyone. No one should be compelled to work for less than for what they are willing to work. No one holds a gun to the heads of low-wage earning laborers when morning comes each day.
Each worker goes to work because he believes that his life will be better if he goes to work than if not. As laborers improve themselves over time and gain expertise, their productivity levels rise and so too does their compensation.
Yes, and mandating a binding minimum wage will result in the marginal worker being sent home empty-handed. It will not, contrary to popular belief, result in the employer sucking it up and paying the higher wage. So the government, by imposing min. wage, is saying it knows so much more about the employee's needs than the employee himself that it will choose for him unemployment over a low wage.
Child labor is common in places where children are likely to starve if they don't work. Do you think child starvation is preferable to child labor? I don't. But I certainly oppose slavery, and where children are literally enslaved, I do not favor child labor.
The flaw that liberals fall into is equating the harsh deal offered to consumers or employees with coercion. In fact, the line betweent the two is neither hazy nor subtle. The consumer with credit problems who accepts the high interest rate loan, or the desperate employee who works for low wages is better off ex-ante. In the coercive transfer case--robbery, theft, etc.--the victim is worse off ex-ante.
What's going through my mind is what if there are differences in views of what is property? I'm talking about animal rights. We do not have the right to own the lives of sentient beings or exploit them as human resources. If I free an animal from a factory slaughterhouse, am I still libertarian? I should think so even though it violates the law (legality is not morality). It's absolutely comparable to freeing a slave isn't it.
The only reason one could say they don't have rights is because they're not human. Just as why the slave master could only realistically say "well they aren't white" or the man who bought his wife in China could only say "well she's not a man." So the human says "well they aren't human so it must make it acceptable." People are overlooking far too much, just as Americans did 60 years ago.
Elhan2005, sorry I never responded. I saw a few episodes of South Park, so I'm not sure what they are. I believe in assigning property rights, and letting the parties work out the best deal they can (Coase theorm). But I also recognize that where trans. costs are high etc., it is important to have government, via the tort system, work out a liability rule that will constrain inefficient behavior but not efficient behavior.
Eswat is a fool. If he is saying that libertarianism is fundamentally wrong than he is saying that the foundations of the country are fundamentally wrong. While the founders were not libertarians solely in the sense of the name, they did believe in the equivalent ideas in the parties they did belong to, such as the democratic-republican party. Since then however, Dems and Reps have torn the name apart, perverting our founders ideas, and left founding principles gasping for breath.
It's nice that name-calling starts before any attempt at clarification is made. I am a libertarian, but I realize that the doctrines taken to their logical extreme would work some undesirable results. For instance, "true libertarians" don't believe there should be any such crime as fraud. The problem with this is that it would cause wasteful overinvestment in finding out about others with whom a wealth-increasing transaction could be made. (cont.)
Of course "true libertarians" believe that fraud is a crime, at least in those cases where there is consideration! (Lying, which some might include under the heading of "fraud" is not rightfully a crime.)
These arguments don't hold up if you imagine a situation where one man owns all property. And the idea of one man owning all property is just the opposite of property being shared out with absolute equality. Libertarian fundamentalism is as impractical and as wilfully obstructive to humanity's well-being as communism. We'd all despise the idea that the sun and the air could be owned by someone. So why celebrate the idea of land ownership as being positive?
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@Oceanus57
Right. We should always start off with a highly improbable lifeboat scenario to make real life decisions. Its always a good, rational basis.
Why don't we instead imagine "Santa Claus is real"?
utubehayter 4 months ago
Silence may have no voice but a misdirected one is far more harmful. This is why I chose to be a libertarian and encourage others to give this a chance. For those who are unsure of what a libertarian is, it can be easily summed up with only two words -- constitutional conservative.
JulesManson 9 months ago
Taking from those that work and giving to those that don't. The end of the republic.
The corporations buy votes from the politicians, who used money from those that work, to buy votes from the masses, that refuse to.
funder1der 9 months ago
not all Libertarians are pro-abortion-choice, Some view that abortion violates the natural right to live. I love how he talks about how we got our bodies from our parents and yet he believes our mothers have a natural right to execute us in the womb. btw I'm a Pro-Life Libertarian
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
No shit, I'm from Slidell! Good to see a fellow Slidellian out there making a damn good case for the Libertarian cause.
samanthalynn6790 1 year ago 3
@itrainsinoctober:
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.
— F.A. Hayek
You seem to advocate attempting to make people equal, which does not work, as opposed to treating them equal.
digitalaether 1 year ago
@digitalaether I'm interested in a just society and understand the inherent flaws of Capitalism.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
In fact, did you know left-wingers like FDR, during the 1930s, themselves oftentimes thought that one of the reasons for the Wall St. crash and Depression, as stupid as it sounds, was "too much competition"?? TOO MUCH competition?? Lol. More competition is closer to what economists usually refer to as "perfect competition", which, ironically, isn't really competition in much of a business sense. Perfectly competitive markets aren't all that powerful.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 It was FDR and his cronies who put forth the National Recovery Administration, which literally CARTELIZED business. It allowed businesses to set up their own cartels, and the big businesses, naturally, had a lot more say in what the cartel agreements were like. Therefore, they could punish ANY small business that didn't do things to their liking and keep profits for themselves.
Gov't stupidity can work both ways. Regulation doesn't always work but it doesn't hurt sometimes either.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 However, generally speaking, less regulation is better for the economy. We only need the minimum, and we're far beyond the minimum. Of course, luckily, we're still a far cry from communist states or even European regulatory structures.
Hong Kong is usually ranked number 1 on economic freedom, but their economy is pretty vibrant. I have yet to hear of many complaints regarding "child labor" or anything related to massive inequality from over there.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Singapore has a pretty small gov't and free market economy. However, their kids are educated pretty well, they have a fairly high standard of living for such a small nation, AND their healthcare system is ranked 6th best even by the WHO. However, Singapore's system is a far cry from national healthcare or socialized medicine. What they have is closer to a free-market HC system with private HC or medical savings accounts for everyone.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Japan is another oddity. Despite its heavy regulation, it can still survive and prosper economically. It's the 2nd or 3rd-largest economy worldwide. AND their welfare state is pretty small, comparatively speaking. Unions were never a huge thing in Japan, and keiretsus are generally considered to be a more 'humane' corporate structure. Not only that, but Japanese CEOs don't make nearly as much as American. They also consider themselves equal to their workers.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 If anything, whether or not regulation adn welfare states are needed depends on the society, NOT this left-wing notion that all democratic market societies need a lot of both.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Plus, America did have a pretty vibrant "market" of helping the poor long before the New Deal came into being, as well as the War on Poverty. If the ultimate goal of the War on Poverty was to end poverty altogether, why is it still at an average of 12% nowadays? The record doesn't seem to show it working for the last few decades. Time for a new approach, liberals? Maybe the welfare-state was doomed to fail from the beginning? Maybe it was necessary only for a fraction?
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Let's see, Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden. They all have SOCIALIZED MEDICINE(welfare) and they all have a HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING THAN THE US. Hmmmmm, how could that be? You can't have any Socialist policies AND a high standard of living?
.
WRONG.
.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
not bad, 5 starts xD
I see you haz a troll here... xD
achmedthedeadterror5 1 year ago
Libertarianism would actually make things worse in terms of equality. Lower taxes and less regulation equates to more wealth consolidation. Not a good idea and in the long run would most likely lead to an enormous wealth gap, similar to what we see today in Latin American, although Hugo in Venezuela is trying to change that.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober: Actually, there is good reason to believe that wealth consolidation had been augmented by the growth of central government. Hugo Chavez is a petty dictator of course, and his actions to restrain the press in Venezuela have shown his true colors.
CitizenClark 1 year ago 3
@CitizenClark
Not at all. Wealth consolidation is a natural progression within capitalism.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
Help the poor?
The children of the wealthy get the best education, can live in the safest neighborhoods, can afford the highest quality of food and get the best medical care. What you libertarians fail to understand, continually, is that freedom is a meaningless term without equality, both economic and social.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober Re: "freedom is a meaningless term without equality, both economic and social." Spoken like someone who has never been struck by a police officer.
CitizenClark 1 year ago
@CitizenClark If I manage to publish a book, I'd like to quote this on the first page. -A gun lovin' fool who has been struck by police.
YayMeth 10 months ago
@itrainsinoctober
You actually just made the case for Libertarianism... that our current Keynesian economic system is not working.
The filthy rich only occurs because of lobbyists and government officials intervening in the market to allow monopolies through passing laws that create barriers to entry that reduce competition.
In order for their to be equal results, not equal opportunity, as you're proposing.. requires you to confiscate someone else's labor, ie theivery.
KendrickJ2 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober Everything you mention is not the government's concern. Government exist to secure a person's already existing natural rights since people can't do that on their own without it. Don't cry about helping the poor because you are still able to do that all you want. No one will inhibit you from doing that so go at it.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Because of the natural phenomenon of wealth consolidation by the few, TAXES and REGULATION are a necessity in a Capitalist society. It's very simple.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober The byproduct of freedom is 'something bad' so that freedom has to be removed. What if the byproduct of freedom speech or association was the creation of the KKK? Should we get rid of freedom of speech then or freedom of association? What is the basis of your authority over others that gives you the right to take away their freedom?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn You can either have a govenment or anarchy. The current policies were created by individuals, and many of those policies will continue to be shaped by our current government. I think most Americans value freedom of speech so hopefully that will continue to be unimpeded.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober You still did not answer the question of what is the basis for your or anyone elses authority to dictate what other people do in other people's lives. Is it just your personal will on what you think other people should be doing and if so then why should freedom of speech or any other freedom you think is important be immune to that?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn It isn't my authority to dictate. Every society has different rules that have been established by "the people". So it's the same as I said before, you can have either have government or anarchy.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober OK but then where do 'the people' get the authority to dictate what other people do if they have the same authority that you do which is none at all? Where do they get the power if no member has such an authority?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn You live in a society that was established before you were born. The people of that society created certain rules and guidelines on how that society should function. Then u were born. The rules are in place. The only societies without rules are anarchist, none of which exist today. So the only way to exist without any rules would be to buy an island or something, but even that is going to fall under someone's flag. But if you had some land you could live "off the grid."
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Have u read The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin? That might be right up your alley. I'm reading it now, it was written in 1892. You can download the pdf on the net. It's about 120 pages or something.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
Exactly. Tthose most often assaulted by the police have neither social nor economic equality.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober You don't think rich people help the poor?
PresidentRich 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober WHAT???? Libertarianism is what helped the US set the base to grow...look at were it is now and where it is going...its bust!
AntiPsychopath 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober Let's take France, for example. Before the French Revolution, 3% of the people held only 97% of the wealth. Think about that for a moment. WHY was it like this? Because the state made it that way! The king and his nobles bandied together to take away all the wealth and prevented the people from having their own. Did you know Robin Hood is NOT the fictional liberal character everyone claims he is, too? Look it up. He resisted state power that took away wealth.
whoo689 1 year ago
If the people HAD BEEN allowed a free market to sell and make something of themselves in pre-Revolution France, why would 97% of the people have only 3% of the wealth? If the monarchist monopoly hadn't existed, the wealth would be much more readily available. I'll agree to some extent with you on the less regulation side, although it's not clear how much less regulation you're thinking of particularly.
Lower taxes? no... Taxes are coercive and take money.
whoo689 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober Letting people keep more of what they earn, including the lower classes, benefits all. So what if there's a gap between the highest and lowest wages? I'm so sick of this bullshit fallacy. Your fallacy is not supported by any credible economist.
"Wage gap, wage gap." Please... It doesn't MATTER what the gap is between the richest and poorest. What matters is if people have the opportunities to obtain a decent living and make something of themselves.
whoo689 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober Focusing on some stupid wage gap between a wealthy CEO who runs a Fortune 500 company and keeps it successful, which is pretty damn tough (quit acting like you can do it or I can do it), and some peon who dropped out of HS and works at McDonalds is just ridiculous. Economics is RELATIVE. We should never get so caught up in absolutes. That's what led to the idiocy of trade protection, and it's what's keeping you from seeing the truth on wages.
whoo689 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober Plus, as Gabriel Kolko and James Weinstein pointed out, many of the so-called "Progressives" of the late 1800s/early 1900s were actually big businessmen THEMSELVES who wanted protection from "too much" competition that they saw was eating into a lot of their profits. In every big sector of the economy, they moved to get gov't to protect big business against small business, starting with the ICC. Corporatism is just as big a threat as "laissez-faire".
whoo689 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober America didn't really even have laissez-faire for all that long, maybe a century at the most, after the Constitution was ratified. So to blame free markets for all our woes, esp. today, is just fallacious and nonsensical. Yes, minimal regulation is good, but too much regulation can stifle.
whoo689 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober Wrong! taxation is the ultimate wealth consolidation. Especially when you finally understand that the government is not going to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. They take the money from everyone who has any and enact policy that is helps the money powers that got them elected. Then they throw a couple pennies to the idiots who voted them in.
Flashbangb4 1 year ago
@itrainsinoctober Im a venezuelan and let me tell you something,since Hugo Chaves is here ,there is more poverty than ever.Hugo chavez is nothing but a dictator and the whole country is worst because he is here.
DrOktopuz 1 year ago
The "business cycle" is caused by the Federal Reserve. That's why America had this boom/bust cycle both before and after Nixon eliminated the gold standard. How many (non war related) recessions did America have prior to 1913 when the Fed was established?
studentofsmith 2 years ago
It is more disastrous to use fake money like we do now.
trippin4091 2 years ago 5
Thanks! After one year of reading everything I could about Libertarians. I have converted and will vote Libertarian. I have voted Republican in the past and struggled hard with this last election. I will vote Libertarian so long as they keep the same principles they portray now. Thanks for the video!
kac1964 2 years ago
I,m looking at our current recession.
We are not immune to it now.
kac1964 2 years ago 4
Atta boy. TANSTAAFL.
JonJon95GT 2 years ago
Good stuff.
You mentioned that you were going to join the Army and then you allude that you turned them down because of your Libertarian views. I nearly joined the Marine Corps a few months ago and I also turned them down - two weeks before I would have commissioned - because of my Libertarian views. I'd have to say, Atlas Shrugged may have saved my life. It has, beyond doubt, changed my world view.
sniffsnarff 2 years ago 3
I'd vote dick clark for anything. Dick Clark for mayor.
Tralfamador5 2 years ago
Was the Mises article on Sweden the one that made reference to the inefficiency of the garbage collection system? I read that article about 2 years ago and it was surpising and informative.
cnairn 2 years ago
I love your poker chip analogy. You NAILED it.
cnairn 2 years ago
Yep!
RonPaulRepublican1 2 years ago
Just want to commend you on your lecture and on keeping the posture when some dude blankly accused your ideas of being silly. If this was meant for the general public, it seems like you'd get a warmer response if you'd stick to specific policy proposals, and state the rationale in tangents.
picapauengracado 2 years ago
picapauengracado: Thank you for the kind words. This speech was delivered to a libertarian campus group. You are quite right that general audiences are more likely to respond to a different presentation.
CitizenClark 2 years ago
Funny I seem to remember responding to this but somehow my reply never showed up. I guess Dick doesnt approve comments that are in disagreement with his.
badmuffy 2 years ago
Dick is an intelligent guy. He tells it like it is. He's in law school in Boston now.
He's also a defender of jury rights. Google: Fully Informed Jury Association
also:
voluntaryist(dot)com
libertarianjury 2 years ago
BD: The burden of proof lies with people like you who advocate using force rather than peaceful means to achieve your social goals. Government monopolies are inferior to competitive market actors in the provision of all goods and services.
CitizenClark 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Haha libertarians are so goofy.
No man is an island, and there doesn't exist a decision that only affects the person who makes it.
Different industries also function in entirely different ways due to variation in barriers to entry, competition, etc.
As a result the overaching libertarian claim that government intervention/regulation is bad is downright silly.
BenkaiDebussy 2 years ago
Your claim would sound more substantiated if you provided an illustration of what you mean.
picapauengracado 2 years ago
Force? Because the market isn't perfectly competitive, taking a laissez faire approach doesn't yield the best results.
I'm not saying government intervention = good. I just disagree with the libertarian stance that government intervention in industry is always a bad thing. I think the government needs to help account for market failures. It can be very effective in jump-starting industries with high capital requirements or regulation where companies have no incentive to regulate themselves.
BenkaiDebussy 2 years ago
Define "Market Failure".. Good intentioned people tend to define it as the market not producing products or prices that they themselves would prefer. When Pres Bush declared "The Free Market has failed" what he meant was it failed to produce his desired results. The reality was the market was working perfectly. If banks make bad loans, the market ushers them out of business and new better run banks emerge. Markets NEVER fail. Even with stimulus pkgs the market will still function properly anyway
asknudsen 2 years ago 3
So what about NAMBLA? They want to fuck little boys, should they have the right to do so? I'm a tad confused about that, because if the government doesn't say "don't fuck little boys" I'm pretty sure they would go and do so...
Are you guys for the rights of serious child molesters too? I seem to agree with most of what you mentioned, but I'm a little confused on how you would deal with this.
spin164 2 years ago
No, because pedophilia is a form of enslavement.
Nodrog666 2 years ago
that is agansit the libertarian view becuase that is not consenting sex between adults, however, for some reason, the ACLU that thinks it's just fine!
gothgirl16 2 years ago
awesome concepts.
drop the "you know."
r0bman123 2 years ago 2
I see no real difference in the Republican views on taxes and the Libertarian view. I think it is just a new facade being put on a very old and ugly party.
badmuffy 2 years ago
Badmuffy: Republicans almost invariably believe in taxes. Radical libertarians do not. Further, those Republicans who do reject some form of taxation or another do so for utilitarian reasons. Libertarians take a principled stance against all theft, including those thefts perpetrated by government.
CitizenClark 2 years ago
Noones like to pay taxes but it is a civic duty. How is it theft if the people benefitting from the improvements in society that their tax dollars pay for?
badmuffy 2 years ago
i agree 100 percent. taxes are used to improve society and the way we live.
skateforpeace123 2 years ago
because the people benefiting from paying taxes aren't paying them.
SFuNk24 2 years ago 3
The trouble is you see each person as being totally isolated from his neighbors. In reality when your neighbor has a mental illness and your taxes help pay for his treatment that may well save your life or the life of one of your kids.
You can't be there 24 hours a day to protect them. Sooner of later you have to depend on society for help. And don't expect charity will handle it. That might have worked 400 years ago in a tiny population where everyone knows each other, but not anymore.
badmuffy 2 years ago
Badmuffy and skateforpeace are suffering from a common disease. They accept the pablum that the two party system offers them. Accepting taxes is like learned helplessness. I am disabled. I live off Social Security Disability, and the rules make it hard for me to improve myself. I have never paid a dime of taxes in my life, and I feel like a slave every time I have to take that monthly check to survive, because NO ONE should depend on government for squaduche.
DrCheckmate 2 years ago 3
Well all I can say is if you don't feel you need assistance stop taking it. Don't ask me to feel sorry for you because you have more than you need. Escpecially when you are trying to deprive other people who really need the money of the same help that you yourself are taking advantage of.
I know the rules of disability suck. But if you really want to help people try changing the laws, don't try to break the system comletely because there are other people who actually depend on it.
badmuffy 2 years ago
and yes, I have been disabled my entire life. The rules say I cant work or I lose my assistance. But, when I try to make something of myself, I have to report every dime I make and they take HALF of what I make in order for me to keep what I have. If you want me to survive, let me survive on my own. If you want me to be dependent, which crushes my will to survive, then give me enough to live a decent life.
DrCheckmate 2 years ago 2
I am not suffering from a disease. That's the problem with you conservative you are not able to tolerate other people with oppsing viewpoints. In fact anyone who doesn't think like you is automatically either stupid or brainwashed or diseased. You can never accept that other people might know everything you do and just came to a different conclusion.
badmuffy 2 years ago
Crying "civic duty" doesn't change the fact that taxes are taken at the point of a gun. The mafia actually does provide "protection" when they extort money from local businesses, but this fact does not negate the fact that the initial act of extortion was unjust.
CitizenClark 2 years ago
Dick said it nicely in this video what is the difference between someone pointing a gun to your head and taking your wallet or the government threatening imprisonment because you do not want to give them your wallet? I'm sorry but the ends do not justify the means and they never will. Just because your money is stolen on the premise of good intentions does not change the fact that it is still stolen from you and it is still theft.
Prairielander 2 years ago
I am a Scottish libertarian but there are very few of people like me because most Scots hate(ed) Maggie Thatcher. Scotland and the whole of Britain must be more neoliberal or libertarian!
Scoforever 2 years ago
@13otany13ay
"the problem of externality" would not exist in a Libertarian government because if everything were privately owned, polluting land/area other than your own would be a violation of someones property rights and would thus go to court. If people chose not to send their kids to school, it would leave less competition for those willing to work, learn and be prosporous. With no welfare, the unschooled would have to produce or let their laziness kill them (Evolution at its best).
tk1488 2 years ago 3
Amen to Evolution. God Bless Evolution.
Tralfamador5 2 years ago
great video! very informative.
tcampain 2 years ago 3
By the way. Look into social capital when you discuss the case of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Many scholars claim that our socialdemocratic welfare system works because of a very high degree of social capital.
freedom3001 3 years ago
Very interesting. I'm more of a conservative but I like the libertarian approach.
freedom3001 3 years ago 2
I am convinced libertarianism is a big load of baloney, but I am rating the video 5 for being very informative.
The reason libertarianism is baloney: It completely fails to adress the problem of externality.
As soon as externality would be adressed consequently by libertarians, in the context of democracy, they would become liberals.
13otany13ay 3 years ago
I'm curious, what do you mean by 'the problem of externality'?
SomeGuyWithTwoArms 3 years ago
In short externality means, that every deal between two people has effects on people who are not involved in the deal. These people need a voice in the deal. Here the state comes with rules, regulations and laws.
Evironmental pollution is an extarnality for instance.
The state must regulate to protect third parties from extarnalities.
If a huge group of people decides to not send their kids to school, this decision has an externality effect on the society. Stupidity, that effects everyone.
13otany13ay 3 years ago
Ah, I see. And that does make a lot of sense.
Thanks for the info.
SomeGuyWithTwoArms 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sarah Palin is going to win it. Not all feminist are the stereotypical cookie cutter tree hugger type. we are the republican conservative type, much smarter than men, blacks, and democrats. nobama. Palin is the rock star now, no longer is obama. now even the incompetent macho redneck types will have to vote for a woman, they don't have a choice. YESSSS!!!
feministLeader 3 years ago
HAHAHA! Fuck you. :) "tree hugger" "smarter than men, blacks and democrats"? HAHAHA! I hope you are joking, if you are then I like you and you are funny if not then fuck you and you are a stain on the mattress of society. GObama!!!!
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
is you on crack?
AcidTrout 3 years ago
The ultra wealthy are driven by the capitalist system to perpetually accumulate more and more wealth (at the expense of everyone else), but they recognize that this process, if allowed to proceed at it's 'natural course' will invariably lead towards revolution (just like it did back in the first half of the 20th century). In countries where capitalism was in even more dire straits, fascism developed to save it from its death throes, but things didn't get quite that extreme here.
unclebanana 3 years ago
Why would the wealthy 'restrict their brethren'? Simple, to prevent the re-establishment of the same sort of conditions which occurred in the early 20th century, which led to considerable civil unrest, widespread social upheaval, and a massive economic depression which threatened to spark a revolution here in this country--all from your beloved laissez faire capitalist system.
unclebanana 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyway I can see you're not interested in opposing anything. Just creating straw-men to knock down. Does it pay?
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
"Does it pay?" Does _what_ pay? I am a full-time student.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
Do you enjoy being a hypocrite? Clark drew a valid point against your argument, that the government is composed mostly of the hyper wealthy, and then asked what exactly made you think those same wealthy that you all but say are pure evil would restrict their brethren and themselves in any shape way or form. Instead you have tried to victimize yourself by accusing him of name calling and refusing to even attempt to repute any of his points.
This is a poor method of debate.
Silvsilvchan 3 years ago 2
The govt. is--at the higher and more meaningful levels--composed of the 'hyper wealthy' or those beholden to them. Thus, the current state of affairs is pretty much 'the best of all possible worlds' for the small coterie of ultra wealthy businessmen and bankers who own this country. Why would they abandon their imperialist course, when it enriches them so? Their wars and interventions into the affairs of other countries benefits them (at our expense).
unclebanana 3 years ago
Hypocrite? Huh? Where did I contradict myself in anything I have stated? You're coming from way out of 'left field' on this one.
unclebanana 3 years ago
Where is your substantive criticism?
Yes we all know calling someone socialist in your little angsty make-pretend anarchist group is name calling.
I find it sad that someone starts comments with 'It is amusing that'. It is always an attack, and always a sign of zero integrity.
Too bad.
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
My substantive criticism is that advocating the concentration of power as a means of moderating the concentration and abuse of power is futile and self-contradictory. Again, please drop the trolling and make a serious contribution to the discussion. I would be happy to help you understand why liberty from coercion is both ethically and economically superior to living in statist chains.
"Socialist" is a descriptive term, not a purely pejorative one.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
The rich also like the idea of removing government to keep it from hindering their power and ability to exploit others.
So when libertarians stop stating false absolutes (liberal people want the government to do EVERYTHING for them) then intelligent people might see them as both honest and worth listening to. Until then, it sounds like hyperbole and propaganda.
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
It is amusing that Uncle Banana and Lord Kinbote (both socialists, apparently) seem to believe that the government is both composed of rich oligarchs and yet could somehow be expected to constrain these same oligarchs.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
Thank you for your framing/dishonesty. It is very telling of the libertarian ethic.
No one needs discredit libertarian ideology, it needs no such competition.
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
What part of my comment was "dishonest"? Name-calling is hardly a substitute for substantive criticism.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
"It is amusing that Uncle Banana and Lord Kinbote (both socialists, apparently) seem to believe that the government is both composed of rich oligarchs and yet could somehow be expected to constrain these same oligarchs."
REally, who do you think you are fooling?
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
So how was my comment "dishonest"? I am not trying to "fool" anyone. I am neither rich nor powerful—I just believe in the sovereignty and dignity of the individual human. You are advocating collective domination of the individual, which I think is far more like slavery than wage labor, which is only possible because capitalists have forgone present consumption in favor of saving and planning ahead. As you admit, wage labor is far preferable to subsistence farming.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
Excuse me, actually it was unclebanana who admitted that. I hope you would agree.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"You are advocating collective domination of the individual"
REally, isn't there a point where your argument should be based on the truth?
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
Well, if my understanding of your position from your comments is incomplete or incorrect, why not elaborate? What is it that you advocate? My position is simple: no one is so weak that they would not be better off being free from coercion. Property rights exist because we live in a world of scarce resources. Abridging property rights results in waste, and thus in a lower average standard of living.
What is your position?
CitizenClark 3 years ago
What's your take on Dr Paul's running as a Republican this year? Must be hard for the LP, but one could say it does expand the popularity of the movement...
Peace from Canada.
N.
I enjoyed your video, you had some guts to organize these meetings.
Peace (and
Nayatna 3 years ago
Libertarians recognize the plain truth that men in government are still men, and are thus subject to the same temptations as other men. Why socialists want to specially empower some men to rule over others is confusing, given what we know about people who are placed into positions in which they are given arbitrary authority over others (See Zimbardo, etc.).
CitizenClark 3 years ago
The rich like and support the invasion and domination of other nations. They like the system of client states used by the US govt. to project its power and influence around the world. They get off on stomping on third world nations like Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Hati, and Iraq. It makes them feel tough and macho, makes them wealthier, and also sends a message to anybody thinking about plotting a course independent from the imperialist orbit.
unclebanana 3 years ago
There is little or no reason for working people to support libertarianism, as libertarianism seeks to empower those that oppress and exploit them in the accumulation of their wealth. Libertarianism won't appeal to the wealthy, because they like huge immensely profitable no-bid defense contracts stemming from massive invasions paid for by the rest of us. The rich--with perhaps a few exceptions here and there--like imperialism.
unclebanana 3 years ago
Good video, very informative. Go Clark :)
DrDamage73 3 years ago
In actuality one is dependent upon others for nearly all the things that one requires to sustain oneself. That is to say that human social existence necessarily implies a series of interdependencies thus precluding any possibility of a truly independent existence or self sufficiency. I.E., we're all in this together, homeslice...
unclebanana 3 years ago
This is an irrelevant straw man. Libertarians want the government to stop throwing obstacles in front of market actors. A libertarian society would involve more voluntary social interactions, not fewer.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
A person who has only his labor to sell in your beloved marketplace, will necessarily exist in state of perpetual servitude towards those who own the means of production--that or go live as animals in the woods. Therefore, libertarianism seeks to reduce most humans to the state of perpetual servitude, or to barbarism. Besides, the current rich and powerful owners of this country like imperialism way too much to abandon it. Your libertarianism will never supplant the current social order.
unclebanana 3 years ago
Incorrect. Most of the people I buy goods and services from are small business owners. I own the means to my own productions and cultivation of the land I own, and have considered starting my own business. At the time I do sell my labor to a rich corporation for feasible wages and benefits but I don't particularly like the way they operate. Such is life.
However the federal government that you keep giving power, yes even the 'socialists', regularly pander to these hyper rich business men.
Silvsilvchan 3 years ago
Rather it is the house Democrats handing out subsidies to oil companies or Stalin NOT equally distributing wealth (defying the core principal of communism by doing so) giving a governing body too much power over its citizenry is a terrible idea. As with the corporations, who I agree are terrible, they are self serving and power hungry. Just I can avoid doing business with a company I dislike. I can not boycott a government that enforces its laws on me through mass force.
Silvsilvchan 3 years ago
In the end Socialism, no matter how good the intentions of its purveyors, can only end in authoritarian oppression. In almost all modern examples the wealthy continue to benefit from the actions of such governments while the middle and lower classes get the shaft, so to speak.
Socialism is merely enabling the biggest most wicked corporation of them all, the government, absolute control.
Silvsilvchan 3 years ago
Socialism has never been tried on the scale capitalism has been tried. Capitalism has created great wealth, and has considerably built up the productive infrastructure of the world, but the windfall invariably ends up in the hands of a small coterie of extremely wealthy people. Most of the people of planet earth are NOT benefiting from the capitalist system.
unclebanana 3 years ago
How about capitalist paradises like Thailand, El Salvador, Chile, Columbia, or Ecuador? Why hasn't capitalism brought them its supposed benefits?
unclebanana 3 years ago
unclebannana stfu, go live in the workers paridise, n.korea .
they can make u wear the north korean hair cut
VOLVERHURTS 3 years ago
A republican govt. allows for more accountability than a corporation, with decisions privately made in a board room versus a public meeting with elected, recall-able officials who actually have to answer to the public that elected them. Corporations=unaccountable private tyrannies.
unclebanana 3 years ago
Guess feeding the troll isn't worth it.
Moragauth 3 years ago
Did you make the computer that you are now using? Did you harvest or hunt your last meal all by yourself?
No no and no.
unclebanana 3 years ago
Actually? For me? Sorta, yes, and what was the third no for?
Assume makes an ass out of you and me, friend.
Silvsilvchan 3 years ago
Individual self sufficiency is an absurd pipe dream which bears little or no applicability
to the concrete realities of the human condition.
unclebanana 3 years ago
What does individual self-sufficiency have to do with anything? Libertarians are pro-market. We _celebrate_ the division of labor because it makes everyone better off. It is the voluntary division of labor among individuals acting in self-interested cooperation which best raises the standard of living--a rising tide lifts all ships.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
Seems someone just got out of socialist indoctrination camp. :P
Moragauth 3 years ago 2
This is a reactionary, pro-capitalist ideology that wants liberty for the wealthy and servitude for everybody else under the misleading guise of liberty for everybody.
unclebanana 3 years ago
UncleBanana: I'd be happy to compare bank balances with you. I am not rich, I have never been rich, and I don't know if I ever will be rich. I am just anti-slavery because I believe in the dignity and individual sovereignty of every person, no matter what they own otherwise. Collectivists want to impose their own arbitrary views on everyone else. I don't think I own anybody but myself, unlike you.
CitizenClark 3 years ago
In a society where most people are workers, and a tiny minority are owners--the establishment of a social order which further 'frees the hand' of the owners will serve only to further immiserate and impoverish the workers. Barely scraping out a subsistence in the service of owners hardly sounds like an ideal and truly 'free' existence.
unclebanana 3 years ago
This guy is genius. Libertarianism is booming among people you know.
CodyClair 3 years ago 2
That was an amazing video, I am very grateful you put it up here on youtube. I am 16 and just starting to get involved with the goverment. After hopfully throwing away the bias of pro democrat that i grew up with i am trying right now to make a decsion on what i beilive is best for the country. I am not saying your video turned me liberatrian, (i prefer some safty nets even if they can get out of hand). But watching your video exposed me to another side of politcs that the regular media doesnt.
naturalrights14 3 years ago
Hey man it was really good. I am a Libertarian Socialist what are your views on us?
ChristDEBATOR 3 years ago
i dont anything socialst. freaking commie.(i know its a big word for anarchist i just dont like socialism.)
greenghost2008 3 years ago
you also don't make any sense, try rewriting your response it makes no sense
okielaker 3 years ago
that's a contradiction dumbass
okielaker 3 years ago 3
Very informative.
Cliff2012 4 years ago 4
You're very well spoken, but you look fairly young too. What university are you/have you attended at what point in your college career/post career was this filmed?
evans387 4 years ago 2
very nice video
austinisi 4 years ago 4
what does he mean when he says (at about 1:40) "...if you didn't have right to the stuff that you had gathered, ...then you wouldn't have much incentive to make extra...". Does he mean that you only "work" b/c the property you can acquire when you do so (by getting paid) becomes yours, you own it, therefore this is an incentive?
Martastic00 4 years ago
It's more like, you wouldn't work for something unless that something that you worked for became yours. Since, logically, only someone other than you can own what you acquired with your labor, there would be no incentive to do work if everything you worked for went to someone else. Thus, the only incentive to work is to gain that which you acquire through labor.
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
I meant that the ability to own things gives us the ability to set things aside for the future, to engage in personal and organization economic planning and calculation, and to generally raise the standard of living.
CitizenClark 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
libertarian corporate meritocracy will be the future 'goverment' system of the world...
the poor will be taken care of the socialist insurance policy...fed by the corporate system.
tiberianfallout 4 years ago
I hope to God(who i believe is imaginary) our next president will be Ron Paul. I cant imagine our country with another robot powered by special interests.
reapfreak 4 years ago 7
Electing Ron Paul would pave the way for the LP to garner serious support.
wsmith68 4 years ago 5
The Libertarian Party is the only political party that makes any sense.
reapfreak 4 years ago 3
Good video. I like it. Maybe I should move to New Hampshire?
Gubbinz 4 years ago
Nice jacket.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
Libertarians are Dixiecrats. Rationalizing cheap labour by using the buzz phrases, "States rights," and, "Free trade." Libertarians are no more concerned about the Constitution then the Democrat slavers of 1850. They are self-serving SOBs.
Userduder 4 years ago
Baloney. It is advantageous for capitalists to bring production costs down to the lowest level possible because this makes goods cheaper for everyone. No one should be compelled to work for less than for what they are willing to work. No one holds a gun to the heads of low-wage earning laborers when morning comes each day.
CitizenClark 4 years ago
Each worker goes to work because he believes that his life will be better if he goes to work than if not. As laborers improve themselves over time and gain expertise, their productivity levels rise and so too does their compensation.
CitizenClark 4 years ago
I would also add that proto-libertarians, like 19th Century individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner, were generally also ardent abolitionists.
CitizenClark 4 years ago
Yes, and mandating a binding minimum wage will result in the marginal worker being sent home empty-handed. It will not, contrary to popular belief, result in the employer sucking it up and paying the higher wage. So the government, by imposing min. wage, is saying it knows so much more about the employee's needs than the employee himself that it will choose for him unemployment over a low wage.
eswyatt 4 years ago
CitizenClark
"No one holds a gun to the heads of low-wage earning laborers when morning comes each day."
Tell that to the child laborers of the world.
LoonyRonPaul 4 years ago
Child labor is common in places where children are likely to starve if they don't work. Do you think child starvation is preferable to child labor? I don't. But I certainly oppose slavery, and where children are literally enslaved, I do not favor child labor.
CitizenClark 4 years ago
I love how they always throw this 'child labour' objection, as if it means anything.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
The flaw that liberals fall into is equating the harsh deal offered to consumers or employees with coercion. In fact, the line betweent the two is neither hazy nor subtle. The consumer with credit problems who accepts the high interest rate loan, or the desperate employee who works for low wages is better off ex-ante. In the coercive transfer case--robbery, theft, etc.--the victim is worse off ex-ante.
eswyatt 4 years ago
I should add, to my examples of coercive transfers, slavery.
eswyatt 4 years ago
What's going through my mind is what if there are differences in views of what is property? I'm talking about animal rights. We do not have the right to own the lives of sentient beings or exploit them as human resources. If I free an animal from a factory slaughterhouse, am I still libertarian? I should think so even though it violates the law (legality is not morality). It's absolutely comparable to freeing a slave isn't it.
jerrysproehlich 4 years ago
This hinges on whether or not animals have rights. Even Peter Singer's extreme version of utilitarianism cannot justify this.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
The only reason one could say they don't have rights is because they're not human. Just as why the slave master could only realistically say "well they aren't white" or the man who bought his wife in China could only say "well she's not a man." So the human says "well they aren't human so it must make it acceptable." People are overlooking far too much, just as Americans did 60 years ago.
jerrysproehlich 4 years ago
Eswyatt, do all us real libertarians a favour and refrain from making the movement seem like some refuge for south park republicans.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Elhan2005, sorry I never responded. I saw a few episodes of South Park, so I'm not sure what they are. I believe in assigning property rights, and letting the parties work out the best deal they can (Coase theorm). But I also recognize that where trans. costs are high etc., it is important to have government, via the tort system, work out a liability rule that will constrain inefficient behavior but not efficient behavior.
eswyatt 4 years ago
Eswat is a fool. If he is saying that libertarianism is fundamentally wrong than he is saying that the foundations of the country are fundamentally wrong. While the founders were not libertarians solely in the sense of the name, they did believe in the equivalent ideas in the parties they did belong to, such as the democratic-republican party. Since then however, Dems and Reps have torn the name apart, perverting our founders ideas, and left founding principles gasping for breath.
ZiggyStardust2329 4 years ago
(cont.) You haven't even attempted to address my hidden preference/free rider problem. You just hammer away with the dogma that gives you comfort.
eswyatt 4 years ago
It's nice that name-calling starts before any attempt at clarification is made. I am a libertarian, but I realize that the doctrines taken to their logical extreme would work some undesirable results. For instance, "true libertarians" don't believe there should be any such crime as fraud. The problem with this is that it would cause wasteful overinvestment in finding out about others with whom a wealth-increasing transaction could be made. (cont.)
eswyatt 4 years ago
Of course "true libertarians" believe that fraud is a crime, at least in those cases where there is consideration! (Lying, which some might include under the heading of "fraud" is not rightfully a crime.)
CitizenClark 4 years ago