“…political liberty must return, whatever the economic implications, because the alternative will destroy itself — at a literally incalculable cost. The return of liberty will not usher in the new dark age of suffering and superstition that liberals fear most. Rather, it will oblige individuals to be better neighbors, better citizens and better human beings — not through the dictates of law, but the realities of everyday life.” James Poulos
Shouldn't outcomes be equal for everyone regardless of how much they produce? The answer should be obvious. Too many people in failing countries still don't understand.
This is all obtuse bullshit. "Happiness" - who the fuck is arguing there should be equality in happiness? No one is. How about equality in health? If you don't believe a modern civilization should even aspire to have at least that outcome then what kind of values do you have? If a civilization can't even do that for it's people what good is it? All this liberty porn misses the point as to why America was founded. "Liberty" wasn't the focus, it was dividing power WHEREVER it existed.
@YouthTheBand Have you ever read the Declaration of independence? There was no interest in dividing power nor was there a real interest in Liberty. The founders were hypocrites and violated their own stated beliefs in many cases as soon as the ink was on paper.
I heard that Paris Hilton watched this and she like totally agrees with the views expressed in this video. She didn't understand most of it but she still thinks it's hot.
Prof. Otteson is largely correct: the issues of liberty are so confused philosophically and practically that learning exactly what constitutes liberty is a difficult choice.
However, the socialist argument here is that we, as a civilization, are more and more maturing to the point where we can recognize that one cannot have liberty without having air, water, food, shelter, clothing, basic health care, and education. That means that a truly Libertarian state must provide these.
@FiverBeyond True liberty involves procuring those things for yourself. With liberty comes responsibility, the responsibility to look after yourself and to secure the things needed for life without relying on someone else to do it for you. A truly Libertarian state does not provide those things for you, it provides you with the freedom necessary for you to provide those things for yourself. That socialist argument misconstrues the idea of liberty.
"True liberty involves procuring those things for yourself."
Under Capitalism, the number one way to procure capital and economic power is to privately already own capital.
This means that in a society where everyone has an equal right to procuring capital, everyone would also have equal right to starting ownership of capital.
For example, imagine a society where 90% of the population was forbidden to labour, as they don't have "ownership" of labour. Is this liberty?
@FiverBeyond What you are talking about is self ownership, but you are mistaken that a person can own something intangible such as labor, nor is it necessary to do so when self ownership is primary.
"...you are mistaken that a person can own something intangible such as labor..."
Excellent! On this we agree. The next step is to agree that other intangibles (such as intellectual rights, patents, and rights to profits or inheritance) also cannot be owned.
But this misses the point: if liberty involves procuring property for ourselves, then our state should be structured such that all have equal chance to procure property. This would mean revising capitalism.
@FiverBeyond I agree that IP is a destructive idea but do not understand you adding in inheritance unless you are suggesting that all inheritance should be done by wills alone. If this is the case, when there is no will, who gets it? Certainly family has a better connection to the property than anyone else.
Equal oppotunity does not mean granting an equal starting point (if that is what you are suggesting) that would be socialism.
"Equal opportunity does not mean granting an equal starting point."
It does if that starting point grants advantages.
"That would be socialism."
That's right. Libertarian socialism (that's my political denomination, see Wikipedia for a good explanation).
As for inheritance, this is a whole separate kettle of fish, but I feel that your solution directly contradicts the idea of equal liberty: if one many has rights to property simply due to his parentage?
@FiverBeyond Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism requires force, this violates the non aggression principle of libertarianism. The two can never co-exist.
Equal liberty means being left alone and people not aggressing against you. It does not mean equal outcome or equal starting place. This is a flawed idea that does not work in the real world. I would suggest you read up on Kinsella over at Lew Rockwell and Mises about the nature of property.
I'll take a look at it, thanks for the suggestion.
"Socialism requires force."
Not necessarily: stateless socialism would require much less force than our current state-centered capitalism.
But even so, ALL social systems require force. All protection of liberty requires force as well. The question is: who gets the force? Under libertarianism, the force is divided as equally as possible.
@FiverBeyond You just contradicted yourself. First you said socialism does not have to use force, then you say that it uses less force. Which is it? Then you say all social systems require force (which was my original point about socialism).
Stateless social systems do not *require* force. Most systems operate just fine as voluntary systems. The difference between libertarianism and all other systems is the voluntary nature of it.
@FiverBeyond The problem here is that in a socialist state then someone has to decide who gets how much air, water, food, and healthcare. This leads to bureacracy and more and more regulations and, eventually, authoritarianism. Instead, the government stays out of charity and lets the free market flourish. In this way the extra capital can be expended upon private charity.
"Someone has to decide who gets how much air, water, food, and healthcare. This leads to... more and more regulations, and eventually, authoritarianism."
Authoritarianism is the risk that ALL systems of government run. Capitalism is no different (in that the right to property and the right to capital gains must be forcible assured by granting power to the state).
"Instead, the government stays out of charity."
The purpose of government is to protect individual liberty. This is charity.
@FiverBeyond Private enterprise and the free market does a far better job of providing for the people than socialism and the 'legal plunder' it advises under the auspices of humanitarianism.
You're right, neither capitalism nor socialism are forms of government. However, both of them require government to enforce them. People are sometimes under the mistaken idea that capitalism equates to a smaller government. IT doesn't: in order for capitalism to function, a large government is required to force people to adhere to capitalist rules.
@FiverBeyond Completely wrong. In a free capitalist society there are no rules to enforce. People interact based on free association and contract. There are no capitalist rules.
"In a free capitalist society, there are no rules to enforce."
Nonsense. In a capitalist society, the rights to the results of labor are forcible granted to whoever owns the means of production.
For example, suppose we live in a 'free' capitalist society. I notice some unused land and want to grow food on it. Someone else owns the land, and doesn't want me to grow anything on it.
What happens? May I grow food there? What will happen if I plant seed and begin harvesting?
@FiverBeyond Your explanation is confused. Property right don't get enforced, only statutes are nforced, things kike speed limits. In a free society violations are enforced. Before the violation there is nothing to enforce nor a reason to use force. Freedom is the default position until someone aggresses. You don't enforce a default.
@FiverBeyond The purpose of government is to protect liberty? When has this *ever* been the case? Gov destroys liberty by its very nature as its existence is based upon force.
"The purpose of government is to protect liberty? When has this *ever* been the case?"
Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that all governments are great at protecting liberty. I guess I should have said "The purpose of government SHOULD be to protect liberty." That is to say, in my opinion that is the role of the state: to guarantee as much liberty for as many people as possible.
@FiverBeyond Should, perhaps, but now you are knee deep in the "is/ought" problem. Since no power granted goes unabised, the state must never come into being in the first place. Governments survival is based upon violation of liberty. No government could ever exist that would act as you would like. Minarchy is utopian fantasy.
"Government survival is based on a violation of liberty."
In a sense I agree, but only in the sense that ANY protection of liberty involves destroying the liberty of another. For example, to protect one citizen's liberty of life, you must stop another citizen's liberty of murdering. To protect one citizen's liberty of property, you must stop another citizen's liberty of theft.
Thus the state acts as an equalizer, working to protect liberties of weak and strong alike.
@FiverBeyond I think you still misunderstand. Liberty doesn't get protected except by the individual themselves. Liberty is where we start from until someone attacks us, until this happens, there is nothing to defend. Therefore the state isn't needed because it doesn't protect us anyway (police show up after the fact). Most violations of liberty are by the state.
You do not have the liberty to kill or steal, that is a misunderstanding of what rights are and what liberty is.
"You do not have the liberty to kill or steal. That is a misunderstanding of what rights are and what liberty is."
Liberty simply means freedom from control or authority.
A 'right' is a just claim to an action or resource.
These two are separate ideas, but the point is still the same: in order for one man to have liberty, another man's liberty must be limited. The role of the state is to strive for equal liberty (not simply liberty for one group, or one man).
@FiverBeyond Yes, but liberty does not include the freedom to diminish the liberty of another, if it did, the whole thing would be come meaningless. You are free to do as you wish *so long as* you do not infringe on the liberty of another. This is why socialism is anti-libertarian.
A state as you propose could never exist. The state is monopoly on force by definition. Once there is no competition (the foundation of a free market) the road to tyranny begins.
@FiverBeyond - Who/what is a "Libertarian" state? people who make decision for you? a computer program that fairly allocates resource evenly? who/what produces the resources? who/what decides who should do the menial and hard labor job? talk is easy!
It's a state or government whose purpose and goal is to protect and encourage equal liberties for all its citizens.
"A computer program that fairly allocates resource evenly?"
Don't be silly: Of course, the problem how best to structure a state devoted to individual liberty is a tricky one (as is evidence by the fact that I think this state would necessarily have to limit capitalism, while others seem to think that capitalism IS liberty).
Liberty does not equate economic bullying, and social or monetary equality does not infringe upon liberty. In fact, it is through economic inequality where we see extreme poverty, crime, hunger, and, incredible repression. His argument is simply and utterly flawed. It relies upon that tricky position that if someone is wealthy, they got their wealth through their superiority. To this man, that superiority comes from their "talents." I've heard that justification before somewhere. . . .
@trojanpride69 Check out the Index of Economic Freedom, there are a couple of videos in the channel actually refering to that exact index. I recommend it.
@occz6 Hmmm. . . The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal are its sponsors. No thank you. They cannot offer anything new. I once argued for the right-wing, but then I realized how spurious their arguments were. Sorry, but few people acquire wealth through pure skill. Most acquire their wealth through skill/craft, luck, and guile. Honest people are hard to find in the capitalist system. It eats its own, and it will inevitably lead back to feudalism.
Behold, a real liberal in the historic sense of the word! Not some leftist that holds abortion as their flagship.
HomelessOnline 4 days ago
Equal oppurtunity is equality, great schools, great healthcare and child care for all. It costs less than spending on prisons and welfare.
warriorprince1010 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 The last two are (when gov't provided) welfare, so how can part of welfare be cheaper than welfare?
Darkside007 1 day ago
is it just me or does this guy look like Dennis Leary?
jones82176 1 month ago
“…political liberty must return, whatever the economic implications, because the alternative will destroy itself — at a literally incalculable cost. The return of liberty will not usher in the new dark age of suffering and superstition that liberals fear most. Rather, it will oblige individuals to be better neighbors, better citizens and better human beings — not through the dictates of law, but the realities of everyday life.” James Poulos
possumpistol 2 months ago
Shouldn't outcomes be equal for everyone regardless of how much they produce? The answer should be obvious. Too many people in failing countries still don't understand.
Solverwiz 2 months ago
This is all obtuse bullshit. "Happiness" - who the fuck is arguing there should be equality in happiness? No one is. How about equality in health? If you don't believe a modern civilization should even aspire to have at least that outcome then what kind of values do you have? If a civilization can't even do that for it's people what good is it? All this liberty porn misses the point as to why America was founded. "Liberty" wasn't the focus, it was dividing power WHEREVER it existed.
YouthTheBand 5 months ago
@YouthTheBand Have you ever read the Declaration of independence? There was no interest in dividing power nor was there a real interest in Liberty. The founders were hypocrites and violated their own stated beliefs in many cases as soon as the ink was on paper.
LordShandor 4 months ago
I heard that Paris Hilton watched this and she like totally agrees with the views expressed in this video. She didn't understand most of it but she still thinks it's hot.
squeekycheese 5 months ago
Prof. Otteson is largely correct: the issues of liberty are so confused philosophically and practically that learning exactly what constitutes liberty is a difficult choice.
However, the socialist argument here is that we, as a civilization, are more and more maturing to the point where we can recognize that one cannot have liberty without having air, water, food, shelter, clothing, basic health care, and education. That means that a truly Libertarian state must provide these.
FiverBeyond 6 months ago
@FiverBeyond True liberty involves procuring those things for yourself. With liberty comes responsibility, the responsibility to look after yourself and to secure the things needed for life without relying on someone else to do it for you. A truly Libertarian state does not provide those things for you, it provides you with the freedom necessary for you to provide those things for yourself. That socialist argument misconstrues the idea of liberty.
oseanain 5 months ago
@oseanain
"True liberty involves procuring those things for yourself."
Under Capitalism, the number one way to procure capital and economic power is to privately already own capital.
This means that in a society where everyone has an equal right to procuring capital, everyone would also have equal right to starting ownership of capital.
For example, imagine a society where 90% of the population was forbidden to labour, as they don't have "ownership" of labour. Is this liberty?
FiverBeyond 5 months ago
@FiverBeyond What you are talking about is self ownership, but you are mistaken that a person can own something intangible such as labor, nor is it necessary to do so when self ownership is primary.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor
"...you are mistaken that a person can own something intangible such as labor..."
Excellent! On this we agree. The next step is to agree that other intangibles (such as intellectual rights, patents, and rights to profits or inheritance) also cannot be owned.
But this misses the point: if liberty involves procuring property for ourselves, then our state should be structured such that all have equal chance to procure property. This would mean revising capitalism.
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond I agree that IP is a destructive idea but do not understand you adding in inheritance unless you are suggesting that all inheritance should be done by wills alone. If this is the case, when there is no will, who gets it? Certainly family has a better connection to the property than anyone else.
Equal oppotunity does not mean granting an equal starting point (if that is what you are suggesting) that would be socialism.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor
"Equal opportunity does not mean granting an equal starting point."
It does if that starting point grants advantages.
"That would be socialism."
That's right. Libertarian socialism (that's my political denomination, see Wikipedia for a good explanation).
As for inheritance, this is a whole separate kettle of fish, but I feel that your solution directly contradicts the idea of equal liberty: if one many has rights to property simply due to his parentage?
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism requires force, this violates the non aggression principle of libertarianism. The two can never co-exist.
Equal liberty means being left alone and people not aggressing against you. It does not mean equal outcome or equal starting place. This is a flawed idea that does not work in the real world. I would suggest you read up on Kinsella over at Lew Rockwell and Mises about the nature of property.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor
"I would suggest you read up on Kinsella..."
I'll take a look at it, thanks for the suggestion.
"Socialism requires force."
Not necessarily: stateless socialism would require much less force than our current state-centered capitalism.
But even so, ALL social systems require force. All protection of liberty requires force as well. The question is: who gets the force? Under libertarianism, the force is divided as equally as possible.
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond You just contradicted yourself. First you said socialism does not have to use force, then you say that it uses less force. Which is it? Then you say all social systems require force (which was my original point about socialism).
Stateless social systems do not *require* force. Most systems operate just fine as voluntary systems. The difference between libertarianism and all other systems is the voluntary nature of it.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond The problem here is that in a socialist state then someone has to decide who gets how much air, water, food, and healthcare. This leads to bureacracy and more and more regulations and, eventually, authoritarianism. Instead, the government stays out of charity and lets the free market flourish. In this way the extra capital can be expended upon private charity.
MandragGanon 5 months ago
@
"Someone has to decide who gets how much air, water, food, and healthcare. This leads to... more and more regulations, and eventually, authoritarianism."
Authoritarianism is the risk that ALL systems of government run. Capitalism is no different (in that the right to property and the right to capital gains must be forcible assured by granting power to the state).
"Instead, the government stays out of charity."
The purpose of government is to protect individual liberty. This is charity.
FiverBeyond 5 months ago
@FiverBeyond Private enterprise and the free market does a far better job of providing for the people than socialism and the 'legal plunder' it advises under the auspices of humanitarianism.
MandragGanon 5 months ago 14
@FiverBeyond
Capitalism is not a form of government, it is an economic system.
Nakorable 4 months ago
@Nakorable
You're right, neither capitalism nor socialism are forms of government. However, both of them require government to enforce them. People are sometimes under the mistaken idea that capitalism equates to a smaller government. IT doesn't: in order for capitalism to function, a large government is required to force people to adhere to capitalist rules.
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond Completely wrong. In a free capitalist society there are no rules to enforce. People interact based on free association and contract. There are no capitalist rules.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor
"In a free capitalist society, there are no rules to enforce."
Nonsense. In a capitalist society, the rights to the results of labor are forcible granted to whoever owns the means of production.
For example, suppose we live in a 'free' capitalist society. I notice some unused land and want to grow food on it. Someone else owns the land, and doesn't want me to grow anything on it.
What happens? May I grow food there? What will happen if I plant seed and begin harvesting?
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond Your explanation is confused. Property right don't get enforced, only statutes are nforced, things kike speed limits. In a free society violations are enforced. Before the violation there is nothing to enforce nor a reason to use force. Freedom is the default position until someone aggresses. You don't enforce a default.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond The purpose of government is to protect liberty? When has this *ever* been the case? Gov destroys liberty by its very nature as its existence is based upon force.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor
"The purpose of government is to protect liberty? When has this *ever* been the case?"
Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that all governments are great at protecting liberty. I guess I should have said "The purpose of government SHOULD be to protect liberty." That is to say, in my opinion that is the role of the state: to guarantee as much liberty for as many people as possible.
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond Should, perhaps, but now you are knee deep in the "is/ought" problem. Since no power granted goes unabised, the state must never come into being in the first place. Governments survival is based upon violation of liberty. No government could ever exist that would act as you would like. Minarchy is utopian fantasy.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor
"Government survival is based on a violation of liberty."
In a sense I agree, but only in the sense that ANY protection of liberty involves destroying the liberty of another. For example, to protect one citizen's liberty of life, you must stop another citizen's liberty of murdering. To protect one citizen's liberty of property, you must stop another citizen's liberty of theft.
Thus the state acts as an equalizer, working to protect liberties of weak and strong alike.
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond I think you still misunderstand. Liberty doesn't get protected except by the individual themselves. Liberty is where we start from until someone attacks us, until this happens, there is nothing to defend. Therefore the state isn't needed because it doesn't protect us anyway (police show up after the fact). Most violations of liberty are by the state.
You do not have the liberty to kill or steal, that is a misunderstanding of what rights are and what liberty is.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@LordShandor
"You do not have the liberty to kill or steal. That is a misunderstanding of what rights are and what liberty is."
Liberty simply means freedom from control or authority.
A 'right' is a just claim to an action or resource.
These two are separate ideas, but the point is still the same: in order for one man to have liberty, another man's liberty must be limited. The role of the state is to strive for equal liberty (not simply liberty for one group, or one man).
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond Yes, but liberty does not include the freedom to diminish the liberty of another, if it did, the whole thing would be come meaningless. You are free to do as you wish *so long as* you do not infringe on the liberty of another. This is why socialism is anti-libertarian.
A state as you propose could never exist. The state is monopoly on force by definition. Once there is no competition (the foundation of a free market) the road to tyranny begins.
You have some odd definitions.
LordShandor 4 months ago
@FiverBeyond - Who/what is a "Libertarian" state? people who make decision for you? a computer program that fairly allocates resource evenly? who/what produces the resources? who/what decides who should do the menial and hard labor job? talk is easy!
twheel2 4 months ago
@twheel2
"Who/what is a 'Libertarian' state?"
It's a state or government whose purpose and goal is to protect and encourage equal liberties for all its citizens.
"A computer program that fairly allocates resource evenly?"
Don't be silly: Of course, the problem how best to structure a state devoted to individual liberty is a tricky one (as is evidence by the fact that I think this state would necessarily have to limit capitalism, while others seem to think that capitalism IS liberty).
FiverBeyond 4 months ago
Liberty does not equate economic bullying, and social or monetary equality does not infringe upon liberty. In fact, it is through economic inequality where we see extreme poverty, crime, hunger, and, incredible repression. His argument is simply and utterly flawed. It relies upon that tricky position that if someone is wealthy, they got their wealth through their superiority. To this man, that superiority comes from their "talents." I've heard that justification before somewhere. . . .
trojanpride69 8 months ago
@trojanpride69 Check out the Index of Economic Freedom, there are a couple of videos in the channel actually refering to that exact index. I recommend it.
occz6 8 months ago
@occz6 Hmmm. . . The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal are its sponsors. No thank you. They cannot offer anything new. I once argued for the right-wing, but then I realized how spurious their arguments were. Sorry, but few people acquire wealth through pure skill. Most acquire their wealth through skill/craft, luck, and guile. Honest people are hard to find in the capitalist system. It eats its own, and it will inevitably lead back to feudalism.
trojanpride69 8 months ago
@trojanpride69 bwahaha! study history. Capitalism was a rebuttal to feudalism, being a result of Enlightenment.
koblinsc 7 months ago 6
what about the big one: EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY ?
thehinduskakid 8 months ago 2
Everyone will finally be equal in 2081:
youtube com/watch?v= 7LrSQJJdGOk
jeffpaulwilson 8 months ago
@jeffpaulwilson wow, crazy.
MRSketch09 8 months ago
Discover the logic of personal and political freedom.
Freedomain Radio: The Largest Philosophy Conversation in the World
freedomainradio. com
TheAgorist 8 months ago 2