Support Ron Paul go to Americans elect.org and vote to get Ron Paul a second window of opportunity to run in the 2012 Presidential elections. Americans Elect is a legitimate group looking to get a third party elected they are doing the hard work for us with signatures and Paying to get on ballots .
We need to put out front a canadate that has not been funded by Big banks, Lobbyists, or billionaires trying their hand at social engineering for personal gain Ron Paul is that man
@StuartHughes2990 I didnt even know who they where (Koch brothers) until months after I went to LOCAL supported teaparties. They had nothing to do with the teaparties I went to in Houston. MSM was the reason I even heard there name. strawman strawman
Left-libertarians *aren't* "liberaltarians". Those sorts of libertarians are typically a lot less prone to be anarchist while left-libertarians (in the free market sense of things like agorism, mutualism, voluntary socialism, voluntaryism, etc.) are typically anarchists (if not they're Bleeding Heart Libertarians aka radical minarchists). The ALL is made up of mostly anarchists and not non-establishment democrats. I suggest you check out all-left.net
I consider myself a "Progressive Libetarian". I love low and flat taxes, i hate wealth redistribution, i love personal choice and freedom and i love small government with a few exceptions. I still believe in well funded state education up to the age of 18 so everyone gets a chance regardless class or background. I also believe that the taxpayer should ensure a certainly level of "free" healthcare for everyone (I'm not America). I also believe we should maximize inheritance tax revenue.
Good video, but you didn't even mention what to me is the MOST important distinction. Economics. You imply that Austrians von Hayek and von Mises are well regarded by all libertarians, but this is NOT true. Classical liberals once knew better. Please read "Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?" by Dan Sullivan (Search it. I can't post the link.)
Ron Paul is so popular because he's willing to listen to all of the various factions of Libertarians. He's been known to quote Jefferson, Spooner, and Mises all within the same speech. He takes the time to listen to POV's across the spectrum, and formulate concise rational responses immediately. That is the essence of Libertarianism. Thought and rationalization before rash judgement and action.
A consistent libertarian must be an anarchist. In the words of libertarian anarchist Stephan Kinsella:
"To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified."
@PeaceRequiresAnarchy Extremism never works in a practical sense though. I am a paleo-conservative/classical liberal which I believe is a perfect balance for prosperity, security, and liberty. True anarchy would not be a good environment for bringing together a national defense or a prosperous economy while it would certainly give you the most liberty. And without those two other pillars our country would not survive in this day and age.
@MFINN23 To your, "anarchy would not be a good environment for bringing together a national defense or a prosperous economy," I would reply that I disagree (and that you haven't provided any arguments that your assertion is true), but that even if you were right, that still would not justify the aggression that governments commit, and thus you would still be just attacking a straw man for opposing anarchy on those grounds.
@MFINN23 As for your unfounded assertion that national defense could not be provided for well in anarchy, see the YouTube video "Funding Public Goods: Six Solutions (by Roderick Long)" by user grahampwright.
If the main argument of the Anarchists is that you cant have a government because they all tend to become bad over time, then they don't really have an argument at all. Gee, guess what? EVERYTHING deteriorates over time. Freedom needs constant vigilance to protect it. I suppose the founding fathers were wrong to even write that old constitution because eventually, you know, it got changed.
@knearhood8 Actually that's not the main argument, but for the time constraints and effort put into the video, he did a decent job. The main argument for Anarchism is that for any Governmental body to exist requires the coercion of the citizenry of which it is intended to govern.
In my book there are only two categories of libertarians: classical liberal libertarians and paleo-libertarians. Paleos place more emphasis on economic liberty than civil and social liberties; regard social conservatives and the coercive authoritarian Right the lesser of two evils as compared to coercive authoritarians to the left, and pander to paleo-conservatives. Ron Paul is a paleo-conservative.
So for example, you can't have liberty if you don't protect it, but you can over protect it and lose it as well...so the sophisticated libertarian understands all of that. Ron Paul would be an example of a sophisticated Libertarian, who is merely trying to blaze an effective trail to a libertarian environment...all of this eventually falls back on science and logic, which is what Ayn Rand tried to bring into the discussion. there really shouldn't be a lot to argue about among intelligent people.
good video, but not exactly right, but helpful to newbies...I've been a libertarian for a long time and the more you learn about it, the less you're apt to fall for any kind of bullshit...the anarchists are just nerds who are basically newbies, the other side like the conservative libertarian leaning are just older, who come from an ignorant predisposed beginning. I left highschool a sophisticated libertarian because I was already very well read. It's simply all about accomadating liberty.
It is good to know more about the heterodoxy of libertarianism. I am generally in favor of freedom and liberty, but there are exceptions to that, for example taxes. If people are happier living in a first world country and paying taxes then they would be living in whatever the first world country devolved into when people stopped paying taxes, then that makes taxes a good thing, at least in some cases. We should deliberately choose to live in the best world possible.
Actually I would contest that, given what I have read on their views, Kucinich and Nader fall into the left libertarian camp. By this I mean as close as any American politician, and that's a crappy standard.
@ZombiBuddy I have an enormous respect for Kucinich. Ron Paul, not so much. Both agree that we need to be very deliberate in our oversight of the military-industrial complex. The key difference is, Kucinich believes in a strong economy as well.
@sfjeff1089 No politician, no matter what his economic views are, will come out and say, "I believe in a weak economy." So to suggest that Kucinich is better than Paul because he believes in a strong economy is a bit of a stretch. It's just that they have different ideas on what promotes a strong economy. Kucinich believes that the heavy hand of government can create a strong economy. Paul believes that the invisible hand of the free market can create a strong economy.
@frionelhero Sorry to miscommunicate. We have seen over and over again that austerity measures are helpful only in the most left-wing economies and do massive harm to economies that already lean to the right. The most obvious case of this was 1920-1932 when Warren Harding's austerity measures grew the finance and real estate industries while gutting manufacturing. Ron Paul's view on this is that Warren Harding didn't go far enough.
Harding and Coolidge presided over one of the most economically prosperous periods in American History, in fact by 1926 unemployment was down to 1%. Harding was able to turn around the economy after Wilson had messed it up although most of the credit should go to Andrew Mellon.
I had difficulty defining my political beliefs; it turns out I've been a libertarian for a while now. Thanks a lot for this very informative video.
I'm not 100% sold on RP - would anyone mind answering a question? It appears that Paul wants more power to corporations and less to government. But as it is now, the government is overtly controlled by big business. What would be the difference?
@GeraldWatercrest Ron Paul is not for more power to corporations but for more power to the people. Big business (as you pointed out) controls the government. This enables them to use regulation and tax loopholes to give them an unfair advantage. By removing the government interference in the market on their behalf, you force them to compete with other companies. Without the protection of the government, they are answerable to the market (i.e. the people).
@GeraldWatercrest These ideas are covered by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations when he talks about the government created monopolies in the corn trade and trade with the colonies. He discusses how they my help certain sectors and/or 'orders' of people while actually hurting a vast greater number of people. (Books 3 and 4 in particular in case you are a classical liberal, like myself, and want to read his take on it.)
@GeraldWatercrest Also check out The Law by Frederick Bastiat. It is a pretty short book, and is free on the Kindle. You can find it for cheap as well. Regardless it is an important book on government and the rule of law.
The term, "libertarianism", was first used in conjunction with socialism and communism. So I guess there's been quite a bit of "name twisting" going on throughout history ;)
@AnthonyMazzarella After reading just a small portion of the description, I came across an absurd notion. "Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”)." Did you know that the Nazi party ordered book burnings of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? Do you know why? Do you have the consciousness to see that this trickery happens from elites "supporting" either side just so they can gain power?
@AnthonyMazzarella The real idea of socialism was to create a free society where people would not be subjected to an authority. the last portion of The Jungle is dedicated towards a lot of talk about what socialism is, some of the ideas seem to border on anarchism, as well as racial and gender equality. Talk of socialism was big in all of Europe at the time, and that was just an opportunity for someone to take advantage of others by lying to gain power.
@AnthonyMazzarella we can see the same thing happening in our own society. With rhetoric like "support our troops" I really doubt that the politicians who are saying that really care about the well being of our troops, they're merely using it as a way to increase military power. The need to do this stems from what some, e.g., Ron Paul, refer to as "the military industrial complex"
@Ghost9909 I can say the same of myself! Except that I have only realized this over the past month or so! Ron Paul is just about everything I have been wanting to see in a politician, but had lost hope in it actually existing! I'm not certain exactly what manner of Libertarian I am . . . but I don't think that matters. I vote according to my conscience, so I won't always vote Libertarian anyway. Ron Paul is amazing! I hope his son is like him!
@BringBRToTheUK There's several entities outside of Washington to handle issues such as handicaps. Hell even the states can run a more fitting and efficient program than bureaucrats. Also you have lost trust in the the people around you. There are already plenty of charities that handle things like college funds, and sickness. There will be more of an incentive to give once everyone has more money to spend. Why lose a quarter of you paycheck when you could use that money for things you need.
I am also interested to hear a libertarian stance on the following scenario. Imagine I live in a libertarian society. One day, the bank with all my money in goes bust (de ja vu). Without a big government to bail them out, how will I get my money back? Do I just accept that it's gone and blame myself for my poor investment?
I am very interested by the ideology, but I have a lot of questions that I don't know how to answer yet.
@BringBRToTheUK Well you got to understand what a bank is. You are not putting you money in for safe keeping. You're loaning it to the bank so it can loan to others to make money. If you like the convenience than I would suggest putting your money in a community bank or perhaps some kind of prepaid debit card but there still is risk. Let me ask you if I go to the casino and spend my pay check should you the tax payer have to bail me out for a poor decision? Casinos are just high risk investments
@DrunkenGodMode Fair enough. A few last question if you don't mind?
How can we stop profit driven companies from the vulgar mistreatment of animals in factory farms? Also, how can we protect the environment from polluting corporate giants? And a question similar to the last, who do we pay to clean the streets of litter? Thanks.
"How can we stop profit driven companies from the vulgar mistreatment of animals in factory farms"
Easy...We need to get our governments out of the business of corporate welfare aka subsidies. ALL Regulations are written at the behest of corp. lobbyists to garner an unnatural advantage over their uppity smaller competitors using the strong arm of government force. Removing Gov. from economy = A level playing field = better choices for consumers = FREE MARKET
@BringBRToTheUK Joey has a pretty good answer. Subsidies should end all together because the government shouldn't pick market winners and losers. Plus subsidies hurt the smaller farms which use traditional methods and creating super giants such as factory farms. Activist seem to handle these issues better by diminishing market demands for products by enlightening people of these actions. Street clean up and maintenance could be paid through tolls private highways equal better highways.
Why do people always call social, economic, and political freedom anarchy? There are still laws where rules need to be in place. Ron Paul's stance is that many of the things the Federal government bans isn't within it's jurisdiction. So, he opts to use the 10th Amendment and pass those powers to the states or people.
@TheDeadbeatHero Well there's a lot of self-interest in having government positions. Just see how rich congressmen and senators get. I think the reason people get it confused with anarchy is because whether its media or politicians, the majority of the time libertarian ideals are compared to anarchy. I have always seen myself as a classic liberal though and i think there is a role of very small government. We the people just need to stay up to date if we are going to vote.
Thank you. Very Nice Job..., Trying to understand political affiliation is as hard as understanding the division between true faith and a belief system. True faith is not just a feeling blown by circumstance but a hunger for information that leads to compassion, not conquest. The belief system leads us into thinking that our profession of faith is the punch-card for imposing our will on others.
Trying to understand political affiliation is as hard as understanding the division between true faith and a belief system. True faith is not just a feeling blown by circumstance but a hunger for information that leads to compassion, not conquest. The belief system leads us into thinking that our profession of faith is the punch-card for imposing our will on others.
@AGeekWithAShotgun You'll have to explain yourself more. Left-libertarianism is simply the rejection of private property in favor of public possession, which gives the right of people to demand that others compensate or something of that sort.
The rejection of private property is not of accord with individualism ideals, which Libertarianism stresses about. The right to property, ring a bell? It differs from society to society
@AGeekWithAShotgun Maybe you ought to read that link I gave you. Libertarianism pretty much is about self-ownership, and where left and right distinguish is on the question of property. For a left-libertarian, people don't own they possess.
Well It's settled: I'm a Minarchist Libertarian. I assume I will always be a libertarian but my views underneath the umbrella of libertarianism might change.
I agree with your assessment of ron paul totally. I'd like to say though, that if libertarians consistently applied the non aggression principle to all of their socio-political ideas, they'd reach the logical conclusion that all government monopoly (even on courts/security) is directly opposed to that principle. Is also interesting that you did this linear starting with the least consistent with freedom yet didn't identify voluntaryism (placed at the end) as the most consistent. Which it is.
You are, of course, neglecting the fact that the word ‘Libertarian’ was originated in the 1850’s by European anarchists, who defined their view as being socialist in opinion (that ownership of production should be publicly owned), but differed from all other socialists---social democrats, communists, Marxists, Lenin, Trotsky, et al---in that all others are authoritarian, whereas theirs are libertarian.
Only in the United States is the term ‘libertarian’ associated with ‘free-market’ ideas.
@MistrWillow The video isn't really supposed to be a full history of the term libertarian, only to show the different factions of libertarians in modern day politics.
Also what separates Classical-Liberals from Libertarians is our position on internationalism. For example, I would have been fine with invading Iraq if we intended to annex it. This would mean the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the induction of a 51st state to the union. However timing is very important and our Presidents missed several opportunities to have it done. First with Desert Storm and second with minimal presence in 2004.
@dibaterman You would have wanted Iraq to become the 51st state? If we started annexing all the foreign countries we occupy then we truly would be a world empire like ancient Rome.
The point isn't about empire it's about basic human rights. As a state Iraq would of had the resources to grow as well as the opportunity for liberal values to eventually break the shackles of hundreds of years of theocracy and despotism.
I'm not saying I would have started a war though, just that given that particular war there were better ways to organize and prepare for that conflict.
Ha! Sorry but I can't exactly call myself libertarian... I am definitely a classical liberal and anyone who isn't just has too narrow a perspective. For example the anarchists argue for no government but for socialistic programs that will demand something like government. I say the individual works better for the individual than the society can in cases that apply to the individual and no one else. This is especially in the welfare of one self and trade.
I'm sorry but your view is that all libertarian ideologies are capitalist is wrong. Even though all the types of libertarian ideologies listed are genuine you miss out key ones such as Libertarian Socialism (leftwing- Anarchism) this philosophy is anti-capitalist and does not think the state is needed in socialism and does not support coercion.
Yea Anarcho-Socialists are all kinds of confused, they plead for no government and then want to replace that government with something that they swear up and down isn't a government. It's like using a nuclear explosion to scratch your back.
The rules of the conqueror are what must be understood as the ultimate threat to free people. If there is no militia there is no protection from a militia.
@dibaterman I don't think you understand the philosophy then, a lot of libertarian socialist (or any other name that means the same thing) support the idea of creating a new society with in the shell of the old (dual power system) . This means communities of shared ownership and different social arrangements without the use of government. This is simply voluntary autonomous socialism. Ultimately the government should disappear in this ideology.
No, no I do understand - my point is one size doesn't fit all. When dealing with leaders who believe their nation is their private property (like Iraq) there are two options presented. Be indifferent (maybe hope for change from within) or remove the regime. The establishment of democracy or even anarchy (it's in between now) still allows for more wiggle room for ideologies than when Saddam was in power.
Oh you were making a case for Anarcho-Scoialists; Hm, I have a lunch appointment with one in a bit. In it I intend to describe that while she is right to see government as the enemy of the people and should be critical of it her ideology is paternalistic and would lead to one of two options: No protection from invaders or opportunists or the formation of a collectivist state.
If you don't believe coercion is not needed for Socialism, than you are, for all real policy reasons, an Anarcho Capitalism, because in an anarcho Capitalist society, that is a stateless society built on the basis of peaceful, voluntary cooperation, people would be free to make Communes and form voluntary socialist organizations.
@AK49Gunner I guess your right I am open for people to create their own voluntary systems that are different to mine, however I think most people would choose socialism rather than pure capitalism. But yep your right i don't believe in force at all.
@whywatchthistv I would prefer capitalism, and I am 27 and work at a auto parts store. If we lived under socialism, then that means I must trade and share my belongings when I believe it must be voluntary. If it's voluntary, it isn't truly socialism.
@AK49Gunner although you are wrong that i am not an anarcho capitalist as that would mean that I favour capitalism, which is wrong i strongly disagree with capitalism.
@whywatchthistv I know. I had a massive comment debate shortly after I created the video. I actually wrote up a script for my follow up video regarding my thoughts on libertarian socialism like that espoused by Noam Chomsky, but haven't had an opportunity to put it together yet.
@mrzack888 He believes the federal government should have no role in prostitution. Therefore it will not be prohibited by the federal level. If states with to outlaw it, that would be up to them.
@mrzack888 In Canada we have a bit of a problem with prostitution ourselves. While it is legal under charter rights any action that would lead to prostitution is deemed illegal.
It's sort of like saying you can have ice-cream you just can't buy, sell, make, consume, share, or talk about where to get ice-cream.
This is also relatively new, and those who ACTUALLY came up with the idea of libertarianism would dismiss this definition. The actual definition (yes, the actual one) was created to define a political ideology without hirarchial systems. Without class systems and without class warfare and class difference. Both Marx and Engels would probably classify themselfes as libertarians as both anarchism and libertarianism are words that originates in left winged movement, not right winged.
Libertarianism is a word. There is no true description of it because anyone can call themselves a libertarian and push democratic or republican views and vice-versa. People should stop voting for the parties and start voting for the person and their personal ideas.
@SophiaChrstinaBotha Is that the one where you believe in almost all forms of libertarianism, however you believe that land cannot truly be property owned by individuals? I remember reading about it, and it interested me, but I haven't had a chance to study it. As far as I know isn't a big faction in libertarian politics, but please, provide links and I'll take a look.
@Enleuk Does that mean I can go into your home and steal your belongings? I mean, if you don't believe in property rights, then you have no right to the things in your home. Wait, did I say your home? I meant my home, since I'm going to start living in it now too.
@frionelhero Exactly, it's not my home and it's not your home and it's not my things and it's not your things. You can do whatever your conscience is comfortable with.
@Enleuk That makes absolutely no sense. Does this mean that if I go purchase something like a TV for myself, I don't actually own it and anyone is entitled to the fruits of my labor?
@Enleuk I apologize, I don't mean to be rude because I am curious and would like to do some research on this philosophy of yours. I will give it a fair shake. I guess its because I am a strong believer in property rights that I am just having a hard time comprehending the idea that 'things' will not be 'owned, bought, or stolen'. How can goods and services exist without someone being in ownership of property, regardless of if it is private or government owned.
@frionelhero Nature is free, nobody owns the atoms of the universe, no private or state people of organisations own anything. Things just exist. Let's say we're all a big family of 9 billion people. I do the washing up, you do the dishes. We don't pay each other for doing these services, nor do either of us claim to own the TV we're both watching. We might argue over which channel to watch, but as long as we don't fight or build guns, everything will be fine.
@Enleuk I understand the concept of no property rights when it comes to physical land, as land will last a lot longer than us humans. However if I work hard, earn myself money, and use it to trade or buy something, then that thing belongs to me and me alone, and I can do whatever I want with that item. No one will have the incentive to build or create new things if it doesn't belong to them. I can't imagine a society where anyone can come and take what I earned through my hard work.
@frionelhero You don't earn any money because you can't buy anything, lol. It's not that hard to understand is it? And people will still do things, I mean, I do stuff for free probably every day. You will still be able to to "whatever you want with an item", any item, not just a limited number of items, as long as nobody objects. If they object you'd have to compromise.
@Enleuk If socialism was tried in a classroom, where everyone would take a test and the average score is what everyone would earn, then those who got A's would gets C's and those who got F's and D's would get C's. Sounds fair. But then the next time there was a test, those who were better would not study or not try as hard because they got a lower scorer despite doing really well. I say this because what you suggest sounds a lot like socialism, and it doesn't work.
@frionelhero I don't know how you define socialism. I live in Sweden, which has been ruled by the Social Democrats for the majority of the 20th century. All countries in the world are without exception state-capitalists, i.e. a combination of socialism and capitalism. The state and the private owners balance each other. I am an anarchist, I think both these hierarchies need to be dismantled. Your analogy however describes a fascist (100% state) communist (0% money) society.
@Enleuk My understanding of communism is state owned and controlled property and economy. My understanding of fascism is government and corporations colluding together to allow only the biggest businesses run the economy. Neither is what I would consider a free market. I just think that it is impossible to have a society without money because all money is is a unit of exchange, used in place of bartering. In a free society we should be able to trade anything we want if it belongs to us.
@frionelhero Ok. That's not really how you define communism and fascism, but defines are irrelevant. I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in power structures (an archy = no hierarchy), this includes the power structure of capitalism. I'm asking you, still, to imagine a world without money, without ownership, without trading, without wages, without buying, without a market, free or not. Can you grasp this concept? If so, share your concerns regarding this kind of society?
You raise an interesting point. The problem with this is there would be a surplus of criminals. This society would simply make it too easy to survive off criminal tactics, and the world would disappear into chaos. Technology would start to diminish. Eventually leaders would rise up and would restore countries back to their original states.
@Enleuk i will be honest with you; I 'grasp' the concept you are suggesting, but I cannot fathom its implementation. I also cannot fathom it working. I guess I can't see how people would be collectively helping each other. Most people care mostly about themselves, and through selfish actions can benefit others when successful. Like a business that provides a product people desire, but the creator of the product becomes wealthy because of it. Incentive for selfish reasons help others.
@frionelhero You're close to answering your own question. People can't do selfless things. Anything they ever do they do because they think it's best for themselves to do so. If I help someone selflessly, it's because I want the favour returned or because otherwise I'd feel bad about myself, either way the ultimate reason for any action is always selfish, even suicide or martyrdom. The symbiosis I'm suggesting is also selfish, you help each other collectively for selfish gains.
@Enleuk Sickening. That is your reasoning for helping someone? When I help someone it's because it makes me feel good to know that I am needed. I have a purpose, example: My neighbor is no longer physically able to shovel her walkway, I am happy to help clear the way. Most of my friends and relatives are technologically incompetent and require my assistance regularly, no problem. The point is, it's nice to be wanted and needed. You have the words of a man who lacks compassion.
@Enleuk I assumed you could derrive the rest of the inference, and that was; When I help someone it's because it makes me feel good, not to alleviate some guilt. You are saying that guilt must be present to experience levity in helping another. Also this issue isn't black and white, there are times I help others, even though I don't want to out of selfishness. Like lending my friend fifty bucks I was about to spend on myself. You do it because it's the right thing to do.
@KS4RonPaul I didn't say it was only to alleviate guilt. You can sacrifice yourself to avoid feeling guilty about not having done it, but you can also sacrifice yourself to have a positive feeling of satisfaction about having done it. Doing something "because it is the right thing" doesn't make sense neurologically without satisfaction. If you believe in God or another universal morality and a connection between your choices and God's morals, then sure, but I'm an atheist.
@Enleuk Do you have any websites or youtube videos that could espouse this philosophy you speak of a little better than a comment on youtube. Because unlike some, I am always willing to try and expand my knowledge of other philosophies and ideas. Its just hard to change my ways considering my strong belief in property rights and individualism. How does a society exist as you express without the force of government forcing the people to NOT use money or to not trade? How do people agree?
@frionelhero I do have a video, its called "buddha world part 3" or something. Nobody would be forced not to use money or trade things, but if all things are free there's no reason to trade and without trade there would be no reason to have money. It would be voluntary of course, some groups might prefer local systems of ownership.
@Enleuk In economics class I do remember reading about how we used to be capitalist and many European countries were socialist, but both have moved in the direction that you described but they called it a mixed economy. I suppose its better than straight socialism or communism, but the system we have in place now seems to favor big corporations and businesses, which in a true free market (ie capitalism) wouldn't be the case.
@bigboywasim Even though his candidacy will likely not go far because of Ron Paul, I like Gary Johnson and will support him in the future.
My hope is that the term classical liberal will become popular again, so that way 'conservatives' like Ron Paul won't get mixed up with 'conservatives' like George W. Bush.
Why do libertarians trust the Tenth Amendment to ensure rights for people? What would prevent mass inequalities between the states from breaking out once left to local and state government? Do you really think the southern states would not be segregated today if the locals didn't get the federal government's boot up their ass?
@OneSixFourFive Every other country in the world ended slavery without violence (like America did during the Civil War), and racism didn't last as long in those same countries because governments weren't propping up racist laws like Jim Crow. You can't force people to not be racist with an edict by the government. You need to change peoples hearts. I think we are at a time now when there is no possible way society will ever go back to how it was.
@OneSixFourFive If a racist person commits a crime, then he suffers the consequences. Instead of putting people in groups we must judge each person as an individual. If a person is racist, but stays at his home fuming about how much he hates minorities or gays, he isn't hurting anyone and no crime has been committed. Government is there to protect people from crime, but whether a person is racist, or involved in some other undesirable group, the crime is no less legitimate.
Good work. Now do it again and include some stuff on Rand, Hume, Locke, Smith and some of the others I can't think of right now and I'll give you an A+. Seriously though, good work: helpful and useful. You should put it in pamphlet form and pass it out at the appropriate places.
why are we nice voluntarinists last? Stephan is a cult leader xD Jacob Spinney is a much better example.
Oh you might be missing out on the new anti-statists, the do seems to be different than voluntarinists. (anti-statists like weird home owner associations rather than states just because they respect property rights, sorta xD)
@MirageScience I just subscribed to Jacob Spinney. I'm shocked I haven't heard of him. There is always new philosophies and sub sections that I have yet to learn.
@bigboywasim bullshit, you go look around his website he has tons on cult followers in his chat, stick around there for a week tops and see what happens
@MirageScience At least read The Law. You can download for free if you have the Kindle. Online versions are available as well. It's short, but it is a great read.
The Tea Party has become a shell of what it formerly was. Just becuz they favor less government in the economy does not give them any benefit of the doubt. It has been hijacked by corporatists.
well I would have included several more names (objectavism, ayn rand, rothbard, hoppe, lew rockwell, david and milton friedman) and probably even more, but in general this is a pretty sound analyslis (though tom woods is definatly an anarchist). subbed.
This has been flagged as spam show
Support Ron Paul go to Americans elect.org and vote to get Ron Paul a second window of opportunity to run in the 2012 Presidential elections. Americans Elect is a legitimate group looking to get a third party elected they are doing the hard work for us with signatures and Paying to get on ballots .
We need to put out front a canadate that has not been funded by Big banks, Lobbyists, or billionaires trying their hand at social engineering for personal gain Ron Paul is that man
Ron Paul 2012!
Barskor1 8 hours ago
Ya know I didn't see his lips move even once. Damn....
sfcdawabn 1 day ago
Obama.... a liberal?.... NDAA and ACTA are SOOO not liberal at all.
tuck295q 2 days ago
@tuck295q On a modern usage of the term "liberal"... they're quite liberal.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 day ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu Compare to George Washington, they are so freaking fascists these days xD
tuck295q 1 day ago
Koch brothers is pronounced "Coke brothers."
StuartHughes2990 3 days ago
@StuartHughes2990 I didnt even know who they where (Koch brothers) until months after I went to LOCAL supported teaparties. They had nothing to do with the teaparties I went to in Houston. MSM was the reason I even heard there name. strawman strawman
ssjwes 3 days ago
Good video man.
PowerCoefficient 4 days ago
Minor point: Coch is pronounced Coke (like the soda)
tastytastypie 6 days ago
Well done.
UnstopableAK47 6 days ago
Great video. I'll be sure to share this with my not-too-politically-savvy friends. ;D
TuxedoClam 1 week ago
The Koch brothers are evil obfuscatory bastards.
EclecticSceptic 1 week ago
What type of libertarian should we classify Jesse Ventura?
mdaskal2000 1 week ago
Ron Paul? Dennis Kucinich? The future President and Secretary of State of the United States?
CuriousGeorgeMonkey9 1 week ago
Just a friendly reminder of something:
Left-libertarians *aren't* "liberaltarians". Those sorts of libertarians are typically a lot less prone to be anarchist while left-libertarians (in the free market sense of things like agorism, mutualism, voluntary socialism, voluntaryism, etc.) are typically anarchists (if not they're Bleeding Heart Libertarians aka radical minarchists). The ALL is made up of mostly anarchists and not non-establishment democrats. I suggest you check out all-left.net
RageAgnstThClampdown 1 week ago
koch is pronounced coke not koch.;
greenghost2008 1 week ago
@greenghost2008
And it's voluntaryist not "voluntaryinst". ;P
RageAgnstThClampdown 1 week ago
I consider myself a "Progressive Libetarian". I love low and flat taxes, i hate wealth redistribution, i love personal choice and freedom and i love small government with a few exceptions. I still believe in well funded state education up to the age of 18 so everyone gets a chance regardless class or background. I also believe that the taxpayer should ensure a certainly level of "free" healthcare for everyone (I'm not America). I also believe we should maximize inheritance tax revenue.
N330AA 1 week ago
I don't consider the Tea Party to be Libetarians. They certainly share some ideas, possibly quite a lot, but the TP are distinctly Conservative.
N330AA 1 week ago
Good video, but you didn't even mention what to me is the MOST important distinction. Economics. You imply that Austrians von Hayek and von Mises are well regarded by all libertarians, but this is NOT true. Classical liberals once knew better. Please read "Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?" by Dan Sullivan (Search it. I can't post the link.)
dlpirl 1 week ago
Glen Beck and Palin just stole the Tea Party idea from Ron Paul. Ron Paul started it all in 2007
harryinitiative 1 week ago 2
Ron Paul is so popular because he's willing to listen to all of the various factions of Libertarians. He's been known to quote Jefferson, Spooner, and Mises all within the same speech. He takes the time to listen to POV's across the spectrum, and formulate concise rational responses immediately. That is the essence of Libertarianism. Thought and rationalization before rash judgement and action.
Joe11Blue 2 weeks ago
A consistent libertarian must be an anarchist. In the words of libertarian anarchist Stephan Kinsella:
"To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified."
PeaceRequiresAnarchy 2 weeks ago
@PeaceRequiresAnarchy Extremism never works in a practical sense though. I am a paleo-conservative/classical liberal which I believe is a perfect balance for prosperity, security, and liberty. True anarchy would not be a good environment for bringing together a national defense or a prosperous economy while it would certainly give you the most liberty. And without those two other pillars our country would not survive in this day and age.
MFINN23 1 week ago
@MFINN23 Perhaps you should read the entire article that the quote I gave came from: lewrockwell[dot]com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
Saying "extremism" (anarchy?) "never works in a practical sense though" is a straw man argument against anarchy, as the article argues.
PeaceRequiresAnarchy 1 week ago
@MFINN23 To your, "anarchy would not be a good environment for bringing together a national defense or a prosperous economy," I would reply that I disagree (and that you haven't provided any arguments that your assertion is true), but that even if you were right, that still would not justify the aggression that governments commit, and thus you would still be just attacking a straw man for opposing anarchy on those grounds.
PeaceRequiresAnarchy 1 week ago
@MFINN23 As for your unfounded assertion that national defense could not be provided for well in anarchy, see the YouTube video "Funding Public Goods: Six Solutions (by Roderick Long)" by user grahampwright.
PeaceRequiresAnarchy 1 week ago
If the main argument of the Anarchists is that you cant have a government because they all tend to become bad over time, then they don't really have an argument at all. Gee, guess what? EVERYTHING deteriorates over time. Freedom needs constant vigilance to protect it. I suppose the founding fathers were wrong to even write that old constitution because eventually, you know, it got changed.
knearhood8 2 weeks ago
@knearhood8 Actually that's not the main argument, but for the time constraints and effort put into the video, he did a decent job. The main argument for Anarchism is that for any Governmental body to exist requires the coercion of the citizenry of which it is intended to govern.
Joe11Blue 2 weeks ago
WELL DONE! Just posted this on Facebook!
godkingmac 2 weeks ago
In my book there are only two categories of libertarians: classical liberal libertarians and paleo-libertarians. Paleos place more emphasis on economic liberty than civil and social liberties; regard social conservatives and the coercive authoritarian Right the lesser of two evils as compared to coercive authoritarians to the left, and pander to paleo-conservatives. Ron Paul is a paleo-conservative.
ComradeLaissezFaire 2 weeks ago
Ron paul is seriously an idiot
KiriStarcraft 3 weeks ago
@KiriStarcraft I love that you didn't make a simple idiotic statement.. And actually defended your opinion with facts. How awesome of you.
NRPBrute 2 weeks ago 4
So for example, you can't have liberty if you don't protect it, but you can over protect it and lose it as well...so the sophisticated libertarian understands all of that. Ron Paul would be an example of a sophisticated Libertarian, who is merely trying to blaze an effective trail to a libertarian environment...all of this eventually falls back on science and logic, which is what Ayn Rand tried to bring into the discussion. there really shouldn't be a lot to argue about among intelligent people.
RonPaulgirls 3 weeks ago
good video, but not exactly right, but helpful to newbies...I've been a libertarian for a long time and the more you learn about it, the less you're apt to fall for any kind of bullshit...the anarchists are just nerds who are basically newbies, the other side like the conservative libertarian leaning are just older, who come from an ignorant predisposed beginning. I left highschool a sophisticated libertarian because I was already very well read. It's simply all about accomadating liberty.
RonPaulgirls 3 weeks ago
It is good to know more about the heterodoxy of libertarianism. I am generally in favor of freedom and liberty, but there are exceptions to that, for example taxes. If people are happier living in a first world country and paying taxes then they would be living in whatever the first world country devolved into when people stopped paying taxes, then that makes taxes a good thing, at least in some cases. We should deliberately choose to live in the best world possible.
sfjeff1089 3 weeks ago
Actually I would contest that, given what I have read on their views, Kucinich and Nader fall into the left libertarian camp. By this I mean as close as any American politician, and that's a crappy standard.
ZombiBuddy 3 weeks ago
@ZombiBuddy I have an enormous respect for Kucinich. Ron Paul, not so much. Both agree that we need to be very deliberate in our oversight of the military-industrial complex. The key difference is, Kucinich believes in a strong economy as well.
sfjeff1089 3 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 No politician, no matter what his economic views are, will come out and say, "I believe in a weak economy." So to suggest that Kucinich is better than Paul because he believes in a strong economy is a bit of a stretch. It's just that they have different ideas on what promotes a strong economy. Kucinich believes that the heavy hand of government can create a strong economy. Paul believes that the invisible hand of the free market can create a strong economy.
frionelhero 2 weeks ago
@frionelhero Sorry to miscommunicate. We have seen over and over again that austerity measures are helpful only in the most left-wing economies and do massive harm to economies that already lean to the right. The most obvious case of this was 1920-1932 when Warren Harding's austerity measures grew the finance and real estate industries while gutting manufacturing. Ron Paul's view on this is that Warren Harding didn't go far enough.
sfjeff1089 1 week ago
@sfjeff1089
Harding and Coolidge presided over one of the most economically prosperous periods in American History, in fact by 1926 unemployment was down to 1%. Harding was able to turn around the economy after Wilson had messed it up although most of the credit should go to Andrew Mellon.
BenjaminWirtz 1 week ago
Wow really well done video, very informative. Thanks!!!
IchiBanSanBro 3 weeks ago
good video
exoticregistry 3 weeks ago
I had difficulty defining my political beliefs; it turns out I've been a libertarian for a while now. Thanks a lot for this very informative video.
I'm not 100% sold on RP - would anyone mind answering a question? It appears that Paul wants more power to corporations and less to government. But as it is now, the government is overtly controlled by big business. What would be the difference?
GeraldWatercrest 3 weeks ago
@GeraldWatercrest Ron Paul is not for more power to corporations but for more power to the people. Big business (as you pointed out) controls the government. This enables them to use regulation and tax loopholes to give them an unfair advantage. By removing the government interference in the market on their behalf, you force them to compete with other companies. Without the protection of the government, they are answerable to the market (i.e. the people).
grey3710 3 weeks ago
@GeraldWatercrest These ideas are covered by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations when he talks about the government created monopolies in the corn trade and trade with the colonies. He discusses how they my help certain sectors and/or 'orders' of people while actually hurting a vast greater number of people. (Books 3 and 4 in particular in case you are a classical liberal, like myself, and want to read his take on it.)
grey3710 3 weeks ago
@grey3710 Thanks for the answer! I'll give The Wealth of Nations a shot.
GeraldWatercrest 3 weeks ago
@GeraldWatercrest Also check out The Law by Frederick Bastiat. It is a pretty short book, and is free on the Kindle. You can find it for cheap as well. Regardless it is an important book on government and the rule of law.
frionelhero 2 weeks ago
Well said
titanhusker 3 weeks ago
The term, "libertarianism", was first used in conjunction with socialism and communism. So I guess there's been quite a bit of "name twisting" going on throughout history ;)
evilsoda00 3 weeks ago
@evilsoda00 Just read Liberal Fascism. It like a crash course in the history of name twisting among other things.
AnthonyMazzarella 3 weeks ago
@AnthonyMazzarella After reading just a small portion of the description, I came across an absurd notion. "Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”)." Did you know that the Nazi party ordered book burnings of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? Do you know why? Do you have the consciousness to see that this trickery happens from elites "supporting" either side just so they can gain power?
evilsoda00 3 weeks ago
@evilsoda00 Please elaborate.
AnthonyMazzarella 3 weeks ago
@AnthonyMazzarella The real idea of socialism was to create a free society where people would not be subjected to an authority. the last portion of The Jungle is dedicated towards a lot of talk about what socialism is, some of the ideas seem to border on anarchism, as well as racial and gender equality. Talk of socialism was big in all of Europe at the time, and that was just an opportunity for someone to take advantage of others by lying to gain power.
evilsoda00 3 weeks ago
@AnthonyMazzarella we can see the same thing happening in our own society. With rhetoric like "support our troops" I really doubt that the politicians who are saying that really care about the well being of our troops, they're merely using it as a way to increase military power. The need to do this stems from what some, e.g., Ron Paul, refer to as "the military industrial complex"
evilsoda00 3 weeks ago
I didn't know what a "libertarian" was before discovering Ron Paul in 2010. Turns out I am one.
Ghost9909 4 weeks ago 40
@Ghost9909 I can say the same of myself! Except that I have only realized this over the past month or so! Ron Paul is just about everything I have been wanting to see in a politician, but had lost hope in it actually existing! I'm not certain exactly what manner of Libertarian I am . . . but I don't think that matters. I vote according to my conscience, so I won't always vote Libertarian anyway. Ron Paul is amazing! I hope his son is like him!
jubjub2112 1 week ago
Where did liertarians stand in regards to the 'self ownership' of those who are mentally retarded?
BringBRToTheUK 4 weeks ago
@BringBRToTheUK There's several entities outside of Washington to handle issues such as handicaps. Hell even the states can run a more fitting and efficient program than bureaucrats. Also you have lost trust in the the people around you. There are already plenty of charities that handle things like college funds, and sickness. There will be more of an incentive to give once everyone has more money to spend. Why lose a quarter of you paycheck when you could use that money for things you need.
DrunkenGodMode 3 weeks ago
@DrunkenGodMode Thank you for your reply.
I am also interested to hear a libertarian stance on the following scenario. Imagine I live in a libertarian society. One day, the bank with all my money in goes bust (de ja vu). Without a big government to bail them out, how will I get my money back? Do I just accept that it's gone and blame myself for my poor investment?
I am very interested by the ideology, but I have a lot of questions that I don't know how to answer yet.
BringBRToTheUK 3 weeks ago
@BringBRToTheUK Well you got to understand what a bank is. You are not putting you money in for safe keeping. You're loaning it to the bank so it can loan to others to make money. If you like the convenience than I would suggest putting your money in a community bank or perhaps some kind of prepaid debit card but there still is risk. Let me ask you if I go to the casino and spend my pay check should you the tax payer have to bail me out for a poor decision? Casinos are just high risk investments
DrunkenGodMode 3 weeks ago
@DrunkenGodMode Fair enough. A few last question if you don't mind?
How can we stop profit driven companies from the vulgar mistreatment of animals in factory farms? Also, how can we protect the environment from polluting corporate giants? And a question similar to the last, who do we pay to clean the streets of litter? Thanks.
BringBRToTheUK 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
DrunkenGodMode 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
DrunkenGodMode 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
DrunkenGodMode 3 weeks ago
@BringBRToTheUK
"How can we stop profit driven companies from the vulgar mistreatment of animals in factory farms"
Easy...We need to get our governments out of the business of corporate welfare aka subsidies. ALL Regulations are written at the behest of corp. lobbyists to garner an unnatural advantage over their uppity smaller competitors using the strong arm of government force. Removing Gov. from economy = A level playing field = better choices for consumers = FREE MARKET
joeymackaroni 3 weeks ago
@BringBRToTheUK Joey has a pretty good answer. Subsidies should end all together because the government shouldn't pick market winners and losers. Plus subsidies hurt the smaller farms which use traditional methods and creating super giants such as factory farms. Activist seem to handle these issues better by diminishing market demands for products by enlightening people of these actions. Street clean up and maintenance could be paid through tolls private highways equal better highways.
DrunkenGodMode 3 weeks ago
Obama... a liberal?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Mectrixctic 1 month ago 26
@Mectrixctic You could call him a neo-liberal i guess lol.
MFINN23 1 week ago
@Mectrixctic Yes he Is! ...but ...err..."diferent kind" of liberal...if you know what I mean! :)
sedeslav 1 week ago
@NietzscheKILLEDjesus I hear that!
TheGreenOcelot 1 month ago
Why do people always call social, economic, and political freedom anarchy? There are still laws where rules need to be in place. Ron Paul's stance is that many of the things the Federal government bans isn't within it's jurisdiction. So, he opts to use the 10th Amendment and pass those powers to the states or people.
TheDeadbeatHero 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheDeadbeatHero Well there's a lot of self-interest in having government positions. Just see how rich congressmen and senators get. I think the reason people get it confused with anarchy is because whether its media or politicians, the majority of the time libertarian ideals are compared to anarchy. I have always seen myself as a classic liberal though and i think there is a role of very small government. We the people just need to stay up to date if we are going to vote.
DrunkenGodMode 3 weeks ago
Thank you. Very Nice Job..., Trying to understand political affiliation is as hard as understanding the division between true faith and a belief system. True faith is not just a feeling blown by circumstance but a hunger for information that leads to compassion, not conquest. The belief system leads us into thinking that our profession of faith is the punch-card for imposing our will on others.
You have a bright future ahead of you. Blessings
VoteRealVotePaul 1 month ago
Thank you. Very Nice Job...,
Trying to understand political affiliation is as hard as understanding the division between true faith and a belief system. True faith is not just a feeling blown by circumstance but a hunger for information that leads to compassion, not conquest. The belief system leads us into thinking that our profession of faith is the punch-card for imposing our will on others.
You have a bright future ahead of you. Blessings
VoteRealVotePaul 1 month ago
You forgot left-libertarianism:
plato[dot]stanford[dot]edu/entries/libertarianism/
letsmakeapoint 1 month ago
@letsmakeapoint
Left-libertarianism is typically dismissed; it's kind of hard to have a collectivist regime and individual rights to exist within a society
AGeekWithAShotgun 1 month ago
@AGeekWithAShotgun You'll have to explain yourself more. Left-libertarianism is simply the rejection of private property in favor of public possession, which gives the right of people to demand that others compensate or something of that sort.
letsmakeapoint 1 month ago
@letsmakeapoint
The rejection of private property is not of accord with individualism ideals, which Libertarianism stresses about. The right to property, ring a bell? It differs from society to society
AGeekWithAShotgun 1 month ago
@AGeekWithAShotgun Maybe you ought to read that link I gave you. Libertarianism pretty much is about self-ownership, and where left and right distinguish is on the question of property. For a left-libertarian, people don't own they possess.
letsmakeapoint 1 month ago
Well It's settled: I'm a Minarchist Libertarian. I assume I will always be a libertarian but my views underneath the umbrella of libertarianism might change.
TheGreenOcelot 1 month ago
Thanks for the great video! Good overview!
ReasonAndLiberty 1 month ago
I agree with your assessment of ron paul totally. I'd like to say though, that if libertarians consistently applied the non aggression principle to all of their socio-political ideas, they'd reach the logical conclusion that all government monopoly (even on courts/security) is directly opposed to that principle. Is also interesting that you did this linear starting with the least consistent with freedom yet didn't identify voluntaryism (placed at the end) as the most consistent. Which it is.
kindkayne 1 month ago
You are, of course, neglecting the fact that the word ‘Libertarian’ was originated in the 1850’s by European anarchists, who defined their view as being socialist in opinion (that ownership of production should be publicly owned), but differed from all other socialists---social democrats, communists, Marxists, Lenin, Trotsky, et al---in that all others are authoritarian, whereas theirs are libertarian.
Only in the United States is the term ‘libertarian’ associated with ‘free-market’ ideas.
MistrWillow 1 month ago
@MistrWillow The video isn't really supposed to be a full history of the term libertarian, only to show the different factions of libertarians in modern day politics.
frionelhero 1 month ago
This was very informative. Thank you!
cecalder 1 month ago
Also what separates Classical-Liberals from Libertarians is our position on internationalism. For example, I would have been fine with invading Iraq if we intended to annex it. This would mean the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the induction of a 51st state to the union. However timing is very important and our Presidents missed several opportunities to have it done. First with Desert Storm and second with minimal presence in 2004.
dibaterman 1 month ago
@dibaterman You would have wanted Iraq to become the 51st state? If we started annexing all the foreign countries we occupy then we truly would be a world empire like ancient Rome.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero
The point isn't about empire it's about basic human rights. As a state Iraq would of had the resources to grow as well as the opportunity for liberal values to eventually break the shackles of hundreds of years of theocracy and despotism.
I'm not saying I would have started a war though, just that given that particular war there were better ways to organize and prepare for that conflict.
dibaterman 1 month ago
Ha! Sorry but I can't exactly call myself libertarian... I am definitely a classical liberal and anyone who isn't just has too narrow a perspective. For example the anarchists argue for no government but for socialistic programs that will demand something like government. I say the individual works better for the individual than the society can in cases that apply to the individual and no one else. This is especially in the welfare of one self and trade.
dibaterman 1 month ago
I'm sorry but your view is that all libertarian ideologies are capitalist is wrong. Even though all the types of libertarian ideologies listed are genuine you miss out key ones such as Libertarian Socialism (leftwing- Anarchism) this philosophy is anti-capitalist and does not think the state is needed in socialism and does not support coercion.
whywatchthistv 1 month ago
@whywatchthistv
Yea Anarcho-Socialists are all kinds of confused, they plead for no government and then want to replace that government with something that they swear up and down isn't a government. It's like using a nuclear explosion to scratch your back.
The rules of the conqueror are what must be understood as the ultimate threat to free people. If there is no militia there is no protection from a militia.
dibaterman 1 month ago
@dibaterman I don't think you understand the philosophy then, a lot of libertarian socialist (or any other name that means the same thing) support the idea of creating a new society with in the shell of the old (dual power system) . This means communities of shared ownership and different social arrangements without the use of government. This is simply voluntary autonomous socialism. Ultimately the government should disappear in this ideology.
whywatchthistv 1 month ago
@whywatchthistv
No, no I do understand - my point is one size doesn't fit all. When dealing with leaders who believe their nation is their private property (like Iraq) there are two options presented. Be indifferent (maybe hope for change from within) or remove the regime. The establishment of democracy or even anarchy (it's in between now) still allows for more wiggle room for ideologies than when Saddam was in power.
dibaterman 1 month ago
@whywatchthistv
Oh you were making a case for Anarcho-Scoialists; Hm, I have a lunch appointment with one in a bit. In it I intend to describe that while she is right to see government as the enemy of the people and should be critical of it her ideology is paternalistic and would lead to one of two options: No protection from invaders or opportunists or the formation of a collectivist state.
dibaterman 1 month ago
@whywatchthistv
If you don't believe coercion is not needed for Socialism, than you are, for all real policy reasons, an Anarcho Capitalism, because in an anarcho Capitalist society, that is a stateless society built on the basis of peaceful, voluntary cooperation, people would be free to make Communes and form voluntary socialist organizations.
AK49Gunner 1 month ago
@AK49Gunner I guess your right I am open for people to create their own voluntary systems that are different to mine, however I think most people would choose socialism rather than pure capitalism. But yep your right i don't believe in force at all.
whywatchthistv 1 month ago
@whywatchthistv I would prefer capitalism, and I am 27 and work at a auto parts store. If we lived under socialism, then that means I must trade and share my belongings when I believe it must be voluntary. If it's voluntary, it isn't truly socialism.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@AK49Gunner although you are wrong that i am not an anarcho capitalist as that would mean that I favour capitalism, which is wrong i strongly disagree with capitalism.
whywatchthistv 1 month ago
@whywatchthistv I know. I had a massive comment debate shortly after I created the video. I actually wrote up a script for my follow up video regarding my thoughts on libertarian socialism like that espoused by Noam Chomsky, but haven't had an opportunity to put it together yet.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero sure i will look forward to seeing it :) !
whywatchthistv 1 month ago
LOL, you missed the Glenn Beck 'libertarian'.
Tsicar 1 month ago
Great vid it just proves that we still need balance no one ideal is perfect because no one person is perfect
SUBinfinit 1 month ago
This video is very well done as well as informative and entertaining.
faved!
NuclearToaster98 1 month ago
wut about prostitution? IF RP is for legalizing prostitution, then I'm voting for this man!!!
mrzack888 1 month ago
@mrzack888 He believes the federal government should have no role in prostitution. Therefore it will not be prohibited by the federal level. If states with to outlaw it, that would be up to them.
frionelhero 1 month ago 9
@frionelhero I like his style.
mrzack888 1 month ago
@frionelhero speaking of the devil: watch?v=8mSrmcgitVg
mrzack888 1 month ago
@mrzack888 A brothel in New Mexico endorsed him a few months ago, so I think he is.
htiberian 1 month ago
@mrzack888 In Canada we have a bit of a problem with prostitution ourselves. While it is legal under charter rights any action that would lead to prostitution is deemed illegal.
It's sort of like saying you can have ice-cream you just can't buy, sell, make, consume, share, or talk about where to get ice-cream.
keneth231742 1 month ago
what about libertarian socialism
death9719 1 month ago
what about libertarian socialism
death9719 1 month ago
the alliance of the libertarian left is voluntaryist, and anarcho capitalist
death9719 1 month ago
donate to ron paul
BobbyH2012 1 month ago
Does this use any academic sources?
rebreh1029 1 month ago
This is also relatively new, and those who ACTUALLY came up with the idea of libertarianism would dismiss this definition. The actual definition (yes, the actual one) was created to define a political ideology without hirarchial systems. Without class systems and without class warfare and class difference. Both Marx and Engels would probably classify themselfes as libertarians as both anarchism and libertarianism are words that originates in left winged movement, not right winged.
gulbirk 1 month ago
On the transcript, was "uh" spelled as "uh", or "eh"?
MigaOhYT 1 month ago
Libertarianism is a word. There is no true description of it because anyone can call themselves a libertarian and push democratic or republican views and vice-versa. People should stop voting for the parties and start voting for the person and their personal ideas.
MegaSteel9 1 month ago
Good video, very informative and well put together. I believe I understand Libertarianism as a whole much better now after watching this.
thelonehighlander 1 month ago
YOU FORGOT GEOLIBERTARIANISM!
SophiaChrstinaBotha 1 month ago
@SophiaChrstinaBotha Is that the one where you believe in almost all forms of libertarianism, however you believe that land cannot truly be property owned by individuals? I remember reading about it, and it interested me, but I haven't had a chance to study it. As far as I know isn't a big faction in libertarian politics, but please, provide links and I'll take a look.
frionelhero 1 month ago
I think a Paul-Johnson ticket would be pretty cool.
bucknation2012 1 month ago
im an anarchist, i dont believe property rights. i can label myself thank you very much
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk Does that mean I can go into your home and steal your belongings? I mean, if you don't believe in property rights, then you have no right to the things in your home. Wait, did I say your home? I meant my home, since I'm going to start living in it now too.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero Exactly, it's not my home and it's not your home and it's not my things and it's not your things. You can do whatever your conscience is comfortable with.
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk That makes absolutely no sense. Does this mean that if I go purchase something like a TV for myself, I don't actually own it and anyone is entitled to the fruits of my labor?
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero You can't own, buy or steal anything without property rights. Everything is free. What about this is it you don't understand?
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk I apologize, I don't mean to be rude because I am curious and would like to do some research on this philosophy of yours. I will give it a fair shake. I guess its because I am a strong believer in property rights that I am just having a hard time comprehending the idea that 'things' will not be 'owned, bought, or stolen'. How can goods and services exist without someone being in ownership of property, regardless of if it is private or government owned.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero Nature is free, nobody owns the atoms of the universe, no private or state people of organisations own anything. Things just exist. Let's say we're all a big family of 9 billion people. I do the washing up, you do the dishes. We don't pay each other for doing these services, nor do either of us claim to own the TV we're both watching. We might argue over which channel to watch, but as long as we don't fight or build guns, everything will be fine.
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk I understand the concept of no property rights when it comes to physical land, as land will last a lot longer than us humans. However if I work hard, earn myself money, and use it to trade or buy something, then that thing belongs to me and me alone, and I can do whatever I want with that item. No one will have the incentive to build or create new things if it doesn't belong to them. I can't imagine a society where anyone can come and take what I earned through my hard work.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero You don't earn any money because you can't buy anything, lol. It's not that hard to understand is it? And people will still do things, I mean, I do stuff for free probably every day. You will still be able to to "whatever you want with an item", any item, not just a limited number of items, as long as nobody objects. If they object you'd have to compromise.
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk If socialism was tried in a classroom, where everyone would take a test and the average score is what everyone would earn, then those who got A's would gets C's and those who got F's and D's would get C's. Sounds fair. But then the next time there was a test, those who were better would not study or not try as hard because they got a lower scorer despite doing really well. I say this because what you suggest sounds a lot like socialism, and it doesn't work.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero I don't know how you define socialism. I live in Sweden, which has been ruled by the Social Democrats for the majority of the 20th century. All countries in the world are without exception state-capitalists, i.e. a combination of socialism and capitalism. The state and the private owners balance each other. I am an anarchist, I think both these hierarchies need to be dismantled. Your analogy however describes a fascist (100% state) communist (0% money) society.
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk My understanding of communism is state owned and controlled property and economy. My understanding of fascism is government and corporations colluding together to allow only the biggest businesses run the economy. Neither is what I would consider a free market. I just think that it is impossible to have a society without money because all money is is a unit of exchange, used in place of bartering. In a free society we should be able to trade anything we want if it belongs to us.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero Ok. That's not really how you define communism and fascism, but defines are irrelevant. I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in power structures (an archy = no hierarchy), this includes the power structure of capitalism. I'm asking you, still, to imagine a world without money, without ownership, without trading, without wages, without buying, without a market, free or not. Can you grasp this concept? If so, share your concerns regarding this kind of society?
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk
You raise an interesting point. The problem with this is there would be a surplus of criminals. This society would simply make it too easy to survive off criminal tactics, and the world would disappear into chaos. Technology would start to diminish. Eventually leaders would rise up and would restore countries back to their original states.
daflyingkiwifilms 1 month ago
@daflyingkiwifilms Why would there be a surplus of criminals?
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk i will be honest with you; I 'grasp' the concept you are suggesting, but I cannot fathom its implementation. I also cannot fathom it working. I guess I can't see how people would be collectively helping each other. Most people care mostly about themselves, and through selfish actions can benefit others when successful. Like a business that provides a product people desire, but the creator of the product becomes wealthy because of it. Incentive for selfish reasons help others.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero You're close to answering your own question. People can't do selfless things. Anything they ever do they do because they think it's best for themselves to do so. If I help someone selflessly, it's because I want the favour returned or because otherwise I'd feel bad about myself, either way the ultimate reason for any action is always selfish, even suicide or martyrdom. The symbiosis I'm suggesting is also selfish, you help each other collectively for selfish gains.
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk Sickening. That is your reasoning for helping someone? When I help someone it's because it makes me feel good to know that I am needed. I have a purpose, example: My neighbor is no longer physically able to shovel her walkway, I am happy to help clear the way. Most of my friends and relatives are technologically incompetent and require my assistance regularly, no problem. The point is, it's nice to be wanted and needed. You have the words of a man who lacks compassion.
KS4RonPaul 1 month ago
@KS4RonPaul "When I help someone it's because it makes me feel good" This almost verbatum exactly what I said.
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk I assumed you could derrive the rest of the inference, and that was; When I help someone it's because it makes me feel good, not to alleviate some guilt. You are saying that guilt must be present to experience levity in helping another. Also this issue isn't black and white, there are times I help others, even though I don't want to out of selfishness. Like lending my friend fifty bucks I was about to spend on myself. You do it because it's the right thing to do.
KS4RonPaul 1 month ago
@KS4RonPaul I didn't say it was only to alleviate guilt. You can sacrifice yourself to avoid feeling guilty about not having done it, but you can also sacrifice yourself to have a positive feeling of satisfaction about having done it. Doing something "because it is the right thing" doesn't make sense neurologically without satisfaction. If you believe in God or another universal morality and a connection between your choices and God's morals, then sure, but I'm an atheist.
Enleuk 4 weeks ago
@Enleuk Do you have any websites or youtube videos that could espouse this philosophy you speak of a little better than a comment on youtube. Because unlike some, I am always willing to try and expand my knowledge of other philosophies and ideas. Its just hard to change my ways considering my strong belief in property rights and individualism. How does a society exist as you express without the force of government forcing the people to NOT use money or to not trade? How do people agree?
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero I do have a video, its called "buddha world part 3" or something. Nobody would be forced not to use money or trade things, but if all things are free there's no reason to trade and without trade there would be no reason to have money. It would be voluntary of course, some groups might prefer local systems of ownership.
Enleuk 1 month ago
@Enleuk In economics class I do remember reading about how we used to be capitalist and many European countries were socialist, but both have moved in the direction that you described but they called it a mixed economy. I suppose its better than straight socialism or communism, but the system we have in place now seems to favor big corporations and businesses, which in a true free market (ie capitalism) wouldn't be the case.
frionelhero 1 month ago
Gary Johnson said he is a classic liberal on the Peter Schiff show. Market anarchists take libertarian to its logical conclusion, no government.
bigboywasim 1 month ago
@bigboywasim Even though his candidacy will likely not go far because of Ron Paul, I like Gary Johnson and will support him in the future.
My hope is that the term classical liberal will become popular again, so that way 'conservatives' like Ron Paul won't get mixed up with 'conservatives' like George W. Bush.
frionelhero 1 month ago
Why do libertarians trust the Tenth Amendment to ensure rights for people? What would prevent mass inequalities between the states from breaking out once left to local and state government? Do you really think the southern states would not be segregated today if the locals didn't get the federal government's boot up their ass?
OneSixFourFive 1 month ago
@OneSixFourFive
3 reasons (imo)
1.Why would they endorce inequality to such an extent?
2.If the power of the government(s) is reduced, the effect of their actions is also.
3.The freedom to go where you want. People can vote with there feet, that means going where-ever it suits them best political or for other reasons.
dekster14LP 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@OneSixFourFive Every other country in the world ended slavery without violence (like America did during the Civil War), and racism didn't last as long in those same countries because governments weren't propping up racist laws like Jim Crow. You can't force people to not be racist with an edict by the government. You need to change peoples hearts. I think we are at a time now when there is no possible way society will ever go back to how it was.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@frionelhero It's not about forcing people to not be racist, it's about protecting citizens from the racists.
OneSixFourFive 1 month ago
@OneSixFourFive If a racist person commits a crime, then he suffers the consequences. Instead of putting people in groups we must judge each person as an individual. If a person is racist, but stays at his home fuming about how much he hates minorities or gays, he isn't hurting anyone and no crime has been committed. Government is there to protect people from crime, but whether a person is racist, or involved in some other undesirable group, the crime is no less legitimate.
frionelhero 1 month ago
Why promote labels?
Yeremyah2by2 1 month ago
Good work. Now do it again and include some stuff on Rand, Hume, Locke, Smith and some of the others I can't think of right now and I'll give you an A+. Seriously though, good work: helpful and useful. You should put it in pamphlet form and pass it out at the appropriate places.
themadcookieman 1 month ago
@themadcookieman Thank you sir. I appreciate it.
frionelhero 1 month ago
why are we nice voluntarinists last? Stephan is a cult leader xD Jacob Spinney is a much better example.
Oh you might be missing out on the new anti-statists, the do seems to be different than voluntarinists. (anti-statists like weird home owner associations rather than states just because they respect property rights, sorta xD)
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience I just subscribed to Jacob Spinney. I'm shocked I haven't heard of him. There is always new philosophies and sub sections that I have yet to learn.
frionelhero 1 month ago
@MirageScience This is the same word used for Ron Paul. No one is a cult leader.
bigboywasim 1 month ago
@bigboywasim bullshit, you go look around his website he has tons on cult followers in his chat, stick around there for a week tops and see what happens
MirageScience 1 month ago
you know i pretty much ignored bastiat, i should go buy a book if he wrote one xD
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience At least read The Law. You can download for free if you have the Kindle. Online versions are available as well. It's short, but it is a great read.
frionelhero 1 month ago
The Tea Party has become a shell of what it formerly was. Just becuz they favor less government in the economy does not give them any benefit of the doubt. It has been hijacked by corporatists.
guydudeasian 1 month ago
"Koch" like "Coke". Good video.
thomasvarney723 1 month ago
well I would have included several more names (objectavism, ayn rand, rothbard, hoppe, lew rockwell, david and milton friedman) and probably even more, but in general this is a pretty sound analyslis (though tom woods is definatly an anarchist). subbed.
lengthyounarther 1 month ago