This man is confusing me even more regarding the terms positive and negaive freedom. Why can't people just give me a simple definition. Why are everyone complicating everything.And why is Locke HObbes and Marx, overanalyzing things, that ultimately never really brings any positive results... Pointless..
Anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory. People think that they somehow abolish social or racial prejudices, but they never do; only practical experience that is contrary to stereo-types does, along with a shift in mentality.
We should be equal before the ruling entity but not in the eyes of individuals... It is ideal that people would be unbiased, but that would necessitate a lack of thought process. Why does the gov. think it can accomplish this?
Why is Dr. Skoble so reluctant in saying he's Anti-Affirmative Action. It's not politically incorrect or racist to mention your disposition on this. That's what is really being said here isn't? I think there should be laws protecting "all" citizens from discrimination, regardless of race, disabilities, or who you sleep with. However, as a so called "minority", I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting a position on the basis of my race, my diligence should speak for itself.
What a bunch of bullshit. Positive and negative rights refer to the rights in the bill of rights, and to what restrictions are placed on the government (negative rights), positive right however depend on your vantage point for example Ron Paul might argue that the govermnent has no right and in essance what was setttled in 1776 should be the unchanging law of the land, whereas a rational person might argue that the government did retain some rights in it's original document. (cont)
@idicula1979 (cont) And the progess we have made over time requires government to have some rights over it's people. However as I have said these liberties that one takes depends on your vantage point. I would say the dividing line is between what some people see as the intent of the law versus the letter ( or the litteral wrings) of the law, democrats primarily believe that the intent of the law takes president and republicans vice versa.
So more or less......."Rights" are something made up by someone who wants to give people the comfort that we have something that no one can take away.
What about if someone was stabbed by a mugger and they are bleeding to death in the street and I walk by them. If I don't stop to help them because I don't want to be bothered and I let them bleed to death and die instead, wouldn't that be an immoral move on my part? Most people I think would feel it is. So doesn't that mean that in some circumstances maybe positive rights *are* justified such as that extreme example?
@dubified89 stuff like that scenario are common in cities with high crime. nobody does anything. Most libertarians would preempt the whole situation by finding ways to reduce crime and provide arms for law abiding citizens. other than that I hope SOMEBODY helps the person out, libertarian or no. libertarians can be callous and statists, alot of the time, think it's somebody else's job.
Is this video for children or something? He is talking slow for the lowest common denominator; which just happens to be where the right wing most often places its ideological seed.
@moneycrab That's some nice ad hominem there, you have anything real to contribute? Or are you just going to smug it up like the idiot you happen to be?
@moneycrab Right, that's fine, except this video isn't about "natural rights". If it were your comment might have had something to do with anything but it isn't, so it doesn't.
@moneycrab That's a professor's tone of voice, if you watch some lectures you'll notice that they all try and speak clearly and steadily. It's for people who want to learn, which is something often true of children, so maybe that's what's confusing you. Either way, your use of "lowest common demoninator" is absurd and your ad hominem is bizarre and probably says a lot more about your own personal insecurities than it does about anyone's political belief.
@moneycrab That's because it's an introduction to the concept of positive and negative rights. Not everyone is read up on the details of the philosophy of liberty. That doesn't make them children. If you'd like to make your own video exploring the idea then that's your negative right, but using this space to attack, insult and derive people with whom you presume to disagree is childish behaviour indeed.
@moneycrab libertarianism is not right wing, on the political spectrum we are 'up', both the traditional right and traditional left wing and characterized by authoritarianism, more to the point, how do you explain all the Harvard economics professors and other phd's on this channel?
@moneycrab Frequently, basic and obvious points like those made in the video must be presented in terms understandable by the lowest common demonator. After all, the economically educated must frquently present their arguments to left wingers.
@moneycrab Frequently, basic and obvious points like those made in the video must be presented in terms understandable by the lowest common demonator. After all, the economically educated must frquently present their arguments to left wingers.
@StateExempt The problem with this propaganda conservative crap is that it's one big echo chamber with AEI, CEI, Hudson inst, Manhattan inst, Reason Magazine and others getting the same billionaire funding to spout retarded shit about free enterprise. Their real purpose is to protect their billions, they displace potential entrepreneurs in pursuit of their greed.
@StateExempt The problem is the Koch's aren't productive, they're parasites. Try looking at how they went frrom being worth $5 billion to $50 billion in 7 years.
im confused as fuck lol *watches again though*
djrocko410 2 months ago
This man is confusing me even more regarding the terms positive and negaive freedom. Why can't people just give me a simple definition. Why are everyone complicating everything.And why is Locke HObbes and Marx, overanalyzing things, that ultimately never really brings any positive results... Pointless..
stockmaster1982 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheIndependantMind Ikr!
Anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory. People think that they somehow abolish social or racial prejudices, but they never do; only practical experience that is contrary to stereo-types does, along with a shift in mentality.
We should be equal before the ruling entity but not in the eyes of individuals... It is ideal that people would be unbiased, but that would necessitate a lack of thought process. Why does the gov. think it can accomplish this?
jonescomplete 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
Why is Dr. Skoble so reluctant in saying he's Anti-Affirmative Action. It's not politically incorrect or racist to mention your disposition on this. That's what is really being said here isn't? I think there should be laws protecting "all" citizens from discrimination, regardless of race, disabilities, or who you sleep with. However, as a so called "minority", I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting a position on the basis of my race, my diligence should speak for itself.
TheIndependantMind 3 months ago
What a bunch of bullshit. Positive and negative rights refer to the rights in the bill of rights, and to what restrictions are placed on the government (negative rights), positive right however depend on your vantage point for example Ron Paul might argue that the govermnent has no right and in essance what was setttled in 1776 should be the unchanging law of the land, whereas a rational person might argue that the government did retain some rights in it's original document. (cont)
idicula1979 4 months ago
@idicula1979 (cont) And the progess we have made over time requires government to have some rights over it's people. However as I have said these liberties that one takes depends on your vantage point. I would say the dividing line is between what some people see as the intent of the law versus the letter ( or the litteral wrings) of the law, democrats primarily believe that the intent of the law takes president and republicans vice versa.
idicula1979 4 months ago
I never really knew of a way to distinguish between "rights" that violate NAP and those that do not contradict themselves until I saw this video.
StateExempt 4 months ago
Comment removed
JArrexte 5 months ago
Still believe right to an attorney is a good thing.
TheWejdin 5 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
So more or less......."Rights" are something made up by someone who wants to give people the comfort that we have something that no one can take away.
dietfreeman42718 5 months ago
i got like 2 minutes into the video and i'm still waiting for him to really say anything of substance......
Robert165 5 months ago
What about if someone was stabbed by a mugger and they are bleeding to death in the street and I walk by them. If I don't stop to help them because I don't want to be bothered and I let them bleed to death and die instead, wouldn't that be an immoral move on my part? Most people I think would feel it is. So doesn't that mean that in some circumstances maybe positive rights *are* justified such as that extreme example?
dubified89 6 months ago
@dubified89 stuff like that scenario are common in cities with high crime. nobody does anything. Most libertarians would preempt the whole situation by finding ways to reduce crime and provide arms for law abiding citizens. other than that I hope SOMEBODY helps the person out, libertarian or no. libertarians can be callous and statists, alot of the time, think it's somebody else's job.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
Is this video for children or something? He is talking slow for the lowest common denominator; which just happens to be where the right wing most often places its ideological seed.
moneycrab 6 months ago
@moneycrab That's some nice ad hominem there, you have anything real to contribute? Or are you just going to smug it up like the idiot you happen to be?
s0beit 6 months ago
@s0beit
I hope the irony of you accusing me of an ad hominem and using an ad hominem against me was intentional.
Here is my real contribution: rights only exist insofar as the powerful allow you to have them.
moneycrab 6 months ago
@moneycrab Right, that's fine, except this video isn't about "natural rights". If it were your comment might have had something to do with anything but it isn't, so it doesn't.
s0beit 6 months ago
@moneycrab That's a professor's tone of voice, if you watch some lectures you'll notice that they all try and speak clearly and steadily. It's for people who want to learn, which is something often true of children, so maybe that's what's confusing you. Either way, your use of "lowest common demoninator" is absurd and your ad hominem is bizarre and probably says a lot more about your own personal insecurities than it does about anyone's political belief.
BelleAndTheBoy 6 months ago 7
@BelleAndTheBoy
No, he was over simplifying it in a way so that apes could understand. And furthermore it lacked any kind of real sophistication
moneycrab 6 months ago
@moneycrab That's because it's an introduction to the concept of positive and negative rights. Not everyone is read up on the details of the philosophy of liberty. That doesn't make them children. If you'd like to make your own video exploring the idea then that's your negative right, but using this space to attack, insult and derive people with whom you presume to disagree is childish behaviour indeed.
BelleAndTheBoy 6 months ago
@moneycrab libertarianism is not right wing, on the political spectrum we are 'up', both the traditional right and traditional left wing and characterized by authoritarianism, more to the point, how do you explain all the Harvard economics professors and other phd's on this channel?
eventheinnocent 6 months ago
@moneycrab
right wing places its seed in the lowest common denominator....
wait, i thought they stood for the rich and powerful while the left stood for the common man? how odd.
pleeppleep 5 months ago
@moneycrab Frequently, basic and obvious points like those made in the video must be presented in terms understandable by the lowest common demonator. After all, the economically educated must frquently present their arguments to left wingers.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moneycrab Frequently, basic and obvious points like those made in the video must be presented in terms understandable by the lowest common demonator. After all, the economically educated must frquently present their arguments to left wingers.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
Lol @ robertmike37, you must work for the government.
manvve 6 months ago
Yawn, a professor with bullshit false dichotomies getting paid by yet another Koch subsidiary.
robertmike57 6 months ago
@robertmike57 Do you even know what a false dichotomy is? Evidently you do not. Where is it?
s0beit 6 months ago
@robertmike57 False dichotomies?
Killedkennyagain 6 months ago
@robertmike57 - What dichotomies?
And who should care about Koch Industries giving people a salary for pointing out the obvious?
StateExempt 4 months ago
@StateExempt The problem with this propaganda conservative crap is that it's one big echo chamber with AEI, CEI, Hudson inst, Manhattan inst, Reason Magazine and others getting the same billionaire funding to spout retarded shit about free enterprise. Their real purpose is to protect their billions, they displace potential entrepreneurs in pursuit of their greed.
robertmike57 4 months ago
@robertmike57 - What "conservative" crap?
Do you even know what Libertarianism is or are you still stuck in the primitive mindset that says there is only left and right to politics?
And what's wrong with a productive person given money to people that point out the obvious? Why SHOULDN'T they donate to these groups?
And if they really wanted to protect their billions why aren't they lobbying for more barriers to entry like what Gates and Buffet do?
StateExempt 4 months ago
@StateExempt The problem is the Koch's aren't productive, they're parasites. Try looking at how they went frrom being worth $5 billion to $50 billion in 7 years.
robertmike57 4 months ago
@robertmike57 - They made products and consumers bought them. Such infamy.
StateExempt 4 months ago
Very interestng. Inspired me to do more research.
DAS1105 8 months ago
This just rocked my "right" loving mind. I think I'll have to watch it again.
timothyslau 8 months ago 8