"People are greedy and mean, yet we Libertarians propose to turn these people loose to do whatever they want. Now we do that, because we know that no matter what bad things individuals do, they are better than the things they get done to individuals by collective will." Best part of it I think.
No, leftists did not make blacks wards of the state. Affirmative action integrated blacks into the power structure of American capitalism. The unions didn't destroy manufacturing private owners of capital move it to cheaper places because they were more greedy than patriotic. No we fought for prenatal health care and contraceptives to prevent abortion and for women and children to live a healthier life.
Private property is not the basis of freedom. It was leftists who ended Jim Crow, fought slavery, gained worker's rights, woman's rights to divorce and suffrage, ended prohibition, fought for the rights of the disabled and children and religious rights for minorities. P.J. O'Rourke is a clown known for his racist jokes.
Most libertarians are neither right or left we like to stay in the middle if we could. Some would say we lean more towards the right because of our views of private ownership and anarcho capitalism and our hate for big federal governments but others would call us liberals for our fight against repression, our oppession of wars of any intervention in foreign nations, and for our stance on following the constitution to the tee and always try to be diplomatic. So what would you say we were?
@perdondaris 'Leftists ended Jim Crow and slavery". You then made blacks slaves of the state and continue to treat them like children. "Leftists gained worker's rights". You gave us the unions who totally destroyed manufacturing in America. "Women's right's and sufferage". You gave us single motherhood and the explosion in crime. "Fought for the rights of disabled and children". But it's o.k. them kill them in the womb. "Religious rights for for minorities". You despise religion.
@nikolayzou Government would have to use coercion to take land from one person and give it to another or the individual would have to use violence. What of the property rights of the owner that has land taken from him by a violent act does he get anything? I just by pass all the problems that cause coercion/violence by taking the position that common ownership is better. People can vote on what they wnt to do with land and have done with it.
@nikolayzou With machines and workers you can work vast areas of land. The problem also is small farms tend to be less productive than large ones and most people are deskilled now so can't work land. The better outcome is not to alot land ownership as people are much more free under common ownership. You can't sell from the land because the land is as much yours as everyone elses.
@ProIndividual Concentration of capital is possible and markets when deregulated show a concentration of capital to the few. Everything humans do economy the results are finite, this is a limit reality imposes. Anyway for the poor to get less poor the rich must get very much richer to the point there is not enough resources for the poor ever get a much better standard of living. And if you own lots of land the market does not force you to sell at all you are now rich from the rents.
Libertarian philosophy would lead to tyranny of the rich individual. The individual land owner would be a king in his own land and if he owned enough land the people would become subjects under the rules setup to maintain his rights of land ownership.
@HandOfNodzx128k That assumes any such concentration of capital is possible without government favortism. It also is assuming he sticks the money into a matress, not into banks where it can be lent to small busnesses, give liquidity to the stock market, or lent out for any number of uses. The economic pie is not finite, and the advantages are gained by being friends with the guy with the monopoly on violence (government). As he hoards land, it raises market value, he can't resist the sale.
@HandOfNodzx128k There are some different idea's about land ownership amongst libertarians. The one I like is that the Government can't own land. People can claim land, as much land as they are able to work. If you can't work the land, then you can't claim it. This idea is fantastic and would bring house prices right down. Once you claim the land it is yours to sell, but if you no longer work the land after a period of time, others can claim it.
Actually it is a total myth that lemmings jump over cliffs in mass suicide it is also wrong to say that the Netherlands was built out of a swamp on the outskirts of Belgium. Belgium was at one time part of the Netherlands. The Netherlands was a rich powerful Nation long before Belgium came into existents (1831). The man's polemic is so riddled with errors of fact, people do not hate Libertarians you cannot hate somebody that stupid only feel pity for them.
I am new to my research into libertarian philosophy. I am having a hard time separating far right from libertarian ideals. O.K. freedom sounds great as you spout off as we all do. But we have laws. Laws and restrictions are imposed when that individual freedom conflicts against the minorities rights. We need restriction when people are being hurt. Because you can does not mean you should and when you shouldn't but still do is when we enforce laws and restrictions. How is that wrong?
@MrJustreason Because people use those very same laws to snuff out competition, to kill competition, to gain a subsidy, etc. Fraud is still fraud and is illegal. Laws against directly harming another individual are rightly put into place.. Libertarians are for MINIMAL government, not absence. The government enforces our rights, including the right to our property, including our body. We need restrictions when people are being hurt BY OTHERS, not just when people are being hurt.
@MrJustreason People are hurt by the positive actions of others such as theft or murder which is where the law come in handy. Law acts as a buffer between individual citizens that prohibits positive actions such as theft or murder. The only way a person can be hurt is by the actions of another. Is there another way someone can be hurt?
You have a society of individuals were everybody is responsible only for themselves .The laws of nature dictate some at the ruthless go to the top the rest go to the bottom and get nothing.When conflict comes to that group why would those at the bottom risk their lives defending those at the top when those at the top don't care about those at the bottom. When those attacking the that collection of individuals might well offer those at the bottom a much more civilised society than at the top?
@davijeph When people defend their country they are defending it from foreign attackers and preventing themselves from being ruled by them. Why shouldn't they defend their country at that point?
And people at the top get what they have through the voluntary exchange of goods and service. How do you suppose the supposed bottom got cars and stuff. Did they make them themselves or were they made in some big rich peson's factory?
@timbosforporn Most people at the top (but not all) get their before they were born.Most people at the bottom (but not all) got their before they were born. It is a nonsense statement to say "The only way a person can be hurt is by the actions of another. Is there another way someone can be hurt? " Try hitting your thumb with a hammer.
America is the worst parts of democrats and republicans... we need more libertarians in our government, our rights are being trampled more and more every day... so much so that one day soon this message will be erased by government censors for being un-american or for invoking domestic terrorism or hate speech against the government... the internet is now a battle ground for liberty and it doesn't just stop there.
The tough part is, while portending to be libertarian, America has always and continues to fall short of libertarianism in one imperative way or another. Libertarianism isn't utopia; it need not be. Appropriate laws can be consistent with libertarianism and liberties as well. The problem is other's liberty sacrificed for one's "morality" and other's liberty sacrificed for selfisf liberty. Every day is anew, BUT the past is never gone or made right. One can only strive.
Libertarians aren't going to be happy until we have Neo-Feudalism with corporate fiefdoms, but that's because I tend to extrapolate on things beyond just the "liberty" and "freedom" portions of the show. It sounds great in theory, but ultimately, the hogwash that they're hoping that everyone swills in will end up with economic strongmen gathering in client populations, and with nothing really to stop them.
@mhirtes12 That only happens in communist states which is what you guys believe in. Who do you think got everything? It definately wasn't the little guy who lived in those systems. It is designed solely for the upper class to rule over a permanent peasantry. Free enterprise destroys that kind of state because no government force can be used to surpress the free behavior of someone else like exchanging property between two or more citizens.
You think anything that helps people is some sort of communist plot. You'd rather have us live in some sort of Hellish Thunderdome-like society with people literally trying to devour each other rather than anyone trying to offer a helping hand.
No wonder you freaks of nature worship that sociopath Ayn Rant.
@mhirtes12 The communist remark was a little uncalled for.
Your thunderdome analogy is a lawless society where property rights were not enforced. Theft by some brute became legal which turned it into survival of the strongest. Laws that preserve the property ownership of its citizen forces people to trade property voluntarily with each other which produces a civilized society where brute force isn't the determinant of what we have.
@mhirtes12 What is really 'cute' is the absolute mental association of freedom with anarchy. Its sad that people view themselves as subserviant to other people in power where laws have to tell them what to do. You would not put up with that from anyone else but when they where the gshirt then it seems OK. Laws should be resigned to the sphere of inhibiting action one citizen can take against another such as theft. I can't see how a society can be considered unciviilized in that scenario.
@mhirtes12 You can. It's called jury nullification, nullification in states, and the sovereign individuals right to nullify any tyrannical law, as long as we hurt no one else in the process. Disobeying tyrannical laws is a duty, not a choice. "Defiance to tyrants, is Obedience to God" as Jefferson's Seal says. MLKjr and Ghandi were not criminals, they were civilly disobedient. Tyrannical laws are the worst tyranny. Read the man that inspired them, American Henry David Thoreau.
Good explanations; the world could be peaceful if this philosphy became the norm instead of government force being the default in every country of the world today.
"People are greedy and mean, yet we Libertarians propose to turn these people loose to do whatever they want. Now we do that, because we know that no matter what bad things individuals do, they are better than the things they get done to individuals by collective will." Best part of it I think.
iAmTheRape 1 day ago
logic, also leeds to atheism
newworldtoday 1 month ago
No, leftists did not make blacks wards of the state. Affirmative action integrated blacks into the power structure of American capitalism. The unions didn't destroy manufacturing private owners of capital move it to cheaper places because they were more greedy than patriotic. No we fought for prenatal health care and contraceptives to prevent abortion and for women and children to live a healthier life.
perdondaris 4 months ago
Private property is not the basis of freedom. It was leftists who ended Jim Crow, fought slavery, gained worker's rights, woman's rights to divorce and suffrage, ended prohibition, fought for the rights of the disabled and children and religious rights for minorities. P.J. O'Rourke is a clown known for his racist jokes.
perdondaris 8 months ago
Most libertarians are neither right or left we like to stay in the middle if we could. Some would say we lean more towards the right because of our views of private ownership and anarcho capitalism and our hate for big federal governments but others would call us liberals for our fight against repression, our oppession of wars of any intervention in foreign nations, and for our stance on following the constitution to the tee and always try to be diplomatic. So what would you say we were?
scienceatheism 8 months ago
@perdondaris 'Leftists ended Jim Crow and slavery". You then made blacks slaves of the state and continue to treat them like children. "Leftists gained worker's rights". You gave us the unions who totally destroyed manufacturing in America. "Women's right's and sufferage". You gave us single motherhood and the explosion in crime. "Fought for the rights of disabled and children". But it's o.k. them kill them in the womb. "Religious rights for for minorities". You despise religion.
tomthefunky 4 months ago
@nikolayzou Government would have to use coercion to take land from one person and give it to another or the individual would have to use violence. What of the property rights of the owner that has land taken from him by a violent act does he get anything? I just by pass all the problems that cause coercion/violence by taking the position that common ownership is better. People can vote on what they wnt to do with land and have done with it.
HandOfNodzx128k 8 months ago
*You can't steal from the land because the land is as much yours as everyone elses.
*The better outcome is not to allow
HandOfNodzx128k 8 months ago
@nikolayzou With machines and workers you can work vast areas of land. The problem also is small farms tend to be less productive than large ones and most people are deskilled now so can't work land. The better outcome is not to alot land ownership as people are much more free under common ownership. You can't sell from the land because the land is as much yours as everyone elses.
HandOfNodzx128k 8 months ago
@ProIndividual Concentration of capital is possible and markets when deregulated show a concentration of capital to the few. Everything humans do economy the results are finite, this is a limit reality imposes. Anyway for the poor to get less poor the rich must get very much richer to the point there is not enough resources for the poor ever get a much better standard of living. And if you own lots of land the market does not force you to sell at all you are now rich from the rents.
HandOfNodzx128k 8 months ago
"some of the religious among us believe in the doctrine of original sin, the rest of us watch the maurice povich show"
I'm an Orthodox Christian of America and I approve this quote
ThePythagoran 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThePythagoran 1 year ago
Libertarian philosophy would lead to tyranny of the rich individual. The individual land owner would be a king in his own land and if he owned enough land the people would become subjects under the rules setup to maintain his rights of land ownership.
HandOfNodzx128k 1 year ago
@HandOfNodzx128k That assumes any such concentration of capital is possible without government favortism. It also is assuming he sticks the money into a matress, not into banks where it can be lent to small busnesses, give liquidity to the stock market, or lent out for any number of uses. The economic pie is not finite, and the advantages are gained by being friends with the guy with the monopoly on violence (government). As he hoards land, it raises market value, he can't resist the sale.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
@HandOfNodzx128k There are some different idea's about land ownership amongst libertarians. The one I like is that the Government can't own land. People can claim land, as much land as they are able to work. If you can't work the land, then you can't claim it. This idea is fantastic and would bring house prices right down. Once you claim the land it is yours to sell, but if you no longer work the land after a period of time, others can claim it.
nikolayzou 8 months ago
Actually it is a total myth that lemmings jump over cliffs in mass suicide it is also wrong to say that the Netherlands was built out of a swamp on the outskirts of Belgium. Belgium was at one time part of the Netherlands. The Netherlands was a rich powerful Nation long before Belgium came into existents (1831). The man's polemic is so riddled with errors of fact, people do not hate Libertarians you cannot hate somebody that stupid only feel pity for them.
davijeph 1 year ago
I am new to my research into libertarian philosophy. I am having a hard time separating far right from libertarian ideals. O.K. freedom sounds great as you spout off as we all do. But we have laws. Laws and restrictions are imposed when that individual freedom conflicts against the minorities rights. We need restriction when people are being hurt. Because you can does not mean you should and when you shouldn't but still do is when we enforce laws and restrictions. How is that wrong?
MrJustreason 1 year ago
@MrJustreason Because people use those very same laws to snuff out competition, to kill competition, to gain a subsidy, etc. Fraud is still fraud and is illegal. Laws against directly harming another individual are rightly put into place.. Libertarians are for MINIMAL government, not absence. The government enforces our rights, including the right to our property, including our body. We need restrictions when people are being hurt BY OTHERS, not just when people are being hurt.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@MrJustreason People are hurt by the positive actions of others such as theft or murder which is where the law come in handy. Law acts as a buffer between individual citizens that prohibits positive actions such as theft or murder. The only way a person can be hurt is by the actions of another. Is there another way someone can be hurt?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
You have a society of individuals were everybody is responsible only for themselves .The laws of nature dictate some at the ruthless go to the top the rest go to the bottom and get nothing.When conflict comes to that group why would those at the bottom risk their lives defending those at the top when those at the top don't care about those at the bottom. When those attacking the that collection of individuals might well offer those at the bottom a much more civilised society than at the top?
davijeph 1 year ago
@davijeph When people defend their country they are defending it from foreign attackers and preventing themselves from being ruled by them. Why shouldn't they defend their country at that point?
And people at the top get what they have through the voluntary exchange of goods and service. How do you suppose the supposed bottom got cars and stuff. Did they make them themselves or were they made in some big rich peson's factory?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timbosforporn Most people at the top (but not all) get their before they were born.Most people at the bottom (but not all) got their before they were born. It is a nonsense statement to say "The only way a person can be hurt is by the actions of another. Is there another way someone can be hurt? " Try hitting your thumb with a hammer.
davijeph 1 year ago
America is the worst parts of democrats and republicans... we need more libertarians in our government, our rights are being trampled more and more every day... so much so that one day soon this message will be erased by government censors for being un-american or for invoking domestic terrorism or hate speech against the government... the internet is now a battle ground for liberty and it doesn't just stop there.
Z0mgZ0mbies 1 year ago
The tough part is, while portending to be libertarian, America has always and continues to fall short of libertarianism in one imperative way or another. Libertarianism isn't utopia; it need not be. Appropriate laws can be consistent with libertarianism and liberties as well. The problem is other's liberty sacrificed for one's "morality" and other's liberty sacrificed for selfisf liberty. Every day is anew, BUT the past is never gone or made right. One can only strive.
PawnBACM 1 year ago
Libertarians aren't going to be happy until we have Neo-Feudalism with corporate fiefdoms, but that's because I tend to extrapolate on things beyond just the "liberty" and "freedom" portions of the show. It sounds great in theory, but ultimately, the hogwash that they're hoping that everyone swills in will end up with economic strongmen gathering in client populations, and with nothing really to stop them.
mhirtes12 1 year ago
@mhirtes12 Preposterous beyond the degree to which it is idiotic. Get out the closet already.
PawnBACM 1 year ago
@mhirtes12 That only happens in communist states which is what you guys believe in. Who do you think got everything? It definately wasn't the little guy who lived in those systems. It is designed solely for the upper class to rule over a permanent peasantry. Free enterprise destroys that kind of state because no government force can be used to surpress the free behavior of someone else like exchanging property between two or more citizens.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn "BLAH BLAH BLAH! COMMUNIST! COMMUNIST! COMMUNIST!"
You think anything that helps people is some sort of communist plot. You'd rather have us live in some sort of Hellish Thunderdome-like society with people literally trying to devour each other rather than anyone trying to offer a helping hand.
No wonder you freaks of nature worship that sociopath Ayn Rant.
mhirtes12 1 year ago
@mhirtes12 The communist remark was a little uncalled for.
Your thunderdome analogy is a lawless society where property rights were not enforced. Theft by some brute became legal which turned it into survival of the strongest. Laws that preserve the property ownership of its citizen forces people to trade property voluntarily with each other which produces a civilized society where brute force isn't the determinant of what we have.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn HA HA! You're so cute. If you think laws can be waived and yet not have lawlessness.
Move to Afghanistan, bro. Sounds like it's your kinda place.
mhirtes12 1 year ago
@mhirtes12 What is really 'cute' is the absolute mental association of freedom with anarchy. Its sad that people view themselves as subserviant to other people in power where laws have to tell them what to do. You would not put up with that from anyone else but when they where the gshirt then it seems OK. Laws should be resigned to the sphere of inhibiting action one citizen can take against another such as theft. I can't see how a society can be considered unciviilized in that scenario.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@mhirtes12 You can. It's called jury nullification, nullification in states, and the sovereign individuals right to nullify any tyrannical law, as long as we hurt no one else in the process. Disobeying tyrannical laws is a duty, not a choice. "Defiance to tyrants, is Obedience to God" as Jefferson's Seal says. MLKjr and Ghandi were not criminals, they were civilly disobedient. Tyrannical laws are the worst tyranny. Read the man that inspired them, American Henry David Thoreau.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
Great video, thanks for posting.
chevydriver1123 1 year ago
Good explanations; the world could be peaceful if this philosphy became the norm instead of government force being the default in every country of the world today.
leafwatch 1 year ago