Libetarianism doesn't consider that indviduals and groups are prone to deviancy/corruption as well as nobility/good will. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, although himself a slaveholder, said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." How true!!! Existentialists believe that absolute freedom is, paradoxically, itself a kind of slavery. The true FREEDOM is to be allowed to find MEANING in life.
Yet there is the issue of mob rule. Whereby an evil majority (for examples, white supremacists or Nazis) take control of the govt. You are correct that there's a major logical contradiction or fallacy. Because libertarianism presupposes that people are ALL good and therefore have no need of regulatory govt. Only a society of perfect beings could co-exist under libertarian creedo. And if people were so perfect then we would not require any kind of govt at all--not even libertarianism.
And your point is well taken that governments are not intrisically evil. Govt is as good or bad as those who control it. Essentially, many people misconstrue our current problem with govt. They perceive govt as being the problem when the problem is actually WHO is controlling the govt. Similar to guns not being inherently evil but as good or bad as those who use them.
Yes, a "social contract" is needed for any civilization to be viable. Thus each citizen agrees to give up some of his/her freedoms in deference to the common good. It is a fiction that people function as individuals in civilized societies. Societies are created out of people becoming interdependent toward the common good.
This is said well enough...but there are lot libertarians on youtube so I'm not surprised at all the dislikes. I consider myself libertarian in my ends but I'm rationalist so I don't live in a fantasy world where I believe liberty creates peace.
Sorry, but there are AT LEAST two definitions of Libertarian. The Ayn Rand one, and the Friedman/Austrian one (which can be further split). Ron Paul is of the Austrian variety. Your comments only apply to the Ayn Rand version. Take a look here : tinyurl(.)com/bez6dk
Why does government need to interfere? Why is it so crucial that the government takes my money and gives it to people on welfare when private organizations and churches have been taking care of these people for hundreds of years? Why does the government need to have its own post office? You sir are of the belief that if government created a law against gravity then we would all fly. So sad.
@13RC101 I believe that government is an important part of a modern society. I believe that to reach the limited government that libertarians preach they would have to eliminate government. This would be a disaster for our country.
@sabot96 No, you wouldn't need to eliminate government. You would need to eliminate your view of what government should be. It's not a teacher, postman, doctor, financial adviser, etc. It's meant to uphold our Constitutional Rights, not pay my medical bill.
Please take this video down. You're just embarrassing yourself. You need to hit the books and do a little more research on the Libertarian Party. Libertarians are not the same as anarchists. They don't believe that the world should just be a free-for-all with no law or order. You're not allowed to "enslave" other people as you so incoherently stated in your "argument."
@13RC101 I'm trying to educate myself on libertarianism here, so bear with me. What exactly do you think the government SHOULD do? It does seem that even though the government is big, clunky and intrusive that we should work on moderating things within the government instead of tying it's hands. Just because our current regulator sucks is not a good reason to not have a regulator. What measures would be in effect to protect employees and the environment from exploitation?
Regulators and planners are at least as prone to basic human failings as anyone else, and oftentimes a whole lot more so. It's not a matter of the current set of regulators being inept, but the fact that regulation per sé does not achieve the ends which its proponents claim it does.
"What measures[...]"
Clearly defined and earnestly protected private property.
- Let employees bargain for whatever conditions they can get. If no institutional barriers prevent employers from practicing rigorous competition from one another, then their employees will get exactly what they deserve, and the whole structure of production will function better for it, especially in the long run. Let the land and sea be homesteaded, and be genuinely privately owned, and have pollution be prosecuted like any other form of property damage.
- Let employees bargain for whatever conditions they can get. If no institutional barriers prevent employers from practicing rigorous competition from one another, then their employees will get exactly what they deserve, and the whole structure of production will function better for it, especially in the long run. Let the land and sea be homesteaded, and be genuinely privately owned, and have pollution be prosecuted like any other form of property damage.
if there is anything that history teaches us it is that no force has killed more people and destroyed more lives than consecrated government
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” ― Thomas Jefferson
keep in mind this man never saw the horrors of the 20th century. I can't help but feel you are interpreting libertarianism to anarchism, but there is a fine line between a government that defends liberty and no government at all
'Democracy' is a majority who seizes the power of government to enforce the majority's will over the individual. Your personal lifestyle choices can be voted out and made illegal in a 'democracy'. Slavery to the will of a majority can never produce liberty. You do not understand the terms you employ; 'Force' is an act of violence against persons, property, freedom, etc. 'Defense' is 'resistance' to that exercise of violence. "Defense" is not "force" but the strength to resist coercive force.
One of the major flaws in your argument (video poster's) is that there is no RIGHT to enslave others, as you say in 3:50. Anyone who thinks that enslaving others is a right is a clear statist.
You're absolutely right. Libertarianism is right-wing marxism that boils down all good to economic good, and ignores history, reality, and human nature.
@QuietReckoning right wing marxism?? i fail to see how you can make the comparison. american libertarianism advocates a completely free market and little government intervention into the personal liberties of citizens. i'm not in all agreement with the american libertarian party, except for the anti-war part of it. you really need to look up the actual definition of the words and the actual implications.
@gonzopoet00 Marxists: Everything is Economic. Complete social justice = Utopia. Libertarians: Everything is Economic. Complete Economic Freedom = Utopia. You use the same flawed thinking and the same arguments and come to opposite conclusions. Libertarianism is the Marxism of the Right.
This is not a lack of libertarian's understanding of history. It is your own lack of common sense and logic. 3:10 You refute yourself. You say libertarians believe in being sovereign over their own lives. Then say that someone who believes in slavery would be able to act upon his beliefs. The reality is he would have every right to hold a belief in slavery, but he wouldn't be able to act out his values and beliefs because it would conflict with other people's liberty. Common sense.
@QuietReckoning You are correct in saying that there would have to be force in a libertarian government. No one is saying there would be absolute peace. That would be impossible. In a libertarian society, force by the government would only be used against the initiation of force. For example: If a group of people decided they would like to make me a slave, they could do anything they want to convince/bribe me to be their slave, but as soon as they use force against me the law is on my side.
Yawn. Another attack against a straw-man "libertarianism". Libertarians are not pacifists, for example. Read a few books - Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" will shake the straw man right out of this idiot, for example.
We are losing our freedom because of statists like yourself. As the power of the state increases, our liberty diminishes. I am a Libertarian, yes... Technically I am what some would term a "minarchist" because I believe in limiting government to the point that we are almost in a state of anarchy, but have just enough government to maintain order, establish courts, and provide for national defense. This is what our founding fathers envisioned for America. Today we are slaves to government.
@BeerIndependence4All You are losing your freedoms because you don't care enough about them to fight for them in the democratic process. You are strait up lying about our founding fathers. All of our founding fathers did not envision a "minarchist" government. Alexander Hamilton supported a flexible constitution, a powerful national government, a protective tariff, and a national bank.
@sabot96 Let me recommend a book... A book which Ronald Reagan wanted taught in every American school... A book currently touted by Glenn Beck as we strive to get back to our roots. "The 5,000 Year Leap" Our founding father's political ruler had tyranny on the left and anarchy on the right. Their goal, as explained in the book, was to give as much liberty as possible with just enough government to maintain order. Hamilton... well, if you like the Fed Reserve you'd love him. Jefferson didn't.
@BeerIndependence4All So the fact remains you lied about the founding fathers supporting your ideology. Hamilton is a founding father. The reality is maybe a few partially support aspects of your ideology. The constitution is a statist document. Deal with it and stop trying to claim that it is not.
@sabot96 I didn't lie about anything. Read the book... I'm just not a big fan of Alexander Hamilton because he wanted a large Federal government, tariffs to restrict trade, and a National bank just like those in Europe. In fact America tried a National Bank and it failed... Jefferson opposed these ideas... I think he was right. If we had taken Alexander Hamilton's advice at the founding of our nation then America would not have been remarkable... We would have been just like England.
@BeerIndependence4All Ha ha ha. What the hell are you talking about. We took tons of advice from Hamilton "As the first Treasury secretary (1789–95), Hamilton issued three brilliant, controversial reports to Congress, aimed at strengthening the national government." -The Oxford Companion to American Military History
@BeerIndependence4All Let me recommend that you actually use your brains and stop following a ridiculous dancing bear like Glenn Beck. I support the current constitution of the United States. I don't need to go back and guess what the founding fathers envisioned for our country. I am living it today. I can pull it up and read it right now. It does not lay out the ridiculous government that your ideology says that government should be.
@BeerIndependence4All "This is what our founding fathers envisioned for America." This sure sounds a lot like all to me. So what you really meant to say is a few of our founding fathers wanted a government that was very limited and a few of our founding fathers wanted a powerful state. What this means is you do not get to rewrite history and say that our founding fathers envisioned a minimalist libertarian state. Your statement is a total fabrication.
@sabot96 I am done... I never said they envisioned a "minimalist libertarian state"... The term "Libertarian" did not exist then. I cannot debate you when you keep making up things.
@BeerIndependence4All That is right you are done. This is what you said ". I am a Libertarian, yes... Technically I am what some would term a "minarchist" because I believe in limiting government to the point that we are almost in a state of anarchy, but have just enough government to maintain order, establish courts, and provide for national defense. This is what our founding fathers envisioned for America." Our founding fathers did not envision your Libertarian/minarchist government.
Instead of using all this Orwellian speak, why not just say you want to comit immoral acts? Anyone who "disagrees" with libertarianism is implcitly saying that they want to violate your rights. Notice how the statists alway avoid the moral argument and talk about the argument from effect (innevitably without ANY evidence or logic).
@93msinclair If your a libertarian, why don't you just be truthful? Say that you want to take the power of government and just give it to corporations. I believe the power of government should be under the control of a democratically elected government. Not under the control of totalitarian corporations.
@sabot96 Excuse me? You and I have the ability to choose which corporations we buy products and services from whereas the government forces people to do things against their will throught barrel of a gun. Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. On another note, "corporations" are an invention of the state. They were invented to give executives limited liability for their actions and are protected by government goons with guns.
@93msinclair You are excused for your total ignorance. So you are not a libertarian but an anarchist. You want the destruction of the power of government and corporations. I am wondering with your "moral" argument what "goons" are going to replace the current ones to keep this morality of yours in place?
@sabot96 You call me ignorant – ignorant of what exactly? The moral argument is a simple one – it is immoral to initiate force against someone who hasn’t aggressed against you. Do you agree with that principle or not? If you don’t answer that question then the argument is over because progress is impossible. You seem to have an incredibly strange argument which is that “we need to let a group of people (the government) violate our rights because otherwise our rights might be violated”.
@93msinclair I do not agree with your "morality". I totally support the ability of the police to put you in hand cuffs and take you to jail for running through the street naked and peeing on your lawn.
@sabot96 Wouldn't someone peeing on my lawn be form of agressing? That would be a violation of property rights. Interesting you should give an example of property rights as justification for imprisonment when you profess that we don't have any property rights.
@93msinclair No your simple mind did not read my example correctly. I support the cops arresting you if "you" run down the street naked and pee on "your own" lawn.
@sabot96 Well that would also be a violation of property rights since others would be able to see that obscenity from their property. That's why you said lawn rather than bathroom right?
@93msinclair So what your telling me now is your "morality" allows you to support the aggression of the state to impose others views of obscenity on you. This is a very confusing ideology you have.
@sabot96 You find it confusing that it is immoral to agress against someone who hasn't agressed against you? I don't know about you but I learned that when I was 3 years old. The fact that you dispute such a basic principle is astounding. How about instead of your cute scenario, we consider this example: if I disagree with the war in Iraq, do I still have to fund the killing of innocent civilians with drones? According to you: Yes, unless I want to be kidnapped or even killed.
@93msinclair My "cute" scenario is a perfect example of how your ideology can't even deal with obscenity laws without crumbling into conflict with it's self. Your ideology is that of a 3 year old. If you disagree with the war in iraq you can contact your representative or run against your representative in the next election. You do still have to pay your taxes. You also still have to pay your taxes even if you don't agree with lots of programs that you don't like.
@sabot96 Democracy has nothing to do with morality. Moral principles are universal - if you can steel from me then I can steel from you. Whether you or I are in a majority is irrelevant. I already explained that obscenity is considered a form of aggressing whereas the principle clearly states non-agression as a prerequisite. Therefore there is no contradiction. You just chose to infer that moral disputes are settled by the state to give the appearance of a contradiction.
@93msinclair Moral principles are not universal. I do not agree with your idea of morality or your ideology. You are in total conflict and your too ignorant to see it. Obscenity laws are created and enforced by the state. I also do not except your definition of what is non-aggression. Since I am talking with a 3 year old. Let me break this down for you in three year old speak: When you grow up you have to share and some times you have to do things you do not like.
@sabot96 Moral principles are not universal!? That is the definition of a moral principle - look up morality on wikipeida: "In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you".
The mark of a three year-old is not having the ability to reason about simple concepts without name-calling and making baseless assertions. If kidnapping, stealing and killing is not agressive then I don't know what is.
@93msinclair Wow I really am talking with a three year old. I do not believe in "morality". I don't believe in your moral principles or how you define them. I do support aggression against others that have not been aggressive against me. I support people having to pay their taxes, obscenity laws, laws that create one postal service, social security, medicare, welfare, and many other programs.
Libertarianism is total tyranny. This might seem contradictory to some americans. But this is what it leads to. When there are no control structures it gives ceertain people the freedom to controll the rest. In a libertarian capitalist society you only have as much freedom as you can afford to pay for. And because wealth accumulates you will eventually have none.
@sabot96 And it is being sold as the solution through the "tea party" in the US. It is so amazingly absurd. The core problem is sold as the solution! I do not know how to describe it other then 1984 style new speak.. The discussion is being framed in tearms of "big government" vs "small government". What does this even mean? These are not the real alternatives. To me it seems like nothing but classical mind control.. It's scary.
@surlagachette2 You are assuming libertarianism advocates a lack of structure. Also, you complain that a lack of structure gives certain people the freedom to control the rest, so your solution is what? The State? Yeah, because nothing says getting rid of coercive monopolies like advocating *the* coercive monopoly on violence. Good job, bro, way to be completely ignorant and contradictory.
@surlagachette2 Except that wealth does not inherently accumulate. That is the basic problem with your premise. In a free economy, anyone can create wealth, or carve out their piece of it. The problem is when you have a strong state, where the rich can a) prevent the poor from exercising their options b) steal the wealth of the nation and concentrate it in a few hands c) receive artificial protections from justice and the will of the people (ie, "corporate personhood" which is a govt creation).
@zyodei One of the biggest problems with libertarianism is that certain actors, through the state, have stolen such vast unimaginable sums of money (the Fed connected banks, the Bushian carlyle group, the pharmaceutical cos and their artificial 'IP', etc. etc.) that they could, in a free market, buy everything.
But you, know, if you are in a hole, the best thing is to stop digging.
P.S. Yes, I agree that the tea party, and the political libertarian party, are both deeply flawed.
What do libertarians want to do with people who do not own land and don't have familial support or friends who like to share? In libertarianism I see a lot of potential for the emergence of communes, cults, and ultimately slavery without the Fed to get in the land/property owners' way.
"Who decides what honest and who decides whats moral??" >_> An angry mob of libertarians with pitch forks and torches and no govt to get in their way.
I'm of libertarian persuasion, but I was surprissed to find this video fairly thoughtful and insightful. He's right about force and property. What he's getting at with the "slavery" topic is that in a power vacume, power arises. If the state dissappeared, local strong-men would rise to power and struggle against one-another, enslaving people in the process. If the state didn't enslave us, we'd enslave each other, because we are nasty, brutish, and..er.. short.
@brindlebriar And in america today you allready have a ruling elite. They do not need governemt for control. This is a lie. Government is the only thing in the way for them having total control. The tea party are selling you the core problem as the solution. Hegalian dialecticing you to total corporate power. The "big gorvernment" vs "small government" idea which is core for this "movement" is little more then newspeak.
@surlagachette2 Let me just put this clearly: corporations, composed of groups of individuals who are protected from individual civil and criminal liability for their crimes, but receive all pursuant profits, are not products of the free market. Libertarians, of the resurgent Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist bent, recognize this, and do not support the legitimacy of corporations.
Of course, many self-proclaimed 'libertarian' republicans couldn't even comprehend this argument.
@JtiksPies That is really a bad example, I wonder did you tell the Kings of County Mayo, or perhaps the "slaves" the Irish owned, totally a free anarchy people living in a fair and free society my ASS
@franks2732 Slaves are more a question of morality and not policy. Way back then everyone had slaves this comes from Mesapotamia which all civilization comes from so the concept of slavery was indoctrinated in them and they thought nothing of it being "unethical or immoral" in fact it took us til when 17th or 18th century to finally recognized that slavery was wrong. So to judge a certain nation because i had slaves (back then that is) is ridiculous because everyone had slaves.
@Empyreanmight Why not, secondly slavery is only part of the story. Ireland maintained an aristocracy, a Nobility and the rule of kings, had serfs and women were denied equality. An argument could be made that the Viking settlements of Dublin, or Belfast perhaps were 'free market speculators" but to claim a time period before the existence of your political ideology is Representative of it is Hyperbole. It would be like me claiming the Romans were 'socialist' because they had common food stores
@franks2732 Well I am not making that charge and I agree that you cannot use a society way back then as a good representation because things were significantly different. Thats why I say there was none because if it did not exist in the last 200 years that you have no fair comparison. Which is also why I do not like the arguement that Libertarianism does not work because we have no physical proof only theory and speculation cont'd
@Empyreanmight using your logic how could we ever critique your ideology, simply put no one could ever meet your burden of proof. We as those who oppose your ideology have every right to challenge it's validity. Weather you accept our views is up to you. But to say simply because your ideas have never been fully tested, we those in opposition to your world view do not have the right to critique is absurd. Your claim to past conjuncture is fucking ridiculous so I will not even bother
@franks2732 You have no proof other than conjecture. You are afraid of libertarianism because toy now it might work and if so then you are out of a job. All this fomenting about libertarianism is ridiculous, you guys get to expriement all over the place but you wont let libertarians try their hand? and you expect us to want to be socialist with that type of totalitarian logic. You guys alreayd have countries go move there and let us "fail" and see for ourselves.
@Empyreanmight According to your own Mises In Somalia is the perfect example of your "libertarian society" in action. So much so the fuckers made a video about it. LMFAO. Your ideologies so lame you cannot even point to one concrete example, secondly you cannot even point to a imaginary example, fuck I do not think you could even point to any example. People are just so blind but by golly but you can see. Libertarians the sheeple. You have the whole nation of Somalia to buy what an idiot
@franks2732 Somlia is anarchist and not willingly anarchist they just have a weak and corrupt government. Anarchy is not the same as libertarianism. Now that is just hyperbole.
@franks2732 Oh yeah my I add a little gem of knowledge by one of my favorite political writers "insults are the arguements employed by those in the wrong"- Jean Jacques Rousseau
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: tbc
@franks2732 "I prefer liberty with danger than peaceful slavery"- Jean Jacques Rousseau. ""Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they." -Jean Jacques Rousseau.He may have said something about private property that I disagree with but he also said alot of harsh things about big governments. In fact Rousseau prefered a system close to anarchy. Thats if you actually read his books and not cherry pick his quotes
@Empyreanmight you fuckwit he was not referring to a libertarian interpretation of the world, he lived a few hundred years ago you bloody moron. He also said many things and at his time "kings" and the Aristocracy ruled the world. Maybe, just maybe he could have been referring to his own time. Fucking Libertarians 100% don't understand political science or history. Fucking revisionists
@franks2732 Do not talk to me about Rousseau I know more about Rousseau than you I had to do a comparative ananlysis between his life and politics with Orwell's life and politics it spanned 12 pages. Scholars and political science even say that Rousseau influenced a wide spectrum of politic ideologies. Why do you think he is so important to political science? Because he had only one theory and one ideology? No! And you are now putting words in my mouth as well cont'd
@Empyreanmight Dude what a fuckwit, you are and have claimed him as a libertarian, you are the one who claimed also that the early Irish were quasi libertarians . It does not mean squat weather you did a comparative analysis or not as to the guys life etc. The point is that libertarians are the great re-inventors of history and spin historical figures to support Your doctrine.
@franks2732 Are you completely insane, Scroll down and look at my comments, Never said anything about the Irish, you mentioned them, I never said Rousseau was a libertarian all I did was counter your quotes of his with other quotes of his because you were selectivly trying to use his quotes to try to show that he was on the left so I showed quotes to merely counter your's. So I said he favored a society close to anarchy because cont'd
@franks2732 he even says that civilizationa dn government is determential to human nature which to him human by nature was good and it was government and civilization that turned humans bad. So why the fuck would he be pro-government if he believed that you imbecile. It is even well known in political science that Rousseau was anti-government he is even contrasted to Hobbes because Hobbes was so pro-government. They group these two as antipodes of political thought. Clearly you need education.
@Empyreanmight Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. Yeah the guy happens to one of my fav political writers. You know why I like him so much- Read the Fucking Quote, Would you like me to quote you his ideas about equality what a moron
@franks2732 That was from Discourse on Inequality and in the Social Contract he changed his politics somewhat. Like once he believed in the noble savage and that man is by nature good but that civilization turns him into something ugly but then he goes on to say in the Social Contract that man needs civilization to keep his savage nature in check. That is just one example
@Empyreanmight the social contract you moron is reference to how society should be governed, that each member of society i.e. the individual is a "part" of the whole and we are subject to the Rules that the majority wish. That is the purpose of the social contract. It is a formative step toward designing the first steps of "democratic' government. A guarantee of protections for all Citizens. It is not a road map to "libertarian utopia" What a idiot
@franks2732 ""Man's freedom consists, not in being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will." -Jean Jacques Rousseau
@Empyreanmight yes he wrote it and it must be taken in context along with everything the man wrote. From the social contract to his rejection of 'private property and his support of "society" above that of the individual. You read way too much into a single sentence and fail to balance that against the mountain of material which sets outs the mans ideas in FULL. From his dreams of a society of economic equals etc. He lived for his day and passed "ideas" down to us. He was not a saint
@franks2732 You really need to read his books and not interperet what someone else said about him. I have read his books and I know the Social Contract was a blueprint for democracy and I never said it was anything else. And he did not releases his books as a compliation like you suggest and scholars agree he did change some of his views. Just like Marx changed his views later on because even Marx said he was not a Marxist. Cont'd
@Empyreanmight LMFAO, I said read his work as a whole not as a single aspect, 'a quote does not make a man" you fucking dick. Of course throughout his life he changed his views but that does not mean in any way he supported yours. His thoughts on society are to be taken as a whole and cannot be subdivide into snippets. It does not do the man justice and is historically misleading. By taking only the bits You want and interpreting those to support Your doctrine is Wrong and Misleading
@Empyreanmight And finally as I have had enough fun at your expense, what does all this stuff mean, quoting historical figures etc? It means this, I (you) could if we wanted to revise history to reflect our own political beliefs (as you do) take a historical figures comments, quotes whatever and imply that his beliefs were akin to our own today. That would be selective quote mining to paint a false dycodomy. It is intelectual dishonesty and rather rude as well. Libertarians do it all the time
@franks2732 And just like Orwell changed his views and I only quoted one thing from Rousseau about insults being the arguements employed by those who are in the wrong thats it. I did not start a quote war nor did I say Rousseau was the same as a modern day libertarian. To insinuate as you do that Rousseau is some kind of socialist or Marxist is only half of the truth because he had a unique idealogy not consistent with the right or the left. cont'd
@Empyreanmight LMFAO, I have never claimed or insinuated as to Rousseau's being a socialist as socialism did not exist in his time, but for you to claim I am implying that is much worse. I pointed to the man's ideas where they contradicted your "World View" Not that he supported mine
@franks2732 and Socialism did exist at that time you fucking moron. the book "Utopia" was published in 1516 and Thomas Moore was considered the first "Utopian Socialist". So the socialist thought was around during that time. And I love the fact that you just have made an ass out of yourself and completely shown your education and knowledge. Therefore I deem your credibility non-existent because of that ignorance and now I end the arguement on that note so do not bother saying anything else.
@franks2732 and my main point is that I like him and respect and there are certain views of his that I agree with but that being said it doesnt mean I have to agree with everything he said just to like the guy. But I guess you would not know how that could be because your are narrow minded and only like people you agree with 100%,
@Empyreanmight i am glad that you like and respect him so on that could you kindly tell all your libertarian buddies not to attribute him as one of your ideologies founding fathers. As it seems to me it is only your ideology that does such an disservice to history. You will find that a great deal of my friends indeed disagree with me on many issues. I actually find it refreshing. But unlike your buddies we do not claim a past which does not exist
@franks2732 and when do you think Rousseau existed? During the 1100s? He existed during the time of the American Revolution and French Revolution. He was from Switzerland which did not have a Monarchy at that time. So how would all his politcal ideals only be ascribed to monarchies? You really need a history lesson or at least read Rousseau's books or talk to someone who is a scholar on Rousseau.
@Empyreanmight I guess universities and schools only exist in the USA, my goodness I never realized Australia was without public libraries and I love how you presume as to my reading or lack of it. Oh and you may find that Rousseau made his name in FRANCE under a monarchy and also knocked back a kings pension for services to France and in the 1700's the Aristocracy and Nobility were alive and well. I think you assume too much but you are a libertarian so why does that not surprise me
@franks2732 and finally scholars trace back his hatred fro AUTHORITY from his apprenticeship with an engraver who was bossy and forced him to do things and when he found ways to get away from him he would go off into the woods where he find solace in nature. Scholars believe this is were he began his love affair with nature and where he began his hatred for authority. Rousseau did not hate monarchs just because they were monarchs but all manner of person who has authority over others.
@Empyreanmight "Rousseau did not hate monarchs just because they were monarchs but all manner of person who has authority over others." Cool you can read books too, how wonderful. Where do you get this love affair with nature idea, oh I understand you are off espousing his libertarian credentials, if only your ideology existed in 1734 LMFAO next you will say David Hume was the father of the enlightenment. perhaps you should read "Discourse on Inequality" tbc
@Empyreanmight Further to that Rousseau's view on "Human Nature" share no similarities at all with your own political philosohy. Rather he was a believer in "Morality" as being born through society not from nature itself. And I quote ( in context) Morality proper, i.e., self restraint, can only develop through careful education in a civil state. In other words although Rousseau like many others accepted the "natural state of man" but he did not believe "morals" came from nature tbc
@franks2732 So you are saying he was not in love with nature? Then with that I am not speaking to you because it is a well known fact that is hard to miss that Rousseau was fond of nature. If you did not know that then you are an idiot. I am not speaking to someone who only has half knowledge on a subject and yet refuses to even research anything about the person in question even further. This is why SImon Schama included Rousseau into his piece "History of Britain" entitled "Forces of Nature".
@Empyreanmight yes he loved nature, but he did not love the implication of your usage. He believed the individual was subject to the will of society. "uncorrupted morals" prevail in the "state of nature". Kant who wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" sighted Rousseau along with Hume as influences. Rousseau support of nature or mans role in nature was to say man could act compassionately as it is natural for him to do so, but he also could act violently and that as much a part of the "nature of man"
@Empyreanmight He was arguing against Hobbs assertion that man is "innately" wicked. Not that man is innately good but that man is subject to both positive and negative impulses as a result of "nature".
@franks2732 Seriously do not speak because you have shown you ignorance by saying socialist thought had not existed back then when socialist thought was created by Thomas Moore in 1516 then you say Rousseau had no love for nature? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you that ignorant? I am not responding to someone who clearly has no knowledge in the matter in which he speaks about. Go google rousseau and nature you will see. and I bet you think Rousseau only wrote three books too.
@Empyreanmight LMFAO I have never said anything at all nor am I implying any ownership of the political ideas of their day as a reflection of my own. That is Your department. I have Clearly stated I object to "history" out of context being used to support political opinion. Their views are their own and they lived for their day not mine. BuT your ideology seems to make a great habit of doing so. From Rousseau to Jefferson the claims of ownership by libertarians is disgusting
@Empyreanmight "Seriously do not speak because you have shown you ignorance by saying socialist thought had not existed back then when socialist thought was created by Thomas Moore in 1516" I will keep this for the ages. Next you will be telling me unionism was created via the Roman working mans clubs. How stupid of me to not understand that Thomas Moore was the founding father of Socialism. I will pass on your ideas to my old history teacher, should be good for a laugh
@franks2732 by golly if I want to attribute the historical influences of socialism, why not allow me to quote Plato or Aristotle LMFAO, I could claim that they held a more similar world view to that of "socialist political theory" than Moore but then I could go back further to the Egyptians or perhaps the egalitarian nature of "stone age tribes". Oh Sir Tom before he lost his head wrote a book called Utopia where he envisaged an imaginary society of equals must be why hey.
@franks2732 Seriously just stop ok. Because even though the term "socialist" was not coined til much later everyone agrees that Moore was a "Utopian Socialist" why dont you read "Utopia" but obviously if you were intelligent you would have before speaking to me again. You see you are always going to come up with some bullshit to justify your imbecilic ramblings. You are wrong and refuse to admit either that or you're a troll but either way I am blocking you. So keep talking to yourself.
@Empyreanmight No one agrees at all, your statement is a falsehood, a lie, intellectual theft and the denigration's of a great man and the age in which he lived. "Utopia" was a book by one man about how he thought and what he thought at the time he lived. Socialism did not exist in 1534. Secondly you do not own this video and your comments are not a reflection of the video owner. You may block me from commenting on your channel only , WTF could I care. Not as if I give two flying fucks
@franks2732 Frank :) !This dude is a entertainer!!A Song& Dance man!!We need more of his sort!No of course Thomas More,did not wrote that book either!He was a statist for Henry the Eight!It was written by our main man Murray Rothbard in his New York kitchen July 3,1963!!LOL!
@zsylvana I did not know one book written by a religious zealot was the foundation stone of my own political ideology.I can see it now Marx turning the pagers of Utopia and going lets change the word Utopia to mean Socialism no one will notice the difference.Forget Pierre Leroux or Robert Owen who needs to look at those intellectual dreamers. Just throw all the books away and Thomas Moore a Aristocratic Catholic wrote it all down in a fictional tale some 500 years ago.I am blind but now see lol
@franks2732 Yes!So true Frank!We are indoctrinated by religouis US Communist idees!The whole country was crowded by such Christian Communist societies,round about 1850.They lived their life in egalitarian small communities,I think this values had been spread by zealots like that Mormon Glenn Beck,and other Religuios communists!Even Stalin studied at an ortodox christian priest seminar.We are on the Road to Serfdom i am afraid!
@zsylvana I now have Mr empyreanmight giving me a history lesson about socialism. He is almost advancing the cause of equality. I might ask him for an account into the Life and Times of Olaf Palme, One of the Greatest Socialists ever to live. Who laid the foundations for one of the most equal, prosperous and fair nations in the world. Yours, Sweden. If only I had more libertarians taking the time to actually read rather than parrot. LMFAO
@franks2732 are you a complete moron? Marx did not create socialism he created communism, you know there is a difference between socialism and communism/marxism even marx said "All communist are socialist but not all socialist are communist" Socialism existed before communism you moron. You just proved more of your stupidity there. In the "Communist Manifesto" Marx and Engels even criticise "Utopian Socialism" for being too Idealistic. cont'd
@Empyreanmight Dude i like how you put words in my mouth. I said simply you cannot claim that a political ideology was born from "point a' and then claim it as your own (which you have done). It is so stupid to claim that a Book of Fiction written by a religious and political idealist some five hundred years ago is representive of what I or what anyone believes. It is balderdash. A insult to history and CDF
@franks2732 So how could of Marx coined the term Socialism with the communist manifesto when in the book itself talks about already existing socialist ideologies? Its funny the more you speak the more you prove how stupid you are. "Utopian Socialism" is an actual term you know? Gee I wonder where they got the "Utopian" part from? Must of been from some other book with the same title right?
@franks2732 Utopian Socialism defination- socialism based on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings by propertied groups. and an explanation of Utopian Socialism at marxist dot org Utopia – literally “nowheresville” – was the name of an imaginary republic described by Thomas More in which all social conflict and distress has been overcome. cont'd
@Empyreanmight Socialism comes in many forms but has some very basic premises that is that only through "real equality" can the world come together for the advancement of the entire human race. It is only when we spend our time committed to advancing human need rather than greed will exploitation stop. But I do not need an education as to the history of my ideology.But it is good that you have taken time to indulge, perhaps you will learn something. Any free advertising is good so keep it up
@franks2732 Nah I read the Communist Manifesto before I became a libertarian. This does not change my ideology I was always aware of all politcal spectrums and still retain my ideology.
@Empyreanmight No I am happy you are giving a history lesson as to my Ideology (not that I need one) but none the less any publicity is good publicity is that not what you capitalists claim. So helping spread the word and giving peoples name of "great thinkers of the past" is a credit to you. Where did I put that party membership form? think of all those blinkered young libertarians who are going to read what you say, by golly they might go to the evil socialist public library and borrow a book
@franks2732 Let me ask you something is not so that in order for true socialism to work (without people taken advantage of it and trying to cheat it) you would have to control human nature? and what is controling human nature but totalitarianism? And what does libertarianism do? They make an admittance than one cannot control human nature and that its wrong to do so anyway so instead of trying to force people to go against their nature libertarianism celebrates man's nature. cont'd
@Empyreanmight LMFAO you believe in a "first cause principle" I do not. your ideology falls apart because it is a false dichotomy. You are admitting that humanity cannot be better than what they already are, I say we can. I do not need a set of innate principles, you do. My beliefs require no faith yours do
@franks2732 Socialism is a pipe dream and the reason why countries like Sweden and Denmark do it well is because they were rich countries in the beginning and therefore they just have not run out of money yet. Did you know most of our debt is to the Denmark? This is how they made their fortune by practically being banker countries for the last 300 years. The reason why socialism has not failed yet is simply because they have not run out of their fortune but they will.
@Empyreanmight It is terrible that all these nations France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, etc all seem to be on the brink of rumination according to you guys or the only reason they exist and are able to provide the lifestyles for their citizens is by some big hidden vault that magically enables them year in year out to balance their budgets offer massive social services etc. tbc
@Empyreanmight At least be honest and admit you really don't care how good the population has it you simply morally object to how they maintain the system. For you the fact that wealth is distributed more evenly is morally repugnant. For us in our nations it is a moral imperative. And Our nations do not have trillion dollar debts LMFAO, come on give all of us the famous barrage, taxation is theft and how dare we society steal from the wealthy what lunacy
@franks2732 There have been many versions of Utopia over the years, many of them visions of socialist society. Although Marx and Engels defined their own socialism in opposition to Utopian Socialism (which had many advocates in the early nineteenth century), they had immense respect for the great Utopian socialists like Charles Fourier and Robert Owen. by the way Henri Saint Simon coined the term "Socialism".
@Empyreanmight Many political ideologies advance the idea of "Utopia' from Early Greece to Classical Rome, But your free history lesson into the growth of "socialist thought" is much appreciated, be sure to keep up the great work. It is what type of Utopian society they wish to create where the arguments take place. But the more you highlight the great and proud historical tradition of the Socialist Movement, the better for 'cause of equality" so i cannot commend you enough
@franks2732 Also Utopia maybe fiction but do you think that if you were a close aide to Henry the VIII and wrote a straight forward political commentary that you would get away with it with your head intact? Many books written during those times were always allegories and Utopia does have a lot of elements in it that it shared with socialism and many people say that Utopia paved the way for "Utopian Socialism" which was named for this book so I was not wrong entirely on the matter.
@Empyreanmight I could make the same claim and attribute the same premise as you do to any ideology. It certainly does not make you "sort of right". Thousands of books have been written throughout history on many different subjects by thousands of Authors. Simply claiming point a = point b makes x is balderdash. No wonder you guys claim half to 3/4 of the thinkers from the age of reason as your own LMFAO.
@Empyreanmight secondly I guess I block you from commenting on my channel. Your a fucking idiot and a looser who looks at history through his own closed prism without any basis in fact. As socialism and socialist ideology did not exist in the 1500's I nor can anyone make the claim based on one novel by one man that his views in that book were Representative of an ideology founded 300 years later. Your intellectual dihonesty knows no bounds. Disgusting Revisionist shit head
@Empyreanmight he believed we learned right and wrong from 'society' and our values come from society. And "Humans "in a state of Nature" may act with all of the ferocity of an animal" Abridged from "Discourse on inequality". That is why he valued "public education" for the "public good". He believed in the sovereignty of the people not that of the individual. That it was indeed the individual who could be the most dangerous creature and it was only the will of the body politic that prevented it
@franks2732 And also if you were to apply this to science they would have to see a living example of this because they now they cannot just hypothesize about it. What you are doing is making a hypothesis and when you make a hypothesis you are supposed to expriement on a living subject to see if your hypothesis is confirmed by your expriements. So far you cannot make a claim scientific wise because you have yet to see a living example of this. All you have is a hypothesis.
@franks2732 oh well since you say it wont work that means it wont. I love your logic it is so flawless and see where it gets you when you make a statement but cannot back it up with evidence. In science you cannot make a claim without testing. If I said a drug does not work I have to test it first before opening my big mouth. Because things that do not work in theory can also work in reality. If all pharmacitical companies followed your logic we would all be dead.
@Empyreanmight C)Frank & I know the truth value of the atomic sentence p at world w given by the valuation v may be written v(p, w).Given this notation, the truth values(T for true,F for false) of complex sentences of modal logic for a given valuation v(and member w of the set of worlds W)may be defined by the following truth clauses. (‘iff’ abbreviates ‘if and only if’.)
(~) v(~A, w)=T iff v(A, w)=F
(→) v(A→B, w)=T iff v(A, w)=F or v(B,w)=T.
(5) v(□A,w)=T iff for every world w′ in W, v(A,w′)=T
@franks2732 and this theory of libertarianism does not work is the favorite charge by socialists who actually had societies in the last 200 years which did fail. A Socialist claims that their ideals work in both theory and in real life even though half of their real life expriements failed and yet they say "Do not even both trying to expriement with Libertarianism because it does not work". cont'd
@Empyreanmight N "this theory of libertarianism does not work is the favorite charge by socialists" Dude it is favorite charge of everyone who is not a libertarian.I accept that systems which claim to be Representative of a 'socialist model' have failed.Others work quite well, Sweden, France, most Nordic countries etc all have G8 lifestyles and happy populations. Some argue they are not "socialist" most agree they are, nearly every libertarian cry's in anguish at their Evil socialist systems tbc
@Empyreanmight as socialism has a very broad definition and each country adopts it's own measure of "socialist policy" or social welfare systems. People can freely evaluate how well they do/did/ or did not. And any intellectual welcomes that debate. But as to your claim how dare you attack us for thinking a certain way and how dare others "dare to judge". I wonder weather you are forgiving of other Utopian ideologies? What stupidity
@Empyreanmight Why because their socialist idealist minds can find logical fallacies? Thats because Libertarianism is the antipode of socialism so of course they are going to condemn it. It is like a KKK member talking crap about the black race as if they could possibly condone anything they do because when they start too than their logic (if they had any) flies out the window. So once a socialist condones libertarianism then they are out of buisness.
@Empyreanmight Complete balderdash, weather a 'socialist' or anyone else debates you guys the first response we get is that our claims are a fallacy. Because you guys are "arguing from your own logic" and refuse to accept the points of your opponents as being valid. Your ideology rejects the other outright as flawed and if we point to the weakness of yours,you hide behind a wall of rhetoric. You call that rhetoric logic but you do not hold a blank check as to its interpretation tbc
@Empyreanmight How dare anybody use statistical evidence to support their claims as you reject the idea of "inductive logic" or reason in the social sciences, unless of course you use statistical data to draw conclusions. All others are flawed, the mighty rightness of libertarian logic cannot be questioned. All others do not have the ability to understand the nature of the truth. So endith the lesson. The religion of Libertarianism triumphs again LMFAO
@Empyreanmight Are you deny that logic is to characterize the difference between valid and invalid arguments.that logical system for a language is a set of axioms and rules designed to prove exactly the valid arguments statable in the language. That logician must make sure that the system is sound,i.e.that every argument proven using the rules and axioms is in fact valid,or that soundness & completeness of formal systems is a logician's central concern as Frank just let you now in his comment?
@Empyreanmight B)Are you deny such a demonstration cannot get underway until the concept of validity is defined rigorously?And that Formal semantics for a logic provides a definition of validity by characterizing the truth behavior of the sentences of the system?In propositional logic,validity can be defined using truth tables.A valid argument is simply one where every truth table row that makes its premises true also makes its conclusion true as Frank pointed out so clear in previous comments,
@Empyreanmight D) If you follow me arguments, Clauses (~) and (→) simply describe the standard truth table behavior for negation and material implication respectively. According to (5), □A is true (at a world w) exactly when A is true in all possible worlds. Given the definition of ◊, (namely, ◊A = ~□~A) the truth condition (5) insures that ◊A is true just in case A is true in some possible world,But you deny it!!
@Empyreanmight E) Clauses (~) (→)and (5) allow us to calculate the truth value of any sentence at any world on a given valuation.A definition of validity is now just around the corner.An argument is 5-valid for a given set W (of possible worlds) if and only if every valuation of the atomic sentences that assigns the premises T at a world in W also assigns the conclusion T at the same world.An argument is said to be 5-valid iff it is valid for every non empty set of W of possible worlds.
@Empyreanmight As i shown in this serie of comments.Libertarian "Logic",is mediaval,Your propositions and questions are not only false but nonsensical.Consequently we cannot give any answer to your propositions and questions,but can only point out that they are nonsensical.Your propositions and questions arise from your failure and to understand both logic language as well your problems to deal with facts.And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all!Period!
Libetarianism doesn't consider that indviduals and groups are prone to deviancy/corruption as well as nobility/good will. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, although himself a slaveholder, said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." How true!!! Existentialists believe that absolute freedom is, paradoxically, itself a kind of slavery. The true FREEDOM is to be allowed to find MEANING in life.
salahudeenabduladl 1 week ago
Yet there is the issue of mob rule. Whereby an evil majority (for examples, white supremacists or Nazis) take control of the govt. You are correct that there's a major logical contradiction or fallacy. Because libertarianism presupposes that people are ALL good and therefore have no need of regulatory govt. Only a society of perfect beings could co-exist under libertarian creedo. And if people were so perfect then we would not require any kind of govt at all--not even libertarianism.
salahudeenabduladl 1 week ago
And your point is well taken that governments are not intrisically evil. Govt is as good or bad as those who control it. Essentially, many people misconstrue our current problem with govt. They perceive govt as being the problem when the problem is actually WHO is controlling the govt. Similar to guns not being inherently evil but as good or bad as those who use them.
salahudeenabduladl 1 week ago
Yes, a "social contract" is needed for any civilization to be viable. Thus each citizen agrees to give up some of his/her freedoms in deference to the common good. It is a fiction that people function as individuals in civilized societies. Societies are created out of people becoming interdependent toward the common good.
salahudeenabduladl 1 week ago
Excellent argument, I hate Libertarians.
Politicalbrnblalenda 1 month ago
This is said well enough...but there are lot libertarians on youtube so I'm not surprised at all the dislikes. I consider myself libertarian in my ends but I'm rationalist so I don't live in a fantasy world where I believe liberty creates peace.
iMaDeMoN2012 4 months ago
Given, that you argue so fiercely with people that you feel are obviously wrong. I guess you've accepted the argument of my previous comment :-)
dmg46664 4 months ago
Sorry, but there are AT LEAST two definitions of Libertarian. The Ayn Rand one, and the Friedman/Austrian one (which can be further split). Ron Paul is of the Austrian variety. Your comments only apply to the Ayn Rand version. Take a look here : tinyurl(.)com/bez6dk
dmg46664 5 months ago
Why does government need to interfere? Why is it so crucial that the government takes my money and gives it to people on welfare when private organizations and churches have been taking care of these people for hundreds of years? Why does the government need to have its own post office? You sir are of the belief that if government created a law against gravity then we would all fly. So sad.
13RC101 5 months ago
@13RC101 I believe that government is an important part of a modern society. I believe that to reach the limited government that libertarians preach they would have to eliminate government. This would be a disaster for our country.
sabot96 5 months ago
@sabot96 No, you wouldn't need to eliminate government. You would need to eliminate your view of what government should be. It's not a teacher, postman, doctor, financial adviser, etc. It's meant to uphold our Constitutional Rights, not pay my medical bill.
13RC101 5 months ago
@sabot96 Why does everyone who opposes libertarianism always make arguments refuting anarchy?
EmbarrassJen 1 month ago
Please take this video down. You're just embarrassing yourself. You need to hit the books and do a little more research on the Libertarian Party. Libertarians are not the same as anarchists. They don't believe that the world should just be a free-for-all with no law or order. You're not allowed to "enslave" other people as you so incoherently stated in your "argument."
13RC101 5 months ago
@13RC101 Please take your comment down. You can't understand my basic argument.
sabot96 5 months ago
@sabot96 That's because your basic argument is incoherent and contradictory.
13RC101 5 months ago
@13RC101 I'm trying to educate myself on libertarianism here, so bear with me. What exactly do you think the government SHOULD do? It does seem that even though the government is big, clunky and intrusive that we should work on moderating things within the government instead of tying it's hands. Just because our current regulator sucks is not a good reason to not have a regulator. What measures would be in effect to protect employees and the environment from exploitation?
xplorva 4 months ago
@xplorva
Regulators and planners are at least as prone to basic human failings as anyone else, and oftentimes a whole lot more so. It's not a matter of the current set of regulators being inept, but the fact that regulation per sé does not achieve the ends which its proponents claim it does.
"What measures[...]"
Clearly defined and earnestly protected private property.
That's it. -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 months ago
-
- Let employees bargain for whatever conditions they can get. If no institutional barriers prevent employers from practicing rigorous competition from one another, then their employees will get exactly what they deserve, and the whole structure of production will function better for it, especially in the long run. Let the land and sea be homesteaded, and be genuinely privately owned, and have pollution be prosecuted like any other form of property damage.
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 months ago
-
- Let employees bargain for whatever conditions they can get. If no institutional barriers prevent employers from practicing rigorous competition from one another, then their employees will get exactly what they deserve, and the whole structure of production will function better for it, especially in the long run. Let the land and sea be homesteaded, and be genuinely privately owned, and have pollution be prosecuted like any other form of property damage.
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 months ago
RON PAUL end of quarter Moneybomb. Donate by September 30.
Vote4RonPaulLiberty 5 months ago
history?
if there is anything that history teaches us it is that no force has killed more people and destroyed more lives than consecrated government
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” ― Thomas Jefferson
keep in mind this man never saw the horrors of the 20th century. I can't help but feel you are interpreting libertarianism to anarchism, but there is a fine line between a government that defends liberty and no government at all
Tcassa89 5 months ago
'Democracy' is a majority who seizes the power of government to enforce the majority's will over the individual. Your personal lifestyle choices can be voted out and made illegal in a 'democracy'. Slavery to the will of a majority can never produce liberty. You do not understand the terms you employ; 'Force' is an act of violence against persons, property, freedom, etc. 'Defense' is 'resistance' to that exercise of violence. "Defense" is not "force" but the strength to resist coercive force.
dbwheeldon 7 months ago
One of the major flaws in your argument (video poster's) is that there is no RIGHT to enslave others, as you say in 3:50. Anyone who thinks that enslaving others is a right is a clear statist.
AllHailTacoBell 9 months ago
@QuietReckoning How do people stop criminals today? Force.
How does todays society defend individuals? Force.
We have already had an example of a group that desired slavery, it was called the South. And we forced them back in.
Do you see how flimsy your argument is?
If one person is endangering someone else's liberty, property, or life, then OBVIOUSLY they must be stopped.
AllHailTacoBell 9 months ago
You're absolutely right. Libertarianism is right-wing marxism that boils down all good to economic good, and ignores history, reality, and human nature.
QuietReckoning 9 months ago
@QuietReckoning right wing marxism?? i fail to see how you can make the comparison. american libertarianism advocates a completely free market and little government intervention into the personal liberties of citizens. i'm not in all agreement with the american libertarian party, except for the anti-war part of it. you really need to look up the actual definition of the words and the actual implications.
gonzopoet00 9 months ago
@gonzopoet00 Marxists: Everything is Economic. Complete social justice = Utopia. Libertarians: Everything is Economic. Complete Economic Freedom = Utopia. You use the same flawed thinking and the same arguments and come to opposite conclusions. Libertarianism is the Marxism of the Right.
QuietReckoning 9 months ago
This is not a lack of libertarian's understanding of history. It is your own lack of common sense and logic. 3:10 You refute yourself. You say libertarians believe in being sovereign over their own lives. Then say that someone who believes in slavery would be able to act upon his beliefs. The reality is he would have every right to hold a belief in slavery, but he wouldn't be able to act out his values and beliefs because it would conflict with other people's liberty. Common sense.
09jake12 9 months ago
@09jake12 And how would you stop him? Force.
How would a libertarian society defend individuals? Force.
What if a group of people desire slavery? Force by one group vs force from another.
If a libertarian society was ever created, it would fall apart immediately.
QuietReckoning 9 months ago
@QuietReckoning You are correct in saying that there would have to be force in a libertarian government. No one is saying there would be absolute peace. That would be impossible. In a libertarian society, force by the government would only be used against the initiation of force. For example: If a group of people decided they would like to make me a slave, they could do anything they want to convince/bribe me to be their slave, but as soon as they use force against me the law is on my side.
09jake12 8 months ago
Comment removed
1911emp 10 months ago
Yawn. Another attack against a straw-man "libertarianism". Libertarians are not pacifists, for example. Read a few books - Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" will shake the straw man right out of this idiot, for example.
1911emp 10 months ago
We are losing our freedom because of statists like yourself. As the power of the state increases, our liberty diminishes. I am a Libertarian, yes... Technically I am what some would term a "minarchist" because I believe in limiting government to the point that we are almost in a state of anarchy, but have just enough government to maintain order, establish courts, and provide for national defense. This is what our founding fathers envisioned for America. Today we are slaves to government.
BeerIndependence4All 11 months ago
@BeerIndependence4All You are losing your freedoms because you don't care enough about them to fight for them in the democratic process. You are strait up lying about our founding fathers. All of our founding fathers did not envision a "minarchist" government. Alexander Hamilton supported a flexible constitution, a powerful national government, a protective tariff, and a national bank.
sabot96 11 months ago
@sabot96 Let me recommend a book... A book which Ronald Reagan wanted taught in every American school... A book currently touted by Glenn Beck as we strive to get back to our roots. "The 5,000 Year Leap" Our founding father's political ruler had tyranny on the left and anarchy on the right. Their goal, as explained in the book, was to give as much liberty as possible with just enough government to maintain order. Hamilton... well, if you like the Fed Reserve you'd love him. Jefferson didn't.
BeerIndependence4All 11 months ago
@BeerIndependence4All So the fact remains you lied about the founding fathers supporting your ideology. Hamilton is a founding father. The reality is maybe a few partially support aspects of your ideology. The constitution is a statist document. Deal with it and stop trying to claim that it is not.
sabot96 11 months ago
@sabot96 I didn't lie about anything. Read the book... I'm just not a big fan of Alexander Hamilton because he wanted a large Federal government, tariffs to restrict trade, and a National bank just like those in Europe. In fact America tried a National Bank and it failed... Jefferson opposed these ideas... I think he was right. If we had taken Alexander Hamilton's advice at the founding of our nation then America would not have been remarkable... We would have been just like England.
BeerIndependence4All 11 months ago
@BeerIndependence4All Ha ha ha. What the hell are you talking about. We took tons of advice from Hamilton "As the first Treasury secretary (1789–95), Hamilton issued three brilliant, controversial reports to Congress, aimed at strengthening the national government." -The Oxford Companion to American Military History
sabot96 11 months ago
@BeerIndependence4All Let me recommend that you actually use your brains and stop following a ridiculous dancing bear like Glenn Beck. I support the current constitution of the United States. I don't need to go back and guess what the founding fathers envisioned for our country. I am living it today. I can pull it up and read it right now. It does not lay out the ridiculous government that your ideology says that government should be.
sabot96 11 months ago
@sabot96 I never said "All"... Your beloved Alexander Hamilton was thankfully in the minority.
BeerIndependence4All 11 months ago
@BeerIndependence4All "This is what our founding fathers envisioned for America." This sure sounds a lot like all to me. So what you really meant to say is a few of our founding fathers wanted a government that was very limited and a few of our founding fathers wanted a powerful state. What this means is you do not get to rewrite history and say that our founding fathers envisioned a minimalist libertarian state. Your statement is a total fabrication.
sabot96 11 months ago
@sabot96 I am done... I never said they envisioned a "minimalist libertarian state"... The term "Libertarian" did not exist then. I cannot debate you when you keep making up things.
BeerIndependence4All 11 months ago
@BeerIndependence4All That is right you are done. This is what you said ". I am a Libertarian, yes... Technically I am what some would term a "minarchist" because I believe in limiting government to the point that we are almost in a state of anarchy, but have just enough government to maintain order, establish courts, and provide for national defense. This is what our founding fathers envisioned for America." Our founding fathers did not envision your Libertarian/minarchist government.
sabot96 11 months ago
The united states does even have a democracy, who are you kidding? The rich people that bought off all the politicians long ago own this country now.
MirageScience 1 year ago
Instead of using all this Orwellian speak, why not just say you want to comit immoral acts? Anyone who "disagrees" with libertarianism is implcitly saying that they want to violate your rights. Notice how the statists alway avoid the moral argument and talk about the argument from effect (innevitably without ANY evidence or logic).
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair If your a libertarian, why don't you just be truthful? Say that you want to take the power of government and just give it to corporations. I believe the power of government should be under the control of a democratically elected government. Not under the control of totalitarian corporations.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 Excuse me? You and I have the ability to choose which corporations we buy products and services from whereas the government forces people to do things against their will throught barrel of a gun. Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. On another note, "corporations" are an invention of the state. They were invented to give executives limited liability for their actions and are protected by government goons with guns.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair You are excused for your total ignorance. So you are not a libertarian but an anarchist. You want the destruction of the power of government and corporations. I am wondering with your "moral" argument what "goons" are going to replace the current ones to keep this morality of yours in place?
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 You call me ignorant – ignorant of what exactly? The moral argument is a simple one – it is immoral to initiate force against someone who hasn’t aggressed against you. Do you agree with that principle or not? If you don’t answer that question then the argument is over because progress is impossible. You seem to have an incredibly strange argument which is that “we need to let a group of people (the government) violate our rights because otherwise our rights might be violated”.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair I do not agree with your "morality". I totally support the ability of the police to put you in hand cuffs and take you to jail for running through the street naked and peeing on your lawn.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 Wouldn't someone peeing on my lawn be form of agressing? That would be a violation of property rights. Interesting you should give an example of property rights as justification for imprisonment when you profess that we don't have any property rights.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair No your simple mind did not read my example correctly. I support the cops arresting you if "you" run down the street naked and pee on "your own" lawn.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 Well that would also be a violation of property rights since others would be able to see that obscenity from their property. That's why you said lawn rather than bathroom right?
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair So what your telling me now is your "morality" allows you to support the aggression of the state to impose others views of obscenity on you. This is a very confusing ideology you have.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 You find it confusing that it is immoral to agress against someone who hasn't agressed against you? I don't know about you but I learned that when I was 3 years old. The fact that you dispute such a basic principle is astounding. How about instead of your cute scenario, we consider this example: if I disagree with the war in Iraq, do I still have to fund the killing of innocent civilians with drones? According to you: Yes, unless I want to be kidnapped or even killed.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair My "cute" scenario is a perfect example of how your ideology can't even deal with obscenity laws without crumbling into conflict with it's self. Your ideology is that of a 3 year old. If you disagree with the war in iraq you can contact your representative or run against your representative in the next election. You do still have to pay your taxes. You also still have to pay your taxes even if you don't agree with lots of programs that you don't like.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 Democracy has nothing to do with morality. Moral principles are universal - if you can steel from me then I can steel from you. Whether you or I are in a majority is irrelevant. I already explained that obscenity is considered a form of aggressing whereas the principle clearly states non-agression as a prerequisite. Therefore there is no contradiction. You just chose to infer that moral disputes are settled by the state to give the appearance of a contradiction.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair Moral principles are not universal. I do not agree with your idea of morality or your ideology. You are in total conflict and your too ignorant to see it. Obscenity laws are created and enforced by the state. I also do not except your definition of what is non-aggression. Since I am talking with a 3 year old. Let me break this down for you in three year old speak: When you grow up you have to share and some times you have to do things you do not like.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 Moral principles are not universal!? That is the definition of a moral principle - look up morality on wikipeida: "In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you".
The mark of a three year-old is not having the ability to reason about simple concepts without name-calling and making baseless assertions. If kidnapping, stealing and killing is not agressive then I don't know what is.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair Wow I really am talking with a three year old. I do not believe in "morality". I don't believe in your moral principles or how you define them. I do support aggression against others that have not been aggressive against me. I support people having to pay their taxes, obscenity laws, laws that create one postal service, social security, medicare, welfare, and many other programs.
sabot96 1 year ago
Libertarianism is total tyranny. This might seem contradictory to some americans. But this is what it leads to. When there are no control structures it gives ceertain people the freedom to controll the rest. In a libertarian capitalist society you only have as much freedom as you can afford to pay for. And because wealth accumulates you will eventually have none.
surlagachette2 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 You understand. Libertarianism means the subjugation of the poor and total rule of the wealthy.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 And it is being sold as the solution through the "tea party" in the US. It is so amazingly absurd. The core problem is sold as the solution! I do not know how to describe it other then 1984 style new speak.. The discussion is being framed in tearms of "big government" vs "small government". What does this even mean? These are not the real alternatives. To me it seems like nothing but classical mind control.. It's scary.
surlagachette2 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 brilliant thought. thanks. i'm going to use that line.
cruciphile 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 You are assuming libertarianism advocates a lack of structure. Also, you complain that a lack of structure gives certain people the freedom to control the rest, so your solution is what? The State? Yeah, because nothing says getting rid of coercive monopolies like advocating *the* coercive monopoly on violence. Good job, bro, way to be completely ignorant and contradictory.
AnonymousCthulhu 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 Except that wealth does not inherently accumulate. That is the basic problem with your premise. In a free economy, anyone can create wealth, or carve out their piece of it. The problem is when you have a strong state, where the rich can a) prevent the poor from exercising their options b) steal the wealth of the nation and concentrate it in a few hands c) receive artificial protections from justice and the will of the people (ie, "corporate personhood" which is a govt creation).
zyodei 1 year ago
@zyodei One of the biggest problems with libertarianism is that certain actors, through the state, have stolen such vast unimaginable sums of money (the Fed connected banks, the Bushian carlyle group, the pharmaceutical cos and their artificial 'IP', etc. etc.) that they could, in a free market, buy everything.
But you, know, if you are in a hole, the best thing is to stop digging.
P.S. Yes, I agree that the tea party, and the political libertarian party, are both deeply flawed.
zyodei 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 Exactly! Libertarianism in a nutshell.
ourben 1 year ago
What do libertarians want to do with people who do not own land and don't have familial support or friends who like to share? In libertarianism I see a lot of potential for the emergence of communes, cults, and ultimately slavery without the Fed to get in the land/property owners' way.
mechanism211 1 year ago
"Who decides what honest and who decides whats moral??" >_> An angry mob of libertarians with pitch forks and torches and no govt to get in their way.
mechanism211 1 year ago
I'm of libertarian persuasion, but I was surprissed to find this video fairly thoughtful and insightful. He's right about force and property. What he's getting at with the "slavery" topic is that in a power vacume, power arises. If the state dissappeared, local strong-men would rise to power and struggle against one-another, enslaving people in the process. If the state didn't enslave us, we'd enslave each other, because we are nasty, brutish, and..er.. short.
brindlebriar 1 year ago 2
@brindlebriar And in america today you allready have a ruling elite. They do not need governemt for control. This is a lie. Government is the only thing in the way for them having total control. The tea party are selling you the core problem as the solution. Hegalian dialecticing you to total corporate power. The "big gorvernment" vs "small government" idea which is core for this "movement" is little more then newspeak.
surlagachette2 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 Let me just put this clearly: corporations, composed of groups of individuals who are protected from individual civil and criminal liability for their crimes, but receive all pursuant profits, are not products of the free market. Libertarians, of the resurgent Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist bent, recognize this, and do not support the legitimacy of corporations.
Of course, many self-proclaimed 'libertarian' republicans couldn't even comprehend this argument.
zyodei 1 year ago
Gealic Ireland btw, look it up. It lasted in a peaceful state of anarchy for 1000 years. 600 AD to 1600.
JtiksPies 1 year ago
@JtiksPies Thank you for the example. I will take a look.
sabot96 1 year ago
@JtiksPies That is really a bad example, I wonder did you tell the Kings of County Mayo, or perhaps the "slaves" the Irish owned, totally a free anarchy people living in a fair and free society my ASS
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Slaves are more a question of morality and not policy. Way back then everyone had slaves this comes from Mesapotamia which all civilization comes from so the concept of slavery was indoctrinated in them and they thought nothing of it being "unethical or immoral" in fact it took us til when 17th or 18th century to finally recognized that slavery was wrong. So to judge a certain nation because i had slaves (back then that is) is ridiculous because everyone had slaves.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Why not, secondly slavery is only part of the story. Ireland maintained an aristocracy, a Nobility and the rule of kings, had serfs and women were denied equality. An argument could be made that the Viking settlements of Dublin, or Belfast perhaps were 'free market speculators" but to claim a time period before the existence of your political ideology is Representative of it is Hyperbole. It would be like me claiming the Romans were 'socialist' because they had common food stores
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Well I am not making that charge and I agree that you cannot use a society way back then as a good representation because things were significantly different. Thats why I say there was none because if it did not exist in the last 200 years that you have no fair comparison. Which is also why I do not like the arguement that Libertarianism does not work because we have no physical proof only theory and speculation cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight using your logic how could we ever critique your ideology, simply put no one could ever meet your burden of proof. We as those who oppose your ideology have every right to challenge it's validity. Weather you accept our views is up to you. But to say simply because your ideas have never been fully tested, we those in opposition to your world view do not have the right to critique is absurd. Your claim to past conjuncture is fucking ridiculous so I will not even bother
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 You have no proof other than conjecture. You are afraid of libertarianism because toy now it might work and if so then you are out of a job. All this fomenting about libertarianism is ridiculous, you guys get to expriement all over the place but you wont let libertarians try their hand? and you expect us to want to be socialist with that type of totalitarian logic. You guys alreayd have countries go move there and let us "fail" and see for ourselves.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight According to your own Mises In Somalia is the perfect example of your "libertarian society" in action. So much so the fuckers made a video about it. LMFAO. Your ideologies so lame you cannot even point to one concrete example, secondly you cannot even point to a imaginary example, fuck I do not think you could even point to any example. People are just so blind but by golly but you can see. Libertarians the sheeple. You have the whole nation of Somalia to buy what an idiot
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Somlia is anarchist and not willingly anarchist they just have a weak and corrupt government. Anarchy is not the same as libertarianism. Now that is just hyperbole.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight lmfao talk to the mises in not to me, it is their video
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Oh yeah my I add a little gem of knowledge by one of my favorite political writers "insults are the arguements employed by those in the wrong"- Jean Jacques Rousseau
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Jean Jacques Rousseau-
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 "I prefer liberty with danger than peaceful slavery"- Jean Jacques Rousseau. ""Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they." -Jean Jacques Rousseau.He may have said something about private property that I disagree with but he also said alot of harsh things about big governments. In fact Rousseau prefered a system close to anarchy. Thats if you actually read his books and not cherry pick his quotes
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight you fuckwit he was not referring to a libertarian interpretation of the world, he lived a few hundred years ago you bloody moron. He also said many things and at his time "kings" and the Aristocracy ruled the world. Maybe, just maybe he could have been referring to his own time. Fucking Libertarians 100% don't understand political science or history. Fucking revisionists
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Do not talk to me about Rousseau I know more about Rousseau than you I had to do a comparative ananlysis between his life and politics with Orwell's life and politics it spanned 12 pages. Scholars and political science even say that Rousseau influenced a wide spectrum of politic ideologies. Why do you think he is so important to political science? Because he had only one theory and one ideology? No! And you are now putting words in my mouth as well cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Dude what a fuckwit, you are and have claimed him as a libertarian, you are the one who claimed also that the early Irish were quasi libertarians . It does not mean squat weather you did a comparative analysis or not as to the guys life etc. The point is that libertarians are the great re-inventors of history and spin historical figures to support Your doctrine.
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Are you completely insane, Scroll down and look at my comments, Never said anything about the Irish, you mentioned them, I never said Rousseau was a libertarian all I did was counter your quotes of his with other quotes of his because you were selectivly trying to use his quotes to try to show that he was on the left so I showed quotes to merely counter your's. So I said he favored a society close to anarchy because cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@franks2732 he even says that civilizationa dn government is determential to human nature which to him human by nature was good and it was government and civilization that turned humans bad. So why the fuck would he be pro-government if he believed that you imbecile. It is even well known in political science that Rousseau was anti-government he is even contrasted to Hobbes because Hobbes was so pro-government. They group these two as antipodes of political thought. Clearly you need education.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. Yeah the guy happens to one of my fav political writers. You know why I like him so much- Read the Fucking Quote, Would you like me to quote you his ideas about equality what a moron
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 That was from Discourse on Inequality and in the Social Contract he changed his politics somewhat. Like once he believed in the noble savage and that man is by nature good but that civilization turns him into something ugly but then he goes on to say in the Social Contract that man needs civilization to keep his savage nature in check. That is just one example
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight the social contract you moron is reference to how society should be governed, that each member of society i.e. the individual is a "part" of the whole and we are subject to the Rules that the majority wish. That is the purpose of the social contract. It is a formative step toward designing the first steps of "democratic' government. A guarantee of protections for all Citizens. It is not a road map to "libertarian utopia" What a idiot
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 ""Man's freedom consists, not in being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will." -Jean Jacques Rousseau
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight yes he wrote it and it must be taken in context along with everything the man wrote. From the social contract to his rejection of 'private property and his support of "society" above that of the individual. You read way too much into a single sentence and fail to balance that against the mountain of material which sets outs the mans ideas in FULL. From his dreams of a society of economic equals etc. He lived for his day and passed "ideas" down to us. He was not a saint
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 You really need to read his books and not interperet what someone else said about him. I have read his books and I know the Social Contract was a blueprint for democracy and I never said it was anything else. And he did not releases his books as a compliation like you suggest and scholars agree he did change some of his views. Just like Marx changed his views later on because even Marx said he was not a Marxist. Cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight LMFAO, I said read his work as a whole not as a single aspect, 'a quote does not make a man" you fucking dick. Of course throughout his life he changed his views but that does not mean in any way he supported yours. His thoughts on society are to be taken as a whole and cannot be subdivide into snippets. It does not do the man justice and is historically misleading. By taking only the bits You want and interpreting those to support Your doctrine is Wrong and Misleading
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight And finally as I have had enough fun at your expense, what does all this stuff mean, quoting historical figures etc? It means this, I (you) could if we wanted to revise history to reflect our own political beliefs (as you do) take a historical figures comments, quotes whatever and imply that his beliefs were akin to our own today. That would be selective quote mining to paint a false dycodomy. It is intelectual dishonesty and rather rude as well. Libertarians do it all the time
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 And just like Orwell changed his views and I only quoted one thing from Rousseau about insults being the arguements employed by those who are in the wrong thats it. I did not start a quote war nor did I say Rousseau was the same as a modern day libertarian. To insinuate as you do that Rousseau is some kind of socialist or Marxist is only half of the truth because he had a unique idealogy not consistent with the right or the left. cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight LMFAO, I have never claimed or insinuated as to Rousseau's being a socialist as socialism did not exist in his time, but for you to claim I am implying that is much worse. I pointed to the man's ideas where they contradicted your "World View" Not that he supported mine
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 and Socialism did exist at that time you fucking moron. the book "Utopia" was published in 1516 and Thomas Moore was considered the first "Utopian Socialist". So the socialist thought was around during that time. And I love the fact that you just have made an ass out of yourself and completely shown your education and knowledge. Therefore I deem your credibility non-existent because of that ignorance and now I end the arguement on that note so do not bother saying anything else.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@franks2732 and my main point is that I like him and respect and there are certain views of his that I agree with but that being said it doesnt mean I have to agree with everything he said just to like the guy. But I guess you would not know how that could be because your are narrow minded and only like people you agree with 100%,
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight i am glad that you like and respect him so on that could you kindly tell all your libertarian buddies not to attribute him as one of your ideologies founding fathers. As it seems to me it is only your ideology that does such an disservice to history. You will find that a great deal of my friends indeed disagree with me on many issues. I actually find it refreshing. But unlike your buddies we do not claim a past which does not exist
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 and when do you think Rousseau existed? During the 1100s? He existed during the time of the American Revolution and French Revolution. He was from Switzerland which did not have a Monarchy at that time. So how would all his politcal ideals only be ascribed to monarchies? You really need a history lesson or at least read Rousseau's books or talk to someone who is a scholar on Rousseau.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight I guess universities and schools only exist in the USA, my goodness I never realized Australia was without public libraries and I love how you presume as to my reading or lack of it. Oh and you may find that Rousseau made his name in FRANCE under a monarchy and also knocked back a kings pension for services to France and in the 1700's the Aristocracy and Nobility were alive and well. I think you assume too much but you are a libertarian so why does that not surprise me
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 and finally scholars trace back his hatred fro AUTHORITY from his apprenticeship with an engraver who was bossy and forced him to do things and when he found ways to get away from him he would go off into the woods where he find solace in nature. Scholars believe this is were he began his love affair with nature and where he began his hatred for authority. Rousseau did not hate monarchs just because they were monarchs but all manner of person who has authority over others.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight "Rousseau did not hate monarchs just because they were monarchs but all manner of person who has authority over others." Cool you can read books too, how wonderful. Where do you get this love affair with nature idea, oh I understand you are off espousing his libertarian credentials, if only your ideology existed in 1734 LMFAO next you will say David Hume was the father of the enlightenment. perhaps you should read "Discourse on Inequality" tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Further to that Rousseau's view on "Human Nature" share no similarities at all with your own political philosohy. Rather he was a believer in "Morality" as being born through society not from nature itself. And I quote ( in context) Morality proper, i.e., self restraint, can only develop through careful education in a civil state. In other words although Rousseau like many others accepted the "natural state of man" but he did not believe "morals" came from nature tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 So you are saying he was not in love with nature? Then with that I am not speaking to you because it is a well known fact that is hard to miss that Rousseau was fond of nature. If you did not know that then you are an idiot. I am not speaking to someone who only has half knowledge on a subject and yet refuses to even research anything about the person in question even further. This is why SImon Schama included Rousseau into his piece "History of Britain" entitled "Forces of Nature".
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight yes he loved nature, but he did not love the implication of your usage. He believed the individual was subject to the will of society. "uncorrupted morals" prevail in the "state of nature". Kant who wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" sighted Rousseau along with Hume as influences. Rousseau support of nature or mans role in nature was to say man could act compassionately as it is natural for him to do so, but he also could act violently and that as much a part of the "nature of man"
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight He was arguing against Hobbs assertion that man is "innately" wicked. Not that man is innately good but that man is subject to both positive and negative impulses as a result of "nature".
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Seriously do not speak because you have shown you ignorance by saying socialist thought had not existed back then when socialist thought was created by Thomas Moore in 1516 then you say Rousseau had no love for nature? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you that ignorant? I am not responding to someone who clearly has no knowledge in the matter in which he speaks about. Go google rousseau and nature you will see. and I bet you think Rousseau only wrote three books too.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight LMFAO I have never said anything at all nor am I implying any ownership of the political ideas of their day as a reflection of my own. That is Your department. I have Clearly stated I object to "history" out of context being used to support political opinion. Their views are their own and they lived for their day not mine. BuT your ideology seems to make a great habit of doing so. From Rousseau to Jefferson the claims of ownership by libertarians is disgusting
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight "Seriously do not speak because you have shown you ignorance by saying socialist thought had not existed back then when socialist thought was created by Thomas Moore in 1516" I will keep this for the ages. Next you will be telling me unionism was created via the Roman working mans clubs. How stupid of me to not understand that Thomas Moore was the founding father of Socialism. I will pass on your ideas to my old history teacher, should be good for a laugh
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 by golly if I want to attribute the historical influences of socialism, why not allow me to quote Plato or Aristotle LMFAO, I could claim that they held a more similar world view to that of "socialist political theory" than Moore but then I could go back further to the Egyptians or perhaps the egalitarian nature of "stone age tribes". Oh Sir Tom before he lost his head wrote a book called Utopia where he envisaged an imaginary society of equals must be why hey.
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Seriously just stop ok. Because even though the term "socialist" was not coined til much later everyone agrees that Moore was a "Utopian Socialist" why dont you read "Utopia" but obviously if you were intelligent you would have before speaking to me again. You see you are always going to come up with some bullshit to justify your imbecilic ramblings. You are wrong and refuse to admit either that or you're a troll but either way I am blocking you. So keep talking to yourself.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight No one agrees at all, your statement is a falsehood, a lie, intellectual theft and the denigration's of a great man and the age in which he lived. "Utopia" was a book by one man about how he thought and what he thought at the time he lived. Socialism did not exist in 1534. Secondly you do not own this video and your comments are not a reflection of the video owner. You may block me from commenting on your channel only , WTF could I care. Not as if I give two flying fucks
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Frank :) !This dude is a entertainer!!A Song& Dance man!!We need more of his sort!No of course Thomas More,did not wrote that book either!He was a statist for Henry the Eight!It was written by our main man Murray Rothbard in his New York kitchen July 3,1963!!LOL!
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana I did not know one book written by a religious zealot was the foundation stone of my own political ideology.I can see it now Marx turning the pagers of Utopia and going lets change the word Utopia to mean Socialism no one will notice the difference.Forget Pierre Leroux or Robert Owen who needs to look at those intellectual dreamers. Just throw all the books away and Thomas Moore a Aristocratic Catholic wrote it all down in a fictional tale some 500 years ago.I am blind but now see lol
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Yes!So true Frank!We are indoctrinated by religouis US Communist idees!The whole country was crowded by such Christian Communist societies,round about 1850.They lived their life in egalitarian small communities,I think this values had been spread by zealots like that Mormon Glenn Beck,and other Religuios communists!Even Stalin studied at an ortodox christian priest seminar.We are on the Road to Serfdom i am afraid!
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana I now have Mr empyreanmight giving me a history lesson about socialism. He is almost advancing the cause of equality. I might ask him for an account into the Life and Times of Olaf Palme, One of the Greatest Socialists ever to live. Who laid the foundations for one of the most equal, prosperous and fair nations in the world. Yours, Sweden. If only I had more libertarians taking the time to actually read rather than parrot. LMFAO
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 are you a complete moron? Marx did not create socialism he created communism, you know there is a difference between socialism and communism/marxism even marx said "All communist are socialist but not all socialist are communist" Socialism existed before communism you moron. You just proved more of your stupidity there. In the "Communist Manifesto" Marx and Engels even criticise "Utopian Socialism" for being too Idealistic. cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Dude i like how you put words in my mouth. I said simply you cannot claim that a political ideology was born from "point a' and then claim it as your own (which you have done). It is so stupid to claim that a Book of Fiction written by a religious and political idealist some five hundred years ago is representive of what I or what anyone believes. It is balderdash. A insult to history and CDF
franks2732 1 year ago
Comment removed
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@franks2732 So how could of Marx coined the term Socialism with the communist manifesto when in the book itself talks about already existing socialist ideologies? Its funny the more you speak the more you prove how stupid you are. "Utopian Socialism" is an actual term you know? Gee I wonder where they got the "Utopian" part from? Must of been from some other book with the same title right?
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@franks2732 Utopian Socialism defination- socialism based on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings by propertied groups. and an explanation of Utopian Socialism at marxist dot org Utopia – literally “nowheresville” – was the name of an imaginary republic described by Thomas More in which all social conflict and distress has been overcome. cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Socialism comes in many forms but has some very basic premises that is that only through "real equality" can the world come together for the advancement of the entire human race. It is only when we spend our time committed to advancing human need rather than greed will exploitation stop. But I do not need an education as to the history of my ideology.But it is good that you have taken time to indulge, perhaps you will learn something. Any free advertising is good so keep it up
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Nah I read the Communist Manifesto before I became a libertarian. This does not change my ideology I was always aware of all politcal spectrums and still retain my ideology.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight No I am happy you are giving a history lesson as to my Ideology (not that I need one) but none the less any publicity is good publicity is that not what you capitalists claim. So helping spread the word and giving peoples name of "great thinkers of the past" is a credit to you. Where did I put that party membership form? think of all those blinkered young libertarians who are going to read what you say, by golly they might go to the evil socialist public library and borrow a book
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Let me ask you something is not so that in order for true socialism to work (without people taken advantage of it and trying to cheat it) you would have to control human nature? and what is controling human nature but totalitarianism? And what does libertarianism do? They make an admittance than one cannot control human nature and that its wrong to do so anyway so instead of trying to force people to go against their nature libertarianism celebrates man's nature. cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight LMFAO you believe in a "first cause principle" I do not. your ideology falls apart because it is a false dichotomy. You are admitting that humanity cannot be better than what they already are, I say we can. I do not need a set of innate principles, you do. My beliefs require no faith yours do
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Socialism is a pipe dream and the reason why countries like Sweden and Denmark do it well is because they were rich countries in the beginning and therefore they just have not run out of money yet. Did you know most of our debt is to the Denmark? This is how they made their fortune by practically being banker countries for the last 300 years. The reason why socialism has not failed yet is simply because they have not run out of their fortune but they will.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight It is terrible that all these nations France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, etc all seem to be on the brink of rumination according to you guys or the only reason they exist and are able to provide the lifestyles for their citizens is by some big hidden vault that magically enables them year in year out to balance their budgets offer massive social services etc. tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight At least be honest and admit you really don't care how good the population has it you simply morally object to how they maintain the system. For you the fact that wealth is distributed more evenly is morally repugnant. For us in our nations it is a moral imperative. And Our nations do not have trillion dollar debts LMFAO, come on give all of us the famous barrage, taxation is theft and how dare we society steal from the wealthy what lunacy
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 There have been many versions of Utopia over the years, many of them visions of socialist society. Although Marx and Engels defined their own socialism in opposition to Utopian Socialism (which had many advocates in the early nineteenth century), they had immense respect for the great Utopian socialists like Charles Fourier and Robert Owen. by the way Henri Saint Simon coined the term "Socialism".
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Many political ideologies advance the idea of "Utopia' from Early Greece to Classical Rome, But your free history lesson into the growth of "socialist thought" is much appreciated, be sure to keep up the great work. It is what type of Utopian society they wish to create where the arguments take place. But the more you highlight the great and proud historical tradition of the Socialist Movement, the better for 'cause of equality" so i cannot commend you enough
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Also Utopia maybe fiction but do you think that if you were a close aide to Henry the VIII and wrote a straight forward political commentary that you would get away with it with your head intact? Many books written during those times were always allegories and Utopia does have a lot of elements in it that it shared with socialism and many people say that Utopia paved the way for "Utopian Socialism" which was named for this book so I was not wrong entirely on the matter.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight I could make the same claim and attribute the same premise as you do to any ideology. It certainly does not make you "sort of right". Thousands of books have been written throughout history on many different subjects by thousands of Authors. Simply claiming point a = point b makes x is balderdash. No wonder you guys claim half to 3/4 of the thinkers from the age of reason as your own LMFAO.
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight secondly I guess I block you from commenting on my channel. Your a fucking idiot and a looser who looks at history through his own closed prism without any basis in fact. As socialism and socialist ideology did not exist in the 1500's I nor can anyone make the claim based on one novel by one man that his views in that book were Representative of an ideology founded 300 years later. Your intellectual dihonesty knows no bounds. Disgusting Revisionist shit head
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight he believed we learned right and wrong from 'society' and our values come from society. And "Humans "in a state of Nature" may act with all of the ferocity of an animal" Abridged from "Discourse on inequality". That is why he valued "public education" for the "public good". He believed in the sovereignty of the people not that of the individual. That it was indeed the individual who could be the most dangerous creature and it was only the will of the body politic that prevented it
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 And also if you were to apply this to science they would have to see a living example of this because they now they cannot just hypothesize about it. What you are doing is making a hypothesis and when you make a hypothesis you are supposed to expriement on a living subject to see if your hypothesis is confirmed by your expriements. So far you cannot make a claim scientific wise because you have yet to see a living example of this. All you have is a hypothesis.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Baloney
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 oh well since you say it wont work that means it wont. I love your logic it is so flawless and see where it gets you when you make a statement but cannot back it up with evidence. In science you cannot make a claim without testing. If I said a drug does not work I have to test it first before opening my big mouth. Because things that do not work in theory can also work in reality. If all pharmacitical companies followed your logic we would all be dead.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight yawm, so wtf
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight C)Frank & I know the truth value of the atomic sentence p at world w given by the valuation v may be written v(p, w).Given this notation, the truth values(T for true,F for false) of complex sentences of modal logic for a given valuation v(and member w of the set of worlds W)may be defined by the following truth clauses. (‘iff’ abbreviates ‘if and only if’.)
(~) v(~A, w)=T iff v(A, w)=F
(→) v(A→B, w)=T iff v(A, w)=F or v(B,w)=T.
(5) v(□A,w)=T iff for every world w′ in W, v(A,w′)=T
zsylvana 1 year ago
@franks2732 and this theory of libertarianism does not work is the favorite charge by socialists who actually had societies in the last 200 years which did fail. A Socialist claims that their ideals work in both theory and in real life even though half of their real life expriements failed and yet they say "Do not even both trying to expriement with Libertarianism because it does not work". cont'd
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight N "this theory of libertarianism does not work is the favorite charge by socialists" Dude it is favorite charge of everyone who is not a libertarian.I accept that systems which claim to be Representative of a 'socialist model' have failed.Others work quite well, Sweden, France, most Nordic countries etc all have G8 lifestyles and happy populations. Some argue they are not "socialist" most agree they are, nearly every libertarian cry's in anguish at their Evil socialist systems tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight as socialism has a very broad definition and each country adopts it's own measure of "socialist policy" or social welfare systems. People can freely evaluate how well they do/did/ or did not. And any intellectual welcomes that debate. But as to your claim how dare you attack us for thinking a certain way and how dare others "dare to judge". I wonder weather you are forgiving of other Utopian ideologies? What stupidity
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Why because their socialist idealist minds can find logical fallacies? Thats because Libertarianism is the antipode of socialism so of course they are going to condemn it. It is like a KKK member talking crap about the black race as if they could possibly condone anything they do because when they start too than their logic (if they had any) flies out the window. So once a socialist condones libertarianism then they are out of buisness.
Empyreanmight 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Complete balderdash, weather a 'socialist' or anyone else debates you guys the first response we get is that our claims are a fallacy. Because you guys are "arguing from your own logic" and refuse to accept the points of your opponents as being valid. Your ideology rejects the other outright as flawed and if we point to the weakness of yours,you hide behind a wall of rhetoric. You call that rhetoric logic but you do not hold a blank check as to its interpretation tbc
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight How dare anybody use statistical evidence to support their claims as you reject the idea of "inductive logic" or reason in the social sciences, unless of course you use statistical data to draw conclusions. All others are flawed, the mighty rightness of libertarian logic cannot be questioned. All others do not have the ability to understand the nature of the truth. So endith the lesson. The religion of Libertarianism triumphs again LMFAO
franks2732 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight Are you deny that logic is to characterize the difference between valid and invalid arguments.that logical system for a language is a set of axioms and rules designed to prove exactly the valid arguments statable in the language. That logician must make sure that the system is sound,i.e.that every argument proven using the rules and axioms is in fact valid,or that soundness & completeness of formal systems is a logician's central concern as Frank just let you now in his comment?
zsylvana 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight B)Are you deny such a demonstration cannot get underway until the concept of validity is defined rigorously?And that Formal semantics for a logic provides a definition of validity by characterizing the truth behavior of the sentences of the system?In propositional logic,validity can be defined using truth tables.A valid argument is simply one where every truth table row that makes its premises true also makes its conclusion true as Frank pointed out so clear in previous comments,
zsylvana 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight D) If you follow me arguments, Clauses (~) and (→) simply describe the standard truth table behavior for negation and material implication respectively. According to (5), □A is true (at a world w) exactly when A is true in all possible worlds. Given the definition of ◊, (namely, ◊A = ~□~A) the truth condition (5) insures that ◊A is true just in case A is true in some possible world,But you deny it!!
zsylvana 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight E) Clauses (~) (→)and (5) allow us to calculate the truth value of any sentence at any world on a given valuation.A definition of validity is now just around the corner.An argument is 5-valid for a given set W (of possible worlds) if and only if every valuation of the atomic sentences that assigns the premises T at a world in W also assigns the conclusion T at the same world.An argument is said to be 5-valid iff it is valid for every non empty set of W of possible worlds.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@Empyreanmight As i shown in this serie of comments.Libertarian "Logic",is mediaval,Your propositions and questions are not only false but nonsensical.Consequently we cannot give any answer to your propositions and questions,but can only point out that they are nonsensical.Your propositions and questions arise from your failure and to understand both logic language as well your problems to deal with facts.And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all!Period!
zsylvana 1 year ago