Yes you are very close. Both Republicans and Democrats advocate slightly different forms of near total government.
Libertarian believe that the governments major role is to protect the rights of the people and that the constitution was put into place to limit thier power.
Try this vid, it will break down exactly what the difference is and why libertarians are totally different thinkers who don't get caught up in the left/right dichotomy.
I'm a huge Ron Paul fan even though I'm a UK citizen, the MSM in America deliberately reduced his airtime because they knew he spoke the truth, he's completely outside the machine politics that dominated the US election.
Totally agreed with your comments about how the word liberal has now come to mean almost socialist, good observation you only need to look at the Lib-Dem manifesto to see how correct that is.
It's so awsome someone in the UK actually is a Libertarian! (good looking chap too) My ancestors came from UK within the last century and I love Britain and would love to move back. I am just not a big fan of how there country is run now. Ron Paul is great, but won't ever be elected in USA.
You need to have more tags for this video. More stupid ass americans who don't follow politics need to know these sorts of things. Gd video tell your queen to visit us or we will stop using our (your...) central bank okay?
You actually made great points. Libertarians are "classic liberals" and Ron Paul does take a very pragmatic approach. Others: If you don't know anything about libertarianism, please do some research. Don't trash something if you do not know anything about it.
I can see where you're coming from but Ron Paul is not really advocating libertarian policies but federalist ones: to him it's OK if states implement illiberal policies because he believes in states' rights over the federal government. He isn't really running on a libertarian platform.
Libretarians are in the right wing. They are VERRRRRRY right wing (Free Market). Again, the modern Liberal party of today is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the Libertarian party. Having the state involved in morals is a VERY modern Liberal thing to do, its not Conservative at all. Who are the peoplethat are trying to get laws passed about global warming, world hunger, and socializing medicare? The modern liberals.
Also I have to point out that CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT NECCESARILY IDEOLOGICAL CONSERVATIVES.
Lol. Libertarianism share the foundation of Conservatism. The Classical Liberal party is the Libretarian party. The modern Liberal party is the socialist party of the early 1900s. Conservatives and Libertarians do share the same foundations. Look up the Conservative writings of Milton Friedmen and compare them to those of the Classical Liberal (Libertarian) writings of Hayek, and you'll find that the ideas of each both share the same foundation. The Free Market.
Ron Paul isn't liberal on social issues... He doesn't believe in true liberty. If he did he'd stand for a womans right to choose and for gay marriage.
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
-- Ron Paul, 1992, in a typical hate-filled racist tirade. Ron Paul is a sworn enemy of freedom.
Conservatism is much older than libertarianism. The old conservatives wanted to keep the acien regime. Conservatism is inherently reactionary and formed out of attacking those with ideas that were against the status quo.
Part of the confusion comes from what constituted the ancien regime. In the United States and to a lesser extent in England, individual rights and freedom have a long history. A conservative in America may be "conserving" individual rights and economic freedom while in a place like Russia or Spain, conservatives would be protecting religious statism.
ron paul is far from a genius. He offers america a bleak future of allowing the world to go as nuclear as it wants, he misunderstands the fundamentals of the israeli arab war that affects america in economic terms, he said iran has no army so why is america planning to bomb them? Iran no army? hahaha, it takes a "opposite of a genius" to say something so foolish.
On his politics - he compares pre 1913 (pre fed era) to today, what a joke comparing 1800's with 2000's finances.
he wants to turn the presidents job into what seems to sound more like a useless role. Dismantle all trade agreements and institute free trade, dismantle department of energy, infrustrcture, health, education, withdraw from all foreign policy more or less (of course what happens worldwide has no affect on the US). Whats left? a title, like people called "manager" today when really they are just assistants. Don't forget to repeal minor child labor laws while you are there.
The so called "useless" president that is not doing all this stuff for us is pretty much the role outlined in the constitution.
The Constitution outlines 3 branches of government- Executive, Legislative and the courts. Regulatory agencies set up by vague desires to "help children", "save energy", "protect the environment" etc... were in no way allowed. These agencies are in effect making up rules and represent a huge shift of power to the executive branch.
The role of the supreme court is to keep the government within the boundaries of the law. That is the whole point of "Checks and balances".
If over a period of decades constitutional experts (which supreme court judges have to be) accepted it in majority, then clearly they were deemed not unconstitutional.
Ron Paul is not the sole, or highest, authority on the constitution or it's interpretation.
The constitution is a widely available document, well written in plain english. The fact that the supreme court has sanctioned it's violation does not change what it says.
if it's so well written why can't ron paul read it? It says that STATES are not allowed to print money, not that the federal gov isn't.
Yet he keeps claiming that all monies are constitutionally based on gold or silver whereas it specifically says that STATES must only use existing currency or gold/silver, another segment it says the federal gov DOES have the power. So clearly your case is flawed to say RP is a true constitutionalist when he fails to follow it's "well written plain english".
Waw, calling me a communist? hahahahaha damn you need to learn what communism means and how it has nothing to do with what I mentioned. If child labor laws make you a communist than you'll find all western countries (not most, all) and most countries are communist countries.
Comparing iran in 1980-88 with iran in 2007 is inaccurate. Iran has developed it's own military industry which simply did not exist then. Also Iraq was supplied with top-end military equipment which mostly stopped in 1990/91. So Iraqs capabilities in 1980s were far greater than it's abilities in 2003. By 2003 there were 12 years of sanctions - few spare parts, little new equipment, much equipment battered in the gulf war and in 1998 bombardment, completely different ball game.
Israel, is placed in the opening between europe, africa, asia. The reason the US supports it isn't because of some strange love affair. It is mostly because Israel has proven (indirectly) to defend US/EU interests. When the arab world tried to make the west pay for their colonialist past etc (some people can't let go of history) they tried to close the straits (sea opening) between Europe & asia in the sinai. Israel forced it open, allowing the world trade to continue.
of course Israel did it to defend itself as it's own trade was cut off, but in the process it reopened european access and US access through the waterways stopping what could've been a trade disaster.
It proved a vital player in stopping soviet influence in the region, helping tilt the cold war in US favor.
Agree...excellent points especially regarding the transformation of definition of Liberal from its classical sense to the NEO use.
Right, Margret was a Libertarian in the sense that she really admired Hayek (and the Austrian School), that's why her and Ron Reagan got along so well! Which is why Ron Paul initially was a strong Reagan supporter!
you are a douchbag
jfcemporium 11 months ago
Yes you are very close. Both Republicans and Democrats advocate slightly different forms of near total government.
Libertarian believe that the governments major role is to protect the rights of the people and that the constitution was put into place to limit thier power.
Try this vid, it will break down exactly what the difference is and why libertarians are totally different thinkers who don't get caught up in the left/right dichotomy.
watch?v=zPefEuvqVmY
WhoIsJohnGalt4279 2 years ago
I'm a huge Ron Paul fan even though I'm a UK citizen, the MSM in America deliberately reduced his airtime because they knew he spoke the truth, he's completely outside the machine politics that dominated the US election.
Totally agreed with your comments about how the word liberal has now come to mean almost socialist, good observation you only need to look at the Lib-Dem manifesto to see how correct that is.
GeneHunt1973 3 years ago
It's so awsome someone in the UK actually is a Libertarian! (good looking chap too) My ancestors came from UK within the last century and I love Britain and would love to move back. I am just not a big fan of how there country is run now. Ron Paul is great, but won't ever be elected in USA.
Freecell5671 3 years ago
You need to have more tags for this video. More stupid ass americans who don't follow politics need to know these sorts of things. Gd video tell your queen to visit us or we will stop using our (your...) central bank okay?
nevous8 3 years ago
Id love to see ron get elected. But being closer to the source i can say its not going to be the case. REgretabbly.
fion81 3 years ago
You actually made great points. Libertarians are "classic liberals" and Ron Paul does take a very pragmatic approach. Others: If you don't know anything about libertarianism, please do some research. Don't trash something if you do not know anything about it.
wiredforsound760 4 years ago 2
great job... we need more people creating an online presence mentioning people like Hayek.
hayekian 4 years ago 2
I can see where you're coming from but Ron Paul is not really advocating libertarian policies but federalist ones: to him it's OK if states implement illiberal policies because he believes in states' rights over the federal government. He isn't really running on a libertarian platform.
ninthwave 4 years ago
good stuff son...i just wish u didnt have a british accent,,,
mpalkstuff529 4 years ago
LOL well I am British so it comes with being British. More specifically its a South Eastern home county English accent which I'm proud of ;-) hehe
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
ah, indeed
mpalkstuff529 4 years ago
Only one problem with this video... There is only two parts. Well till next time bro keep em coming.
PeckerGoblin 4 years ago
we need some more videos man
blakethepacifist 4 years ago
thanks, hehe! Yep some more soon, just have a lot on at uni right now. watch this space.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
Libretarians are in the right wing. They are VERRRRRRY right wing (Free Market). Again, the modern Liberal party of today is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the Libertarian party. Having the state involved in morals is a VERY modern Liberal thing to do, its not Conservative at all. Who are the peoplethat are trying to get laws passed about global warming, world hunger, and socializing medicare? The modern liberals.
Also I have to point out that CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT NECCESARILY IDEOLOGICAL CONSERVATIVES.
Vandicus 4 years ago
Lol. Libertarianism share the foundation of Conservatism. The Classical Liberal party is the Libretarian party. The modern Liberal party is the socialist party of the early 1900s. Conservatives and Libertarians do share the same foundations. Look up the Conservative writings of Milton Friedmen and compare them to those of the Classical Liberal (Libertarian) writings of Hayek, and you'll find that the ideas of each both share the same foundation. The Free Market.
Vandicus 4 years ago
Ron Paul isn't liberal on social issues... He doesn't believe in true liberty. If he did he'd stand for a womans right to choose and for gay marriage.
suckitjesus2 4 years ago
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
-- Ron Paul, 1992, in a typical hate-filled racist tirade. Ron Paul is a sworn enemy of freedom.
LittlePoopyJimmy 4 years ago
1. Ron Paul didn't write that. A man named "Jared Taylor" wrote it ni the 1992 newsletter, this was debunked years ago.
2. That statement wasn't racist. Most 13 yr olds who grow up around drugs and crime are more dangerous, thats a FACT.
3. Do research before being a disinfo sheeple; educate yourself.
JackNeedles 4 years ago
Ronald Reagan said:
Libertarianism is the FOUNDATION OF CONSERVATISM
VoteYourConsience 4 years ago
Conservatism is much older than libertarianism. The old conservatives wanted to keep the acien regime. Conservatism is inherently reactionary and formed out of attacking those with ideas that were against the status quo.
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
Part of the confusion comes from what constituted the ancien regime. In the United States and to a lesser extent in England, individual rights and freedom have a long history. A conservative in America may be "conserving" individual rights and economic freedom while in a place like Russia or Spain, conservatives would be protecting religious statism.
diggingpitt 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VoteYourConsience so it doesnt mean its true?
rast123456789 1 year ago
ron paul is far from a genius. He offers america a bleak future of allowing the world to go as nuclear as it wants, he misunderstands the fundamentals of the israeli arab war that affects america in economic terms, he said iran has no army so why is america planning to bomb them? Iran no army? hahaha, it takes a "opposite of a genius" to say something so foolish.
On his politics - he compares pre 1913 (pre fed era) to today, what a joke comparing 1800's with 2000's finances.
rulllar 4 years ago
he wants to turn the presidents job into what seems to sound more like a useless role. Dismantle all trade agreements and institute free trade, dismantle department of energy, infrustrcture, health, education, withdraw from all foreign policy more or less (of course what happens worldwide has no affect on the US). Whats left? a title, like people called "manager" today when really they are just assistants. Don't forget to repeal minor child labor laws while you are there.
rulllar 4 years ago
The so called "useless" president that is not doing all this stuff for us is pretty much the role outlined in the constitution.
The Constitution outlines 3 branches of government- Executive, Legislative and the courts. Regulatory agencies set up by vague desires to "help children", "save energy", "protect the environment" etc... were in no way allowed. These agencies are in effect making up rules and represent a huge shift of power to the executive branch.
diggingpitt 3 years ago
The role of the supreme court is to keep the government within the boundaries of the law. That is the whole point of "Checks and balances".
If over a period of decades constitutional experts (which supreme court judges have to be) accepted it in majority, then clearly they were deemed not unconstitutional.
Ron Paul is not the sole, or highest, authority on the constitution or it's interpretation.
rulllar 3 years ago
The constitution is a widely available document, well written in plain english. The fact that the supreme court has sanctioned it's violation does not change what it says.
diggingpitt 3 years ago
if it's so well written why can't ron paul read it? It says that STATES are not allowed to print money, not that the federal gov isn't.
Yet he keeps claiming that all monies are constitutionally based on gold or silver whereas it specifically says that STATES must only use existing currency or gold/silver, another segment it says the federal gov DOES have the power. So clearly your case is flawed to say RP is a true constitutionalist when he fails to follow it's "well written plain english".
rulllar 3 years ago
lol. I guess I just have to disagree with you, I am not into communism.
NeonKnight88 4 years ago
Waw, calling me a communist? hahahahaha damn you need to learn what communism means and how it has nothing to do with what I mentioned. If child labor laws make you a communist than you'll find all western countries (not most, all) and most countries are communist countries.
rulllar 4 years ago
why is there always something about the children?
robhdg 4 years ago
how YOU think the israeli/arab conflict affects america economically? love to get your opinion.
the us did to iraq in 2 weeks what the iranians battled for 8 years to try and accomplish. some army mate!
robhdg 4 years ago
Comparing iran in 1980-88 with iran in 2007 is inaccurate. Iran has developed it's own military industry which simply did not exist then. Also Iraq was supplied with top-end military equipment which mostly stopped in 1990/91. So Iraqs capabilities in 1980s were far greater than it's abilities in 2003. By 2003 there were 12 years of sanctions - few spare parts, little new equipment, much equipment battered in the gulf war and in 1998 bombardment, completely different ball game.
rulllar 4 years ago
Israel, is placed in the opening between europe, africa, asia. The reason the US supports it isn't because of some strange love affair. It is mostly because Israel has proven (indirectly) to defend US/EU interests. When the arab world tried to make the west pay for their colonialist past etc (some people can't let go of history) they tried to close the straits (sea opening) between Europe & asia in the sinai. Israel forced it open, allowing the world trade to continue.
rulllar 4 years ago
of course Israel did it to defend itself as it's own trade was cut off, but in the process it reopened european access and US access through the waterways stopping what could've been a trade disaster.
It proved a vital player in stopping soviet influence in the region, helping tilt the cold war in US favor.
rulllar 4 years ago
well said. btw is that a Joan Rivers top?
imsneakey 4 years ago
LOL, it is! Joan Rivers is on English Big Brother tonight, so celebrating!
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
You're awesome tbh.
NeonKnight88 4 years ago
thanks!
AndrewFraserEsq 4 years ago
Agree...excellent points especially regarding the transformation of definition of Liberal from its classical sense to the NEO use.
Right, Margret was a Libertarian in the sense that she really admired Hayek (and the Austrian School), that's why her and Ron Reagan got along so well! Which is why Ron Paul initially was a strong Reagan supporter!
Ron Paul is a genius! Thanks for excellent video!
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago 2
well said.
satorisage 4 years ago
excellent points. many people who don't usually
understand these differences.thanks
infundadiform 4 years ago