Xomniverse, I agree we should take back the word liberal. In fact I refer to myself as a classical liberal every time I get the chance. But isn't it hypocritical since we often call ourselves Libertarian, and Libertarians were originally on the Left? I would really want to know your opinion on this.
Good luck to you. I'm afraid the socialists have ruined the word liberal in American politics for many years to come. You'd be better off sticking with Libertarian. At least people know what that stands for.
Evidently you didn't watch this video,which equates liberalism with libertarianism.
My point was that the nations of Europe with far more nationalized services,according to most modern democratic indexes,have far more free societies than the US.
So while all this wrangling over libertarianism producing the most desirable form of personal freedom may sound good philosophically,its conclusions just aren't borne out by the facts.
@thirdshift47 I fully understand that this guy equates liberalism with libertarianism. Although I would argue that most libertarians today stand for the more strident versions of the classic definition of liberalism. Liberalism for centuries, as far back as John Locke, possibly further, stood for free markets, civil liberties, rule of law, burden of proof on accuser in court, low to no taxes, no state capitalism, etc.
1.)The concept of free markets never even existed in the days of John Locke(who was himself a mercantilist--to my knowledge--who by definition were opposed to the idea of free trade.
2.)I can see how both small capitalism & classical socialism are implied in his liberalism given that they both measure individual contribution to production.
3.)Sure,Libertarianism is indeed inline with 'Classical Liberalism',which came much later than Locke & added market fundamentalism to its politics.
Whether this amounts to Lockian liberalism is an entirely different question,considering individual freedom from coercive institutions is hardly limited to a particular socioeconomic theory.
@thirdshift47 now you contradicted your statements that you made to me here with you admitting that libertarianism is quite inline with classical liberalism
That's your argument:you're wrong?Go read Two treatises?LOL
I should advise you do to the same,but while you're at it give me the passages that show Locke endoresing a free enterprize system(& when you tell some one that their infos' wrong,you'd better be correct.)
@thirdshift47 "market fundamentalism" .... quite an asshole statement made by socialists to hide their own extremism. It should be called "market science" as it has been proven again and again that people get what they want from the market while government fails its way to more money and power CONSISTENTLY
Secondly,show me exactly how I contradict myself;it's obvious that you're totally oblivious to the fact that 'liberalism' & 'classical liberalism' are two totally distinct intellectual developments in the history of philosophy.
Thirdly,if you don't even know the difference between small & big business then you shouldn't even be in this discussion.
@thirdshift47 In other words, using the scientific method to prove that markets work better than government at most things. Sort of like how members of the Austrian school of economics have done, as well as the Chicago school of economics, the london school of economics, some of them vastly influential and possessing nobel prizes in economics
1.)Proving markets work better than government at bringing about prosperity is different from proving them to be better at promoting mass liberty.
2.)According to the index of economic freedom--established by the Heritage Foundation & The Wall St. Journal(hardly leftist institutions)--Hong Kong & Singapore have had the most free economies in the world since '95...
....But according to the democratic index of Freedom House,Hong Kong(whom even Friedman has described as Laissez Faire) & Singapore(who's been governed by the same unicameral political party since 1959)are not free societies...
There is also the obvious example of the role the Chicago School(who seems more neoliberal than 'classical liberal')in the anti-Communist Military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet's Chile in the 70s.
As I said in the beginning,the notion that free,'liberal' economies produce free societies sounds good in economics conferences,but the de facto 'market science' makes a much more terrifying case.
@thirdshift47 well, your knowledge is wrong. Go read Two Treasties on Government by John Locke.
2. What the heck is small capitalism? Liberals wanted free trade and other forms of capitalism period. Those who called themselves liberals believed in these things well into the 1930's. Even FDR ran on a platform of small government.
@thirdshift47 Your'e whining about wrangling, but you yourself go on about things that have nothing to do with whether libertarianism is the same as classic liberalism. You have done nothing to support your arguments.
Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in 1948:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
I came to this conclution a couple of weeks ago and figuted that we should call the "fascist liberals" progressives because they are progressing us in to the grave. These progressive aught to leave the last, I mean last!! liberal state on this earth and go pollute France. Obama should be shipped off to france or Cuba it is closer. Long live liberty!!!!!
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Wealfareautomaticly imposes one's belief on others, thereby creating a society who force a beleif set down one's throut. beware moraty laws, they come many forms, for example evironmentism is just as oppressive as the spanish inquistion FYI one's belief aught not to be forced on another, Democrats are more likey to impose morality laws than Republicans just letting you know
if you support the taxation of food that some claim is bad for you as bill maher said on his show recently, then you are a commie fucktard. fuck communism and fuck all of those that are for more unnecessary taxation!
You fag liberal. Liberalism is the downfall of white race. Niggers, Latins, Asian etc... are all subhumane since they don't have good social norms that the Western world has brought. In Africa niggers are still involved in canabalism and mass murdering. You can just say oh well the governments in third world are very bad. The government is the product of the people! Niggers are simply scum. They don't deserve any credit for their weak advancement in the US since they were brought up by whites
Sigh... Individual freedom cannot exist without justice. When a few individuals who have simply been lucky enough to gain control of the vast majority of resources can withhold those resources from the society from which they have been taken, justice does not exist. Libertarians are deluded. We've evolved a better understanding of what is necessary for freedom to exist and libertarians simply never figured it out. That doesn't give them ownership of a word.
Anyone who references Wikipedia to try and make a point loses all credibility with me. According to Wikipedia, I am a billionaire who lives with penguins on Uganda. What the matter? Couldn't bother to pick up a book?
wikipedia requires all its entries to be sourced. it is one of the most reliable forums on the internet. Yes, i can write whatever i want on wikipedia, but unless it is sourced, it will be quickly reverted to it's previous form.
for example, several years ago, i went on wikipedia and wrote that "hitler was a mass murdering fuck head" and if you go there now, you will see that this entry is no longer there.
@PCRenegade You sound like a freshmen in college who is quoting a prof. verbatim. So long as there are proper citations Wikipedia is a fantastic tool.
In fact, that is why Wikipedia is so great (if we could assume people actually delved into issues rather than stay on the surface, which is more typical), it forces me to further research to be sure of the information I am reading. You can never truly understand something by reading a summary anyways.
Conservatism, on the flip side, today means "Small government associated paradoxically with no personal freedom, racism, homophobia, religious ignorance, and ultimately, SEIG HEIL". What about us smart ones? Small government WITH personal freedom? Sounds great!
Small governments are inefficient at assuring personal liberty because history shows that a part of human nature is to assert your dominance over those who are weaker, poorer, less educated, etc. than you are if you are in a position to do so.
The fallacy of libertarianism and Randian thought in general is that even our own recent history shows that people are perfectly happy to suppress the freedoms of others if the government doesn't step in and say "NO".
i mean small government in its actions, not it's actual size. We need a police large enough to protect us from force and a military large enough to defend us from invaders. Or if your referring to the poverty of the guilded ages and blaming that on capitalism, surely it had nothing to do with the average household having 8 kids, or technology so primitive that the average worker produced much less than today right? It was the scary free-market. Give me a break liberal, if you meant that.
Actually, that's not a fallacy of Randian thought. I take that back. Randian thought actually says that people should be free to discriminate and disenfranchise people if it's in their own self-interest to do so blah blah objectivist tripe that was written by a rape fetishist who thought gays were "icky" blah blah.
Objectivism is contrary to assuring personal freedom for everyone because by it's own admission we should be free to deny personal freedoms to others if we are able to and want to.
uh, it's not your personal freedom to be able to eat at any restaurant you want. if someone is racist and wants to deny you service, it's their business and they should be able to. They lost your business and it hurts them more than you, because you can just go somewhere else. And I'm not an objectivist, i think tariffs could support a large enough but still small government. If your talking about drugs or gay marriage, that should be up to the individual to decide. THAT'S real personal freedom
Um, this is a bit of a simplistic etymology of the American definition of liberalism.
I'm sorry, in many cases you are quite simply wrong. It's a bit of a hodge podge of conflation. You draw parallels which do not in fact exist. Socialists did not call themselves liberals. In fact Socialists and Liberals were allies in the 19th century and had exchanged ideas in many cases, the fundamental reason being that they were both opposed to autocratic states and monopolies.
Modern state socialists often call themselves liberals, even if they refuse to call themselves socialists.
One has to be careful with the use of both words, but the truth is that liberal used to mean (essentially) libertarian, whereas now it basically means something inbetween state corporatism and state socialism.
That is absolutely correct, but the divisions between Lib\Soc were not so established. Both libertarians and socialists sought to use the state for their own ends, and some sought to abolish it altogether on both sides. Rothbard titled his journal Left & Right to make a point, and Ayn Rand condemned Libertarians as "rejects from the left." What is wrong these days is to attribute failure of thought along ideological lines.
HEY Xomniverse. What do you think of this raving lunatic? Surely you don't side with him? Only a religious fanatic or someone of inferior intellect can believe in free-will. I want you to discredit him in a video. I'd do it in these comments but he'll never listen.
This actually isn't about free will at all, and actually, I'm beginning to regret chasing the "Red Herring" you threw towards determinism.
Men are free to choose whether or not they will think and act rationally. This is a development of our intelligence, and if you're looking for some science behind it, I suggest you begin with the special theory of relativity. There's my red herring. Chase it if you dare.
The trouble is that leftists have co-opted the term liberal and thus given it a bad name. Back in the 50's I probably would have called myself a liberal. Now I call myself a neoconservative.
"Control every aspect of our lives"? I think you're thinking of Communism there buddy. Socialism is purely economic. Capitalists are un-evolved, knuckle-dragging primitives who worship the LAW OF THE JUNGLE. Fuck. "Free". Markets. BARACK OBAMA VICTORIOUS! SOCIALISM VICTORIOUS!!!
Socialism in its simplest form is an ideology that focuses on the welfare of the people.
Capitalism in its simplest form is an ideology focused on accumlating wealth.
-If one wants to argue they should try to understand the other side. I encourage capitalist to read some socialist literature from Upton Sinclair, G-man Orwell, or Eduard Berstein.
I would actually redifine Capitalism as the concentration of wealth into the hands of those who already possess great wealth. Whether or not that is what the theory says or promotes, it is the reality of the system when put in effect. Capitalism isn't even good in theory, but when put into effect it is always disasterous for the majority. And now we have a highly disciplined and loyal wage-slave class in pigmerikkka who worship their corporate capitalist masters. Humanity suffers.
Uh huh. And what's the alternative? Human beings naturally separate into hierarchical groupings. Witness communism. What's the difference between CEOs or party bosses skimming off the labor of millions. At least CEOs are accountable to the market whereas the human misery that socialism creates exists until the system collapses under it's own dead weight.
All of the countries with the highest quality of life are ones with market economies.
socialism is an economic system that allows lazy people to thrive on the backs of hard working people, kind of like a plantation owner and his slaves, or a tapeworm in a cow's stomach
Indeed??? So what do you call the CEOs who rake in hundreds of millions on the backs of hard working proletarians every year in this system? Or does your propaganda mind force you into selective perception? You shouldnt ignore fallacies in your own ideology. Your anti-humanist mythological economic dystopia is devoid of any intellect or love for humanity. Capitalism is not an economic theory, but rather the LACK of economic theory. It's law of the jungle. Socialism by contrast is a science.
humanity's progress isnt fueled by love, its fueled by people who work hard. socialism only works if everyone works hard. those corporate executives have to work hard to keep their companies alive. yes many of them skim off the top and do other bad things, but how is that any different than someone in a socialist society who refuses to work and is still given an equal share? have you ever read Aesop's fables? he is famous for a reason
"humanity's progress isn't fueled by love". Well my friend, I think you and I have a difference of opinion when it comes to defining the word "progress". In humanity's case, I would say my defition is more appropriate. You're right when comparing the CEO leach with the leach in the socialist system. The only problem with that theory is that you're going on a Stalinist conceptualization of what socialism is. I'd love to explain to you how real socialism works if you're interested.
Does a CEO earn his wages at the expense of his workers? Do you believe that the motor was invented by your proletarians? Did a mass of unthinking brutes harness the power of electricity? Did they invent the means to grow and harvest agriculture?
No. Human progress is fueled by the minds of individuals seeking their own personal betterment. Without these men, your proletarians would still live in caves and hunt buffalo, and any higher existence than that, you owe to better men than yourself.
Men of the mind work to the fullest extent of their capability in pursuit of the highest rewards which that their abilities can bring them. Such men turned humanity from a mass of mindless nomads into thriving civilizations. Mystics of muscle, like yourself, seek to rob that man of his rewards (in the name of your "entitlements"), and thus his justification for putting his abilities at the disposal of society, and thereby you not only stunt progress, but destroy the essence of the human spirit.
To be a proletarian simply means you don't own the means of production. In a socialist society, everyone is a bourgeoisie... in the sense that we all own the means of production. "Unthinking brutes" is hardly an accurate definition of the word. Most likely, you are a proletarian. All the wonders of our society came from technological advancement, not capitalism. And yes, there is technology in socialism lol. Actually technology develops quicker and in humanity's interest under socialism.
That, my friend, is called a straw man, and is an example of intellectual dishonesty. I suggest you argue with reason or learn more about your subject material before arguing it.
Of course technology exists in socialism. However, it rarely originates there.
Ask yourself this: Did Henry Ford invent the automobile for your benefit or his own? Did he benefit at your expense? Would you be better off if he'd not done so?
Why do people invent? Why do they lead? Why do they strive to better themselves?
Is it for the sake of their own happiness, or is it done in the name of this ever hungry, mystical spider you call "society"?
Working for the advancement of anything but one's own personal satisfaction is slavery. Extorting the products of the abilities from such people under threat of force is robbery. Explain the morality of what you believe.
Slavery? And what of wage slavery? As an atheist, I am compelled by logic to be a Hard Determinist. And as a Hard Determinist, I am compelled to deny the existence of free-will. On that premise, we can conclude that there is no such thing as "voluntary exchange". The "free-market" is as much an illusion as your free-will. This, compounded with social institutionalized forces, leads me to understand wage-slavery as the evil it is. But I'm wasting my time philosophizing with the likes of you.
Ok, first, the point that caught my immediate attention was your dismissal of free-will: I suggest you check your premises. Given that reality exists, I contend that the human ability to perceive alternatives and intelligently choose the best solutions to his own problems, illusion or not, constitutes human free will.
A wage-slave works so he does not starve. The difference between a wage-slave who recieves sustenance wages and a slave... is that the slave is taken care of because it is property of the master. Wage slaves must compete over their slave positions and are viewed as expendable by their masters. The guilt of owning slaves is gone thanks to "free-will" and the slave has to now figure out how he's going to clothe and feed himself. Wage-slavery is actually far worse than regular slavery.
To take this into the concept of rationality: Every human being at his core works for the benefit of his own survival. If you were trapped alone on a desert island, would you work 20 hours a day, just to feed yourself? I would hope so. However, there were organizational innovations discovered by men of the mind in pursuit of a better existance (development of language for working together, division of labor for working more efficiently at what you're best at, the discovery of technology, etc.)
This is the inherent connection between free-will and capitalism. As human beings have evolved the intellectual capacity to free ourselves from the instinct of survival. We are capable of seeing the difference between productivity and survival by trade, or stagnation and survival by force. The former I would classify as capitalistic and "good", the latter as animalistic and "evil". Our free will allows us to choose between the two.
We have evolved intelligence in order to preserve our lives long enough to pass along our genes to the next generation as many times as possible, just like all other living organisms.
The struggle for life is just as prevalent in humans as it is in dogs, or mice, or trees. However, there is no dog, mouse, or tree that has the capacity to act in a manner which is contrary to its own survival. For example: humans are capable of killing themselves-- dogs, mice, and trees are not.
And to that point, we also have the capability of acting against our own survival and satisfaction in other ways-- We are capable of acting in ways which are illogical, and do not stem from reason. Humans have a nasty habit of following our guts, our hearts or our feelings, instead of our rationality, and it's in that very flaw that I can prove the existence of the freedom of choice.
These were not inventions of your proletariat-- They were brought to this world for the benefit of their innovators, and society benefits anyway. Now, let's say you can produce 1 bail of wheat per month working without these innovations of the mind. Incorporate language (the ability to negotiate a job with a farmer who owns the land and hires other workers), division of labor (you no longer have to fetch the water for the crops), technology (an irrigation ditch, or a combine for harvesting)...
If the farmer has employed 10 men, and the farm produces 1000 bails of wheat in a month, then that's 100 bails per man. That's 1 that each laborer would have worked 20 hours a day for, and 99 which are a gift from the men of the mind. The landowner takes a small portion, depending on the competitiveness in markets, but that amount is competitive with other land owners who may be willing to take less and thusly put their products on the market for cheaper, or pay more money to attract workers.
The concept of free will is then passed on to the concept of economics-- supply and demand, the instantaneous creation of capital and wealth (stemming from the mutual benefit of EVERY trade that ever occurs), and that capital and wealth benefits everyone. Even the poorest citizen of the United States lives better than the greatest Indian chief who lived here 500 years ago.
And this is what you call slavery? There is a car in the driveway of virtually every American household, food in the pantries, a television in the living room with cable and a DVD player, a radio, a cellular telephone, a computer with internet access, schooling available to every child-- and slavery is the word you choose to describe it? 40 hour work weeks, cheap colleges, movie theaters, airports... all developments of Capitalism, and you dare to compare us to slaves? You must be joking.
I'm not even going to respond to your other comments as they were so painfully juvenile and riddled with fallacies and illogical irrationality that might as well try to teach a stump how to fly. Slavery has nothing to do with living conditions. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me. A slave can be pampered and given good living condition. I happen to think "a car in every driveway" is not the mark of good living but it is surely no sign of freedom. You wage-slaves are hopeless.
Sir, if you could but see my bookshelves. Let me ask you something-- If I were to, for instance, point out cotton farmers starving in Mali, who would you hold to blame?
You have a very, very poor understanding of socialism. If you did understand the theory, you'd know it was YOU that just committed a strawman. But I really have little to waste on your little mind. If you ever do any research into the science of socialism and want to have a serious discussion, I'm always willing. But I won't engage in your petty failed rhetoric.
It would be nice to be able to use the word liberal in a "Ludwig von Mises" sense, but simple fact of historical linguistics is language is always changing, nothing is used in it's original definition
If libertarians started calling themselves liberals all that will happen is people will start associating us with Democrats and left-wingers
No one pays attention to context, once you use a buzzword the actual content of what you are saying goes through one ear and out the other... unfortunately
The words socialist, communist, statist, governmentalist, progressivist, leftist, right-wing (except in reference to chicken), etc. should all be replaced with one word: despotist
In europe, liberalism means pretty much the same as in the 19th century, but there has risen a term social liberals, which are more on the leftist side. But if you say, youre a liberal, people will know pretty much what you mean....
labels and semantics. i've been called a liberal or a progressive or a socialist. even within our current understanding of those words (regardless of their etimology) i don't feel like i fit the discriptions, at least not dogmatically. i've had fervent arguments with people of every political color. i think those definitions are reductionist. my intention is to uphold a strong philosophical outlook and hfor my political opinions to extend from that base.
And for a good example of someone who pioneered some ideas about what is contemporary liberalism, look to Thomas Payne. While he's often thrown in with classical liberals like Locke, he had ideas like publicly funded education, progressive income tax, and even a minimum wage.
It's not so simple as a rabble of socialists plotted and seized the world liberal for themselves. From classical liberalism came those who saw a need for security FIRST, for without it, without the ability to have basic biological needs met, freedom itself is meaningless, constrained by real life. The "freedom" to starve to death, or die of a health condition that cannot be afforded were very real situations for people living "freely" before big government reared its head.
Secondly, what you and many others fail to realise is that the so called 'Conservatives' of today are a different side to the same coin as 'Classical' Liberals. Both support the Liberal Democratic system, that is the incoherent combination of Liberal individualism and Democratic homogeneity. Conservatives uphold the Liberal institution of parliament, 'individualism', the pursuit of 'happiness'...etc American Paleo-Conservatism is Libertarianism.
Frederic Bastiat was almost an anarchist, and Gustave de Molinari was an anarchist in all but name (he explicitly advocated moving everything into the private realm). And at the time they were considered left-wing liberals.
So no, paleo-conservatism is not the same as libertarianism.
The Paleo-Conservatives in America are more or less about deifying the Constitution, and the Constitution is a relic from the Age of Reason/Liberalism. The fact that Paleo-Conservatives, Anarchists and Libertarians support Ron Paul speaks volumes. Sure I was rash in equivocating Paleo-Conservatism with Libertarianism, as not every Lib would be a Paleo-Con and vice versa. Though it is safe to say both adhere to similar ideals based on Liberalism.
Though I will say this, anyone who tries to make Politics the handmaid to Economics (Economic Reductionism) is a twit. The depoliticization rampant with Liberalism doesn't hold, as soon as one can make the Friend-Enemy distinction, it is Political, Economics has the Coworker-Competitor distinction. The Private realm is irresponsible, those in the Private realm chose to give up Political power (peasants in the Feudal relationships and the Bourgeoisie).
not really. We did really great earlier on in the US but government decided to intervene and side with big business. If they had stayed out of the way altogether, the people could've won their negotiations for safer working environments and higher wages on their own. In many things considered public now, they used to do just fine privately. However government interevention tainted this, and no matter which side government intervenes in, if it's in a large country, it tends to fail.
omniverse you're so into all the isms. u think about all the isms play around with them in your mind and identify with one and precind from other . didnt anybody tell you that all isms are false. stop fighting for words and clusters of ideas made up by other people. and start to think for urself.
Libertarianism is what people need to be. Pure liberalism is nothing but shit. And anarchy, I'm sorry, it will never happen and never will work. Anarchy is a fantasy.
Total anarchy is impossible....just live with it, and try to change something that has a chance to change. If you want anarchy that bad, don't live in the united states, because as the way I see it, in a blunt manner, is that if you don't like what the united states of america was born on, you don't have to live here. We're not the "United states" if there is nothing to unite the states. no anarchist country is sucessful. hense The Articles of Confederation.
-sigh- If we have 100% liberalism things wont progress nearly as fast. The progression of technology and that food you love to eat will halt. Why farm and reap no reward when you dont have to? Anarchy will not work unless there is some form of government, which doesnt make sense because anarchy is without government. Liberal does not = anarchy.
As a person who identifies as a leftist and who lives in a country when the major right wing party is the Liberal Party I applaud this video. It makes me laugh when USAites call me a 'liberal'.
One problem I see is that few people hold what I call liberal ideas, ideas such as; pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro gun ownership, anti drug prohibition, anti trade union, anti public health, anti censorship, anti welfare.
Even Ron Paul rejects freedom to abort and freedom for gays to marry
There is a difference between being "pro" something and against "anti" laws. just because one believes prostitution shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean one supports it. And abortion is not "liberal" int eh true definition of the word. All humans should be afforded the same right to life. Abortion violates this, and therefore is not "liberal". and Ron Paul is for states rights on gay marriage. He is not pro gay marriage.
I guess with regard to abortion it depends on what things you define as human. I don't accept that an embryo or foetus is human, you (rowandy85) I guess do.
doesn't really matter if you accept a fetus to be human or not. It's a fact that it is. The thing in question is whether humans at that stage of development are people. That's the part where people argue on.
Individual liberties only cover people, human people. Corporations are not people, but they perverted the 14th amendment to get corporations counted as people. Shenanigans like this are the reasons for corporate control. Ron Paul and Obama are much more liberal than say, Hillary and McCain. Heck, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are close friends.
But not necessarily "extremely low regulation" against big business. Big businessmen have to be held accountable, plain and simple. To be honest, I'm kind of a socialist economically, but I'm an antistate socialist. I believe philosophically in things like universal health care, but I also believe in choice and individual freedom in using these services. I would like to see a more democratic workplace, not a dictatorship of the executive in a corporation. Democracy: not only in gov't.
Ron Paul is as much a 'liberal' as I am. I believe strongly in personal freedom socially, and he's a big economic libertarian, but he's still very socially conservative on many issues. However, he hides behind this by being a "states' righter" and using that as a copout in federal debate. If he ran for state office, he'd be little more than a conservative Goldwater Republican.
I agree, the term "liberal" has taken a whole new meaning in the US. Classical liberalism seeks not only personal freedom but also economical. A true liberal would be someone like Milton Friedman, however, now those who seek personal liberties and a big governmental role in redistributing wealth are called liberals.
The term "economic freedom" is kind of a misnomer, though. Most people who campaign for it in this country are big business Republicans and big business elites who hate taxes. Sure, there may be a relative few small businessmen who want more 'economic freedom' from regulation, but all in all, it's not really an individual thing. It's mor so applied to corporations and entities and usually refers to them. When i think of econ. freedom, I like to think of the right to buy, sell, etc.
I've always found this interesting. To the rest of the world, "liberal" (liberty) to us means someone who stands for freedom, etc. these sorts of ideals. But the word has been totally convoluted into something else in the United States
While I agree in theory; the term "Liberal" is yet another word rendered useless by the masses. The same goes for socialist, capitalist, nazism, communism, fascism, free-market, anarchism, nihilism, egoism, and a host of other words that everyone seems to have their own definition for, but rarely define. Then they come to YouTube and have meaningless semantical arguments about who is using the term correctly.
I am, have always been, and cannot imagine not being a liberal. I am not in favour of big government, so I suppose that would make me a "classical liberal". People try to use the word "liberal" as an insult, but personally I take pride in it.
If you identify yourself with contemporary liberalism then you deserve to be insulted. Do you believe in a national healthcare plan or social welfare programs? Basically if you identify yourself as a "democrat" you are not a liberal, and if you identify yourself as a "republican" you can to some extent be considered a liberal, but not really. Ron Paul is a liberal.
Science isn't an exclusively technical discipline. Mathematics isn't technical. Psychology isn't technical. But science is more apt to solve the majority of the world's inefficiencies than a pathetically blind profit agenda.
Complete disregard for maintaining public health as a priority over high profits, as well as lowering the living standards of the many (worker) to excel the living standards of a few (owner). Now your turn.
'Public health'? What is this? How does competition on a free market lower living standards (had you read the article I provided, you'll see why it is refuted Marxist tripe to insist so)? High profit industries signal new entrants to break in and further expand supply, whilst low profit ones signal the opposite. There is nothing 'blind' about this.
The vision of having society scientifically planned and guided to somehow maximize welfare. It is blind precisely because it thinks certain planners can coordinate an endeavour as massive as an economy - as if humans were utterly predictable and incapable of deviation from 'scientifically' guided roles - and not only that, but move it beyond scarcity. In this the communists were in fact more rational...
If seeking perfection is futile, I'll take getting as close as we can. You're acting as if, in postulating methods for solution, we were left with any other choice BUT to use science. But where does this scarcity notion come from? Are you implying technocracy would move humanity towards scarcity, our resources, or what?
Even the production of technology involves the use of scarce means. Time is scarce, and always will be. Scarcity must be addressed by any proper economic system. The communist system tried and failed. But at least it tried. Ignoring the problem or willing it away does absolutely nothing. Neoclassical economists, for all their faults, have done much research on time consistency of policies btw... to see what I mean you should look into that.
Science, as far as building solutions, uses "The Three R's": Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Replace old technology with new technology (which means USE it, not just develop it), Reduce the amount of resources needed for application, Refine the method. This in no way infers we use more of anything. Solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity, water/salt water engines, etc. are all renewable sources of energy encroached by capitalist objectives.
Yes, if you're creating technology out of thin air, nothing is necessary. BTW, before you go on about 'alternative' energy sources, you should be aware of the degree of intervention in markets that has caused them to be avoided. Only now are governments interested in considering them as a possibility, now that it is politically expedient.
"Yes, if you're creating technology out of thin air, nothing is necessary."
Are we still arguing about scarcity? Is there something we need that there isn't enough of? And if there is, how would capitalism approach this more efficiently than a technocracy? And PLEASE answer my FIRST question: Are you implying technocracy would CAUSE scarcity???
IT IGNORES IT. Scarcity isn't caused, it exists. This is what you seem utterly unable to grasp. And yes, of course are arguing about scarcity. Time, labour, resources used to replicate machinery etc. are ALL scarce. Capitalism deals with this more efficiently precisely through the price mechanism. Even socialists have moved towards incorporating such an element into their systems, hence market socialism.
Scarcity reflects deficit. Not the potential of limited resources (which people and time AREN'T). Tell me HOW technocracy, a fixed economy based on EFFICIENCY, ignores the issue of scarcity. Science creates the STANDARD for problem solving. It's irrational to think capitalism supercedes its applications.
Time is most definitely scarce. Doing something at what instant always precludes doing something else at that same instant. People are also limited vis-a-vis services that are desired, hence scarce. Merely saying it is based on efficiency does nothing to do away the fact that scarcity exists, i.e. that a given resource cannot be put to two conflicting uses at once. Science can do nothing about this on its own. It is precisely a fixed economy that can do nothing about scarcity.
You aren't comparing scarcity in economics, but in physical dimensions. You're basically saying that matter is scarce compared to the space it occupies, and that if matter is infinite it is infinitely scarce. And that any amount of time is scarce compared to infinity. This observation of scarcity defines potential, not probability. Can we get back to economics? Silicon = abundant limited resource. Water = abundant unlimited resource. Oil = scarce limited resource, etc.
I agree that science cannot change immutable physical laws. Subsequently, I agree we cannot ELIMINATE scarcity, by definition. We can still create efficient technology (recycling, renewable energy, etc.) and equitable economic systems (parecon, technocracy, etc.) with which to sustain ourselves. The best of these being a Technocracy, an economic system based on scientific reasoning. And now for my timely "thumbs down" and someting about liberty...
You've missed the point Terilien. Who provides funding for research isn't relevant. What's important is what kind of research is being funded and why. Private firms want to make money, not solutions. Treating the disease is far more lucrative than curing it. Private firms may also block other firms from pursuing alternatives to their products. Telling me the majority of a service is provided by a private business says nothing about the quality of the service.
This statement discerns neither the purpose nor the quality of this technology. I wouldn't compare penicilin to botox. But somehow, XOmniverse, I see this as a desperate lawyer's tactic. I don't believe you think this conclusions proves technology must or even generally is profit orientated. In capitalism, technology represents the will of the ruling class. In technocracy, technology represents the needs of the people.
Tell me truth, what position do you expect to hold in this technocracy?
I'd also like to ask : Why haven't you taken the initiative to bring togetehr like minded people and make sucha community? Ther'es some very cheap land in the Us and canada. VERY.
I should also point out that the soviet union pooled tons of money into scientific research, yet they had frequent shortages, and amassive surpluses of the most trivial goods.
not to mention that they could never get computer technology off the ground. its fine for there to be government funding of research, but the market does a great job of getting things off the ground :P.
The real question of government versus private enterprise is argued on too philosophical and abstract a basis. Theoretically, planning may be good. But nobody has ever figured out the cause of government stupidity—and until they do (and find the cure), all ideal plans will fall into quicksand.
Xomniverse, I agree we should take back the word liberal. In fact I refer to myself as a classical liberal every time I get the chance. But isn't it hypocritical since we often call ourselves Libertarian, and Libertarians were originally on the Left? I would really want to know your opinion on this.
FlashVirus 2 weeks ago
@FlashVirus I can see your point. Ultimately, use whatever word puts the right idea into the head of the person you are talking to.
XOmniverse 2 weeks ago
And also leftists even claim the word libertarian, such as Chomski does in this video: Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms
john42t 1 year ago
Good luck to you. I'm afraid the socialists have ruined the word liberal in American politics for many years to come. You'd be better off sticking with Libertarian. At least people know what that stands for.
PjPony123 1 year ago
I AM A LIBERAL.
dissolutionman 1 year ago
This is only an American phenomenon, in Europe liberal equals libertarian.
GodHatesFacts 2 years ago
In Europe they also have a much higher tax burden on average than US citizens,relative to GDP.
I guess Socialism & Libertarianism aren't mutually exclusive.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 how does your first sentence have anything to do with your second, let alone justify it?
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
Evidently you didn't watch this video,which equates liberalism with libertarianism.
My point was that the nations of Europe with far more nationalized services,according to most modern democratic indexes,have far more free societies than the US.
So while all this wrangling over libertarianism producing the most desirable form of personal freedom may sound good philosophically,its conclusions just aren't borne out by the facts.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 I fully understand that this guy equates liberalism with libertarianism. Although I would argue that most libertarians today stand for the more strident versions of the classic definition of liberalism. Liberalism for centuries, as far back as John Locke, possibly further, stood for free markets, civil liberties, rule of law, burden of proof on accuser in court, low to no taxes, no state capitalism, etc.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
1.)The concept of free markets never even existed in the days of John Locke(who was himself a mercantilist--to my knowledge--who by definition were opposed to the idea of free trade.
2.)I can see how both small capitalism & classical socialism are implied in his liberalism given that they both measure individual contribution to production.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47
3.)Sure,Libertarianism is indeed inline with 'Classical Liberalism',which came much later than Locke & added market fundamentalism to its politics.
Whether this amounts to Lockian liberalism is an entirely different question,considering individual freedom from coercive institutions is hardly limited to a particular socioeconomic theory.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 now you contradicted your statements that you made to me here with you admitting that libertarianism is quite inline with classical liberalism
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
That's your argument:you're wrong?Go read Two treatises?LOL
I should advise you do to the same,but while you're at it give me the passages that show Locke endoresing a free enterprize system(& when you tell some one that their infos' wrong,you'd better be correct.)
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 "market fundamentalism" .... quite an asshole statement made by socialists to hide their own extremism. It should be called "market science" as it has been proven again and again that people get what they want from the market while government fails its way to more money and power CONSISTENTLY
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
Secondly,show me exactly how I contradict myself;it's obvious that you're totally oblivious to the fact that 'liberalism' & 'classical liberalism' are two totally distinct intellectual developments in the history of philosophy.
Thirdly,if you don't even know the difference between small & big business then you shouldn't even be in this discussion.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
Lastly--
"Market Science?!!!!"
What the fuck?lmao
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 In other words, using the scientific method to prove that markets work better than government at most things. Sort of like how members of the Austrian school of economics have done, as well as the Chicago school of economics, the london school of economics, some of them vastly influential and possessing nobel prizes in economics
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
1.)Proving markets work better than government at bringing about prosperity is different from proving them to be better at promoting mass liberty.
2.)According to the index of economic freedom--established by the Heritage Foundation & The Wall St. Journal(hardly leftist institutions)--Hong Kong & Singapore have had the most free economies in the world since '95...
thirdshift47 1 year ago
(continued)
....But according to the democratic index of Freedom House,Hong Kong(whom even Friedman has described as Laissez Faire) & Singapore(who's been governed by the same unicameral political party since 1959)are not free societies...
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier
There is also the obvious example of the role the Chicago School(who seems more neoliberal than 'classical liberal')in the anti-Communist Military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet's Chile in the 70s.
As I said in the beginning,the notion that free,'liberal' economies produce free societies sounds good in economics conferences,but the de facto 'market science' makes a much more terrifying case.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 well, your knowledge is wrong. Go read Two Treasties on Government by John Locke.
2. What the heck is small capitalism? Liberals wanted free trade and other forms of capitalism period. Those who called themselves liberals believed in these things well into the 1930's. Even FDR ran on a platform of small government.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 Your'e whining about wrangling, but you yourself go on about things that have nothing to do with whether libertarianism is the same as classic liberalism. You have done nothing to support your arguments.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in 1948:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
modifiedcontent 2 years ago
I came to this conclution a couple of weeks ago and figuted that we should call the "fascist liberals" progressives because they are progressing us in to the grave. These progressive aught to leave the last, I mean last!! liberal state on this earth and go pollute France. Obama should be shipped off to france or Cuba it is closer. Long live liberty!!!!!
threecards333 2 years ago
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
grg61458 2 years ago 2
Wealfareautomaticly imposes one's belief on others, thereby creating a society who force a beleif set down one's throut. beware moraty laws, they come many forms, for example evironmentism is just as oppressive as the spanish inquistion FYI one's belief aught not to be forced on another, Democrats are more likey to impose morality laws than Republicans just letting you know
threecards333 2 years ago
if you support the taxation of food that some claim is bad for you as bill maher said on his show recently, then you are a commie fucktard. fuck communism and fuck all of those that are for more unnecessary taxation!
strapt313 2 years ago
You fag liberal. Liberalism is the downfall of white race. Niggers, Latins, Asian etc... are all subhumane since they don't have good social norms that the Western world has brought. In Africa niggers are still involved in canabalism and mass murdering. You can just say oh well the governments in third world are very bad. The government is the product of the people! Niggers are simply scum. They don't deserve any credit for their weak advancement in the US since they were brought up by whites
patriot44555 2 years ago
@patriot44555 if what you wrote isn't a ringing endorsement of liberalism, then I do not know what is.
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
Sigh... Individual freedom cannot exist without justice. When a few individuals who have simply been lucky enough to gain control of the vast majority of resources can withhold those resources from the society from which they have been taken, justice does not exist. Libertarians are deluded. We've evolved a better understanding of what is necessary for freedom to exist and libertarians simply never figured it out. That doesn't give them ownership of a word.
nroberts666 2 years ago
Anyone who references Wikipedia to try and make a point loses all credibility with me. According to Wikipedia, I am a billionaire who lives with penguins on Uganda. What the matter? Couldn't bother to pick up a book?
PCRenegade 2 years ago
You think I've never read books about liberalism? Ridiculous assertion.
XOmniverse 2 years ago 3
It just looks really bad when you reference an online forum, yes, that's what Wikipedia is.
PCRenegade 2 years ago
wikipedia requires all its entries to be sourced. it is one of the most reliable forums on the internet. Yes, i can write whatever i want on wikipedia, but unless it is sourced, it will be quickly reverted to it's previous form.
for example, several years ago, i went on wikipedia and wrote that "hitler was a mass murdering fuck head" and if you go there now, you will see that this entry is no longer there.
jeremalaria 2 years ago
At least he mentions his sources, unlike all your liberal gods, like Maurine Dowd, etc...
ConservativeAnthem 2 years ago
@PCRenegade You sound like a freshmen in college who is quoting a prof. verbatim. So long as there are proper citations Wikipedia is a fantastic tool.
In fact, that is why Wikipedia is so great (if we could assume people actually delved into issues rather than stay on the surface, which is more typical), it forces me to further research to be sure of the information I am reading. You can never truly understand something by reading a summary anyways.
mtb416 1 year ago
@mtb416 Wikipedia is reported to have the same level of accuracy as the encyclopedia brittanica
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier Where did you get that information? Assuming you're not being some smart***, ha
mtb416 1 year ago
@mtb416 go here:
news DOT cnet DOTCOM FORWARDSLASH 2100-1038_3-5997332 DOT html
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier replace DOTCOM with . replace FORWARDSLASH with /
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
@PCRenegade Wikipedia has been reported for having the same level of accuracy as the encyclopedia brittanica
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
Conservatism, on the flip side, today means "Small government associated paradoxically with no personal freedom, racism, homophobia, religious ignorance, and ultimately, SEIG HEIL". What about us smart ones? Small government WITH personal freedom? Sounds great!
thunt1294 2 years ago
Small governments are inefficient at assuring personal liberty because history shows that a part of human nature is to assert your dominance over those who are weaker, poorer, less educated, etc. than you are if you are in a position to do so.
The fallacy of libertarianism and Randian thought in general is that even our own recent history shows that people are perfectly happy to suppress the freedoms of others if the government doesn't step in and say "NO".
AwfulVision 2 years ago
i mean small government in its actions, not it's actual size. We need a police large enough to protect us from force and a military large enough to defend us from invaders. Or if your referring to the poverty of the guilded ages and blaming that on capitalism, surely it had nothing to do with the average household having 8 kids, or technology so primitive that the average worker produced much less than today right? It was the scary free-market. Give me a break liberal, if you meant that.
thunt1294 2 years ago
Actually, that's not a fallacy of Randian thought. I take that back. Randian thought actually says that people should be free to discriminate and disenfranchise people if it's in their own self-interest to do so blah blah objectivist tripe that was written by a rape fetishist who thought gays were "icky" blah blah.
Objectivism is contrary to assuring personal freedom for everyone because by it's own admission we should be free to deny personal freedoms to others if we are able to and want to.
AwfulVision 2 years ago
uh, it's not your personal freedom to be able to eat at any restaurant you want. if someone is racist and wants to deny you service, it's their business and they should be able to. They lost your business and it hurts them more than you, because you can just go somewhere else. And I'm not an objectivist, i think tariffs could support a large enough but still small government. If your talking about drugs or gay marriage, that should be up to the individual to decide. THAT'S real personal freedom
thunt1294 2 years ago
Then can we have back Libertarian and anarchist?
jackriter 2 years ago
no.
we get all words.. muahahaha
except.. you can have 'statist', nationalist, collectivist.. =P
~communal-anarcho-capitalist, classical-liberal, paleo-conservative, mutualist
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
How would you be a communal anarcho capitalist, or an ancap and a mutualist?
jackriter 2 years ago
communes and collectives are voluntary arrangements.
communism and collectivism are coercive.
so long as a commune in anarchism is cooperative, nor coercive, the perverse incentives of collectivism and the commons-problem are diminished..
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
Um, this is a bit of a simplistic etymology of the American definition of liberalism.
I'm sorry, in many cases you are quite simply wrong. It's a bit of a hodge podge of conflation. You draw parallels which do not in fact exist. Socialists did not call themselves liberals. In fact Socialists and Liberals were allies in the 19th century and had exchanged ideas in many cases, the fundamental reason being that they were both opposed to autocratic states and monopolies.
Mangina9000 2 years ago
Modern state socialists often call themselves liberals, even if they refuse to call themselves socialists.
One has to be careful with the use of both words, but the truth is that liberal used to mean (essentially) libertarian, whereas now it basically means something inbetween state corporatism and state socialism.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
"liberal used to mean (essentially) libertarian"
That is absolutely correct, but the divisions between Lib\Soc were not so established. Both libertarians and socialists sought to use the state for their own ends, and some sought to abolish it altogether on both sides. Rothbard titled his journal Left & Right to make a point, and Ayn Rand condemned Libertarians as "rejects from the left." What is wrong these days is to attribute failure of thought along ideological lines.
Mangina9000 2 years ago
HEY Xomniverse. What do you think of this raving lunatic? Surely you don't side with him? Only a religious fanatic or someone of inferior intellect can believe in free-will. I want you to discredit him in a video. I'd do it in these comments but he'll never listen.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
I already did a video on free will called Free Will, Determinism, and Compatibilism.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
This actually isn't about free will at all, and actually, I'm beginning to regret chasing the "Red Herring" you threw towards determinism.
Men are free to choose whether or not they will think and act rationally. This is a development of our intelligence, and if you're looking for some science behind it, I suggest you begin with the special theory of relativity. There's my red herring. Chase it if you dare.
dasnyds 3 years ago
Otherwise, answer my question about cotton farmers in Mali.
dasnyds 3 years ago
The trouble is that leftists have co-opted the term liberal and thus given it a bad name. Back in the 50's I probably would have called myself a liberal. Now I call myself a neoconservative.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
what the hell is the point of this video? okay its a bunch of different definitions of the world liberal
zamul1022 3 years ago
liberty = equality
msteelman 3 years ago
"Control every aspect of our lives"? I think you're thinking of Communism there buddy. Socialism is purely economic. Capitalists are un-evolved, knuckle-dragging primitives who worship the LAW OF THE JUNGLE. Fuck. "Free". Markets. BARACK OBAMA VICTORIOUS! SOCIALISM VICTORIOUS!!!
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Fail.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
Socialism in its simplest form is an ideology that focuses on the welfare of the people.
Capitalism in its simplest form is an ideology focused on accumlating wealth.
-If one wants to argue they should try to understand the other side. I encourage capitalist to read some socialist literature from Upton Sinclair, G-man Orwell, or Eduard Berstein.
siebelseibel76 3 years ago
I would actually redifine Capitalism as the concentration of wealth into the hands of those who already possess great wealth. Whether or not that is what the theory says or promotes, it is the reality of the system when put in effect. Capitalism isn't even good in theory, but when put into effect it is always disasterous for the majority. And now we have a highly disciplined and loyal wage-slave class in pigmerikkka who worship their corporate capitalist masters. Humanity suffers.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Uh huh. And what's the alternative? Human beings naturally separate into hierarchical groupings. Witness communism. What's the difference between CEOs or party bosses skimming off the labor of millions. At least CEOs are accountable to the market whereas the human misery that socialism creates exists until the system collapses under it's own dead weight.
All of the countries with the highest quality of life are ones with market economies.
XKS99 3 years ago
socialism is an economic system that allows lazy people to thrive on the backs of hard working people, kind of like a plantation owner and his slaves, or a tapeworm in a cow's stomach
DeathBringer9000 3 years ago
Indeed??? So what do you call the CEOs who rake in hundreds of millions on the backs of hard working proletarians every year in this system? Or does your propaganda mind force you into selective perception? You shouldnt ignore fallacies in your own ideology. Your anti-humanist mythological economic dystopia is devoid of any intellect or love for humanity. Capitalism is not an economic theory, but rather the LACK of economic theory. It's law of the jungle. Socialism by contrast is a science.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
humanity's progress isnt fueled by love, its fueled by people who work hard. socialism only works if everyone works hard. those corporate executives have to work hard to keep their companies alive. yes many of them skim off the top and do other bad things, but how is that any different than someone in a socialist society who refuses to work and is still given an equal share? have you ever read Aesop's fables? he is famous for a reason
DeathBringer9000 3 years ago
"humanity's progress isn't fueled by love". Well my friend, I think you and I have a difference of opinion when it comes to defining the word "progress". In humanity's case, I would say my defition is more appropriate. You're right when comparing the CEO leach with the leach in the socialist system. The only problem with that theory is that you're going on a Stalinist conceptualization of what socialism is. I'd love to explain to you how real socialism works if you're interested.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Does a CEO earn his wages at the expense of his workers? Do you believe that the motor was invented by your proletarians? Did a mass of unthinking brutes harness the power of electricity? Did they invent the means to grow and harvest agriculture?
No. Human progress is fueled by the minds of individuals seeking their own personal betterment. Without these men, your proletarians would still live in caves and hunt buffalo, and any higher existence than that, you owe to better men than yourself.
dasnyds 3 years ago
Men of the mind work to the fullest extent of their capability in pursuit of the highest rewards which that their abilities can bring them. Such men turned humanity from a mass of mindless nomads into thriving civilizations. Mystics of muscle, like yourself, seek to rob that man of his rewards (in the name of your "entitlements"), and thus his justification for putting his abilities at the disposal of society, and thereby you not only stunt progress, but destroy the essence of the human spirit.
dasnyds 3 years ago
I'm not even going to address this onslaught of malarkous bullshit. Your contempt for reason and intellect runs deep, friend.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
To be a proletarian simply means you don't own the means of production. In a socialist society, everyone is a bourgeoisie... in the sense that we all own the means of production. "Unthinking brutes" is hardly an accurate definition of the word. Most likely, you are a proletarian. All the wonders of our society came from technological advancement, not capitalism. And yes, there is technology in socialism lol. Actually technology develops quicker and in humanity's interest under socialism.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
That, my friend, is called a straw man, and is an example of intellectual dishonesty. I suggest you argue with reason or learn more about your subject material before arguing it.
Of course technology exists in socialism. However, it rarely originates there.
Ask yourself this: Did Henry Ford invent the automobile for your benefit or his own? Did he benefit at your expense? Would you be better off if he'd not done so?
dasnyds 3 years ago
Why do people invent? Why do they lead? Why do they strive to better themselves?
Is it for the sake of their own happiness, or is it done in the name of this ever hungry, mystical spider you call "society"?
Working for the advancement of anything but one's own personal satisfaction is slavery. Extorting the products of the abilities from such people under threat of force is robbery. Explain the morality of what you believe.
dasnyds 3 years ago
Slavery? And what of wage slavery? As an atheist, I am compelled by logic to be a Hard Determinist. And as a Hard Determinist, I am compelled to deny the existence of free-will. On that premise, we can conclude that there is no such thing as "voluntary exchange". The "free-market" is as much an illusion as your free-will. This, compounded with social institutionalized forces, leads me to understand wage-slavery as the evil it is. But I'm wasting my time philosophizing with the likes of you.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Oh wow, where to start....
Ok, first, the point that caught my immediate attention was your dismissal of free-will: I suggest you check your premises. Given that reality exists, I contend that the human ability to perceive alternatives and intelligently choose the best solutions to his own problems, illusion or not, constitutes human free will.
dasnyds 3 years ago
but it IS an illusion. There is no free-will. I don't know how you can say "illusion or not" and then conclude that it is free-will.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Second: Wage slavery--
A wage is the product of trade-- The exchange of one's time and energy in return for money, to the advantage of all parties involved.
A slave is the product of force-- A slave works so that he isn't beaten or starved.
If you feel there is no difference, I invite you to feel the difference on your own hide.
dasnyds 3 years ago
A wage-slave works so he does not starve. The difference between a wage-slave who recieves sustenance wages and a slave... is that the slave is taken care of because it is property of the master. Wage slaves must compete over their slave positions and are viewed as expendable by their masters. The guilt of owning slaves is gone thanks to "free-will" and the slave has to now figure out how he's going to clothe and feed himself. Wage-slavery is actually far worse than regular slavery.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
To take this into the concept of rationality: Every human being at his core works for the benefit of his own survival. If you were trapped alone on a desert island, would you work 20 hours a day, just to feed yourself? I would hope so. However, there were organizational innovations discovered by men of the mind in pursuit of a better existance (development of language for working together, division of labor for working more efficiently at what you're best at, the discovery of technology, etc.)
dasnyds 3 years ago
This is the inherent connection between free-will and capitalism. As human beings have evolved the intellectual capacity to free ourselves from the instinct of survival. We are capable of seeing the difference between productivity and survival by trade, or stagnation and survival by force. The former I would classify as capitalistic and "good", the latter as animalistic and "evil". Our free will allows us to choose between the two.
dasnyds 3 years ago
There. Is. No. Free. Will.
I don't know where XOmniverse stands on this. But if he doesn't believe in free-will, he is compelled by logic to be a socialist.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
We have evolved intelligence in order to preserve our lives long enough to pass along our genes to the next generation as many times as possible, just like all other living organisms.
The struggle for life is just as prevalent in humans as it is in dogs, or mice, or trees. However, there is no dog, mouse, or tree that has the capacity to act in a manner which is contrary to its own survival. For example: humans are capable of killing themselves-- dogs, mice, and trees are not.
dasnyds 3 years ago
And to that point, we also have the capability of acting against our own survival and satisfaction in other ways-- We are capable of acting in ways which are illogical, and do not stem from reason. Humans have a nasty habit of following our guts, our hearts or our feelings, instead of our rationality, and it's in that very flaw that I can prove the existence of the freedom of choice.
dasnyds 3 years ago
These were not inventions of your proletariat-- They were brought to this world for the benefit of their innovators, and society benefits anyway. Now, let's say you can produce 1 bail of wheat per month working without these innovations of the mind. Incorporate language (the ability to negotiate a job with a farmer who owns the land and hires other workers), division of labor (you no longer have to fetch the water for the crops), technology (an irrigation ditch, or a combine for harvesting)...
dasnyds 3 years ago
If the farmer has employed 10 men, and the farm produces 1000 bails of wheat in a month, then that's 100 bails per man. That's 1 that each laborer would have worked 20 hours a day for, and 99 which are a gift from the men of the mind. The landowner takes a small portion, depending on the competitiveness in markets, but that amount is competitive with other land owners who may be willing to take less and thusly put their products on the market for cheaper, or pay more money to attract workers.
dasnyds 3 years ago
The concept of free will is then passed on to the concept of economics-- supply and demand, the instantaneous creation of capital and wealth (stemming from the mutual benefit of EVERY trade that ever occurs), and that capital and wealth benefits everyone. Even the poorest citizen of the United States lives better than the greatest Indian chief who lived here 500 years ago.
dasnyds 3 years ago
And this is what you call slavery? There is a car in the driveway of virtually every American household, food in the pantries, a television in the living room with cable and a DVD player, a radio, a cellular telephone, a computer with internet access, schooling available to every child-- and slavery is the word you choose to describe it? 40 hour work weeks, cheap colleges, movie theaters, airports... all developments of Capitalism, and you dare to compare us to slaves? You must be joking.
dasnyds 3 years ago
I'm not even going to respond to your other comments as they were so painfully juvenile and riddled with fallacies and illogical irrationality that might as well try to teach a stump how to fly. Slavery has nothing to do with living conditions. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me. A slave can be pampered and given good living condition. I happen to think "a car in every driveway" is not the mark of good living but it is surely no sign of freedom. You wage-slaves are hopeless.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Sir, if you could but see my bookshelves. Let me ask you something-- If I were to, for instance, point out cotton farmers starving in Mali, who would you hold to blame?
dasnyds 3 years ago
The first world systematically exploits the third. I would blame the system.
macekid421 3 years ago
You have a very, very poor understanding of socialism. If you did understand the theory, you'd know it was YOU that just committed a strawman. But I really have little to waste on your little mind. If you ever do any research into the science of socialism and want to have a serious discussion, I'm always willing. But I won't engage in your petty failed rhetoric.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
But you forget. A new problem surfaced that at its root is undemocratic: Corporations.
siebelseibel76 3 years ago 2
Can we have Anarchism back then?
jackriter 3 years ago
It would be nice to be able to use the word liberal in a "Ludwig von Mises" sense, but simple fact of historical linguistics is language is always changing, nothing is used in it's original definition
If libertarians started calling themselves liberals all that will happen is people will start associating us with Democrats and left-wingers
No one pays attention to context, once you use a buzzword the actual content of what you are saying goes through one ear and out the other... unfortunately
Melchior727 3 years ago 2
The words socialist, communist, statist, governmentalist, progressivist, leftist, right-wing (except in reference to chicken), etc. should all be replaced with one word: despotist
JohnHolmes3000 3 years ago
indeed
jblive1985 3 years ago
You get your information from Wikipedia? LMAO XD
Molotovmind87 3 years ago
Wikipedia's definition of the term does coincide with its use both historically and academically.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Your right. My personal copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary agrees with both you and Wikipedia.
JohnHolmes3000 3 years ago
In europe, liberalism means pretty much the same as in the 19th century, but there has risen a term social liberals, which are more on the leftist side. But if you say, youre a liberal, people will know pretty much what you mean....
JLCMJelly 3 years ago
Amen! I am a communist and I am NOT LIBERAL at all! I hate it when I am called that.
It's like, dude I'm pro-censorship etc, so how am I for liberty?!? LMFAO
PriestessLeah 3 years ago 3
labels and semantics. i've been called a liberal or a progressive or a socialist. even within our current understanding of those words (regardless of their etimology) i don't feel like i fit the discriptions, at least not dogmatically. i've had fervent arguments with people of every political color. i think those definitions are reductionist. my intention is to uphold a strong philosophical outlook and hfor my political opinions to extend from that base.
fedeman2 3 years ago
what individual? who builds yr cars? who grows yr food? where are individuals?
plutoohno 3 years ago 2
And for a good example of someone who pioneered some ideas about what is contemporary liberalism, look to Thomas Payne. While he's often thrown in with classical liberals like Locke, he had ideas like publicly funded education, progressive income tax, and even a minimum wage.
chiconspiricy 3 years ago
It's not so simple as a rabble of socialists plotted and seized the world liberal for themselves. From classical liberalism came those who saw a need for security FIRST, for without it, without the ability to have basic biological needs met, freedom itself is meaningless, constrained by real life. The "freedom" to starve to death, or die of a health condition that cannot be afforded were very real situations for people living "freely" before big government reared its head.
chiconspiricy 3 years ago
i love how you point out how antiliberty the liberals of today are.
one cannot support big govt as well as individual rights.
their is no such thing as liberty when big govt exists.
UnicornHead 3 years ago
Let me first say this, excellent music selection!
Secondly, what you and many others fail to realise is that the so called 'Conservatives' of today are a different side to the same coin as 'Classical' Liberals. Both support the Liberal Democratic system, that is the incoherent combination of Liberal individualism and Democratic homogeneity. Conservatives uphold the Liberal institution of parliament, 'individualism', the pursuit of 'happiness'...etc American Paleo-Conservatism is Libertarianism.
Morgan8914 3 years ago 2
Frederic Bastiat was almost an anarchist, and Gustave de Molinari was an anarchist in all but name (he explicitly advocated moving everything into the private realm). And at the time they were considered left-wing liberals.
So no, paleo-conservatism is not the same as libertarianism.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
The Paleo-Conservatives in America are more or less about deifying the Constitution, and the Constitution is a relic from the Age of Reason/Liberalism. The fact that Paleo-Conservatives, Anarchists and Libertarians support Ron Paul speaks volumes. Sure I was rash in equivocating Paleo-Conservatism with Libertarianism, as not every Lib would be a Paleo-Con and vice versa. Though it is safe to say both adhere to similar ideals based on Liberalism.
Morgan8914 3 years ago
Though I will say this, anyone who tries to make Politics the handmaid to Economics (Economic Reductionism) is a twit. The depoliticization rampant with Liberalism doesn't hold, as soon as one can make the Friend-Enemy distinction, it is Political, Economics has the Coworker-Competitor distinction. The Private realm is irresponsible, those in the Private realm chose to give up Political power (peasants in the Feudal relationships and the Bourgeoisie).
Morgan8914 3 years ago
To transfer the Public realm to the Private is not only irresponsible but a Utopic fantasy.
Morgan8914 3 years ago
not really. We did really great earlier on in the US but government decided to intervene and side with big business. If they had stayed out of the way altogether, the people could've won their negotiations for safer working environments and higher wages on their own. In many things considered public now, they used to do just fine privately. However government interevention tainted this, and no matter which side government intervenes in, if it's in a large country, it tends to fail.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
omniverse you're so into all the isms. u think about all the isms play around with them in your mind and identify with one and precind from other . didnt anybody tell you that all isms are false. stop fighting for words and clusters of ideas made up by other people. and start to think for urself.
ampfer 3 years ago
I always think for myself. Don't make assumptions.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Libertarianism is what people need to be. Pure liberalism is nothing but shit. And anarchy, I'm sorry, it will never happen and never will work. Anarchy is a fantasy.
braino2000 3 years ago
Total anarchy is impossible....just live with it, and try to change something that has a chance to change. If you want anarchy that bad, don't live in the united states, because as the way I see it, in a blunt manner, is that if you don't like what the united states of america was born on, you don't have to live here. We're not the "United states" if there is nothing to unite the states. no anarchist country is sucessful. hense The Articles of Confederation.
redeyes101 3 years ago
-sigh- If we have 100% liberalism things wont progress nearly as fast. The progression of technology and that food you love to eat will halt. Why farm and reap no reward when you dont have to? Anarchy will not work unless there is some form of government, which doesnt make sense because anarchy is without government. Liberal does not = anarchy.
my666reality 3 years ago
As a person who identifies as a leftist and who lives in a country when the major right wing party is the Liberal Party I applaud this video. It makes me laugh when USAites call me a 'liberal'.
One problem I see is that few people hold what I call liberal ideas, ideas such as; pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro gun ownership, anti drug prohibition, anti trade union, anti public health, anti censorship, anti welfare.
Even Ron Paul rejects freedom to abort and freedom for gays to marry
maxine2win 3 years ago
actually, no, you douche. Ron Paul supports gay marriage, you stupid cunt
JosephtheLibertarian 3 years ago
you're a bit belligerent
can you give any evidence that RP supports gay marriage
maxine2win 3 years ago
There is a difference between being "pro" something and against "anti" laws. just because one believes prostitution shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean one supports it. And abortion is not "liberal" int eh true definition of the word. All humans should be afforded the same right to life. Abortion violates this, and therefore is not "liberal". and Ron Paul is for states rights on gay marriage. He is not pro gay marriage.
rowandy85 3 years ago
I guess with regard to abortion it depends on what things you define as human. I don't accept that an embryo or foetus is human, you (rowandy85) I guess do.
maxine2win 3 years ago
doesn't really matter if you accept a fetus to be human or not. It's a fact that it is. The thing in question is whether humans at that stage of development are people. That's the part where people argue on.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
Individual liberties only cover people, human people. Corporations are not people, but they perverted the 14th amendment to get corporations counted as people. Shenanigans like this are the reasons for corporate control. Ron Paul and Obama are much more liberal than say, Hillary and McCain. Heck, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are close friends.
rookandpawn 3 years ago
But not necessarily "extremely low regulation" against big business. Big businessmen have to be held accountable, plain and simple. To be honest, I'm kind of a socialist economically, but I'm an antistate socialist. I believe philosophically in things like universal health care, but I also believe in choice and individual freedom in using these services. I would like to see a more democratic workplace, not a dictatorship of the executive in a corporation. Democracy: not only in gov't.
Whoo69 3 years ago
Ron Paul is as much a 'liberal' as I am. I believe strongly in personal freedom socially, and he's a big economic libertarian, but he's still very socially conservative on many issues. However, he hides behind this by being a "states' righter" and using that as a copout in federal debate. If he ran for state office, he'd be little more than a conservative Goldwater Republican.
Whoo69 3 years ago
it's not a copout to suggest that certain issues should be issues of the state, which are by the Constitution issues of the state.
rowandy85 3 years ago
Freedom and virtue is a very good book on the relationship between conservatism and libertarianism--sort of off-topic but related.
kgwickings 3 years ago
I agree, the term "liberal" has taken a whole new meaning in the US. Classical liberalism seeks not only personal freedom but also economical. A true liberal would be someone like Milton Friedman, however, now those who seek personal liberties and a big governmental role in redistributing wealth are called liberals.
ITSjustTHATguy 3 years ago
The term "economic freedom" is kind of a misnomer, though. Most people who campaign for it in this country are big business Republicans and big business elites who hate taxes. Sure, there may be a relative few small businessmen who want more 'economic freedom' from regulation, but all in all, it's not really an individual thing. It's mor so applied to corporations and entities and usually refers to them. When i think of econ. freedom, I like to think of the right to buy, sell, etc.
Whoo69 3 years ago
Öhhm libertarian has nothing to do with liberalism! Who has made this video? Libertarianism is socioanarchism
kabbinet 3 years ago
That is one of two definitions of libertarianism.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I've always found this interesting. To the rest of the world, "liberal" (liberty) to us means someone who stands for freedom, etc. these sorts of ideals. But the word has been totally convoluted into something else in the United States
charliemaine01 4 years ago
The Republicans have done a good job of spreading an ideology that "Liberals" are not PRO-Life, etc--not so. Whey are so many republicans so pro WAR?
Such a tautology to me
veelighted7 3 years ago
While I agree in theory; the term "Liberal" is yet another word rendered useless by the masses. The same goes for socialist, capitalist, nazism, communism, fascism, free-market, anarchism, nihilism, egoism, and a host of other words that everyone seems to have their own definition for, but rarely define. Then they come to YouTube and have meaningless semantical arguments about who is using the term correctly.
Harpakhrad11 4 years ago
I am, have always been, and cannot imagine not being a liberal. I am not in favour of big government, so I suppose that would make me a "classical liberal". People try to use the word "liberal" as an insult, but personally I take pride in it.
AtheistAaron 4 years ago
If you identify yourself with contemporary liberalism then you deserve to be insulted. Do you believe in a national healthcare plan or social welfare programs? Basically if you identify yourself as a "democrat" you are not a liberal, and if you identify yourself as a "republican" you can to some extent be considered a liberal, but not really. Ron Paul is a liberal.
GaleryonTheMystic 4 years ago
Remember: As Rudy G says, "Authority is Freedom!"
Bill25cycle 4 years ago 2
There are economic problems that aren't purely technical. In fact many are largely not technical.
Terilien 4 years ago
Science isn't an exclusively technical discipline. Mathematics isn't technical. Psychology isn't technical. But science is more apt to solve the majority of the world's inefficiencies than a pathetically blind profit agenda.
TruthDevours 4 years ago
Sure, according to the technocrat's pathetically blind agenda.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
do you any idea how important prices are in the sphere of production?
Terilien 4 years ago
Apparently not Terilien. Feel free to disclose yours.
TruthDevours 4 years ago
What do you think that is Elhan? And what exactly makes it "blind"?
TruthDevours 4 years ago
How about you first disclose what makes the so-called profit agenda blind?
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Complete disregard for maintaining public health as a priority over high profits, as well as lowering the living standards of the many (worker) to excel the living standards of a few (owner). Now your turn.
TruthDevours 4 years ago
'Public health'? What is this? How does competition on a free market lower living standards (had you read the article I provided, you'll see why it is refuted Marxist tripe to insist so)? High profit industries signal new entrants to break in and further expand supply, whilst low profit ones signal the opposite. There is nothing 'blind' about this.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
The vision of having society scientifically planned and guided to somehow maximize welfare. It is blind precisely because it thinks certain planners can coordinate an endeavour as massive as an economy - as if humans were utterly predictable and incapable of deviation from 'scientifically' guided roles - and not only that, but move it beyond scarcity. In this the communists were in fact more rational...
Elhan2005 4 years ago
If seeking perfection is futile, I'll take getting as close as we can. You're acting as if, in postulating methods for solution, we were left with any other choice BUT to use science. But where does this scarcity notion come from? Are you implying technocracy would move humanity towards scarcity, our resources, or what?
TruthDevours 4 years ago
Even the production of technology involves the use of scarce means. Time is scarce, and always will be. Scarcity must be addressed by any proper economic system. The communist system tried and failed. But at least it tried. Ignoring the problem or willing it away does absolutely nothing. Neoclassical economists, for all their faults, have done much research on time consistency of policies btw... to see what I mean you should look into that.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Science, as far as building solutions, uses "The Three R's": Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Replace old technology with new technology (which means USE it, not just develop it), Reduce the amount of resources needed for application, Refine the method. This in no way infers we use more of anything. Solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity, water/salt water engines, etc. are all renewable sources of energy encroached by capitalist objectives.
TruthDevours 4 years ago
Yes, if you're creating technology out of thin air, nothing is necessary. BTW, before you go on about 'alternative' energy sources, you should be aware of the degree of intervention in markets that has caused them to be avoided. Only now are governments interested in considering them as a possibility, now that it is politically expedient.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
"Yes, if you're creating technology out of thin air, nothing is necessary."
Are we still arguing about scarcity? Is there something we need that there isn't enough of? And if there is, how would capitalism approach this more efficiently than a technocracy? And PLEASE answer my FIRST question: Are you implying technocracy would CAUSE scarcity???
TruthDevours 4 years ago
IT IGNORES IT. Scarcity isn't caused, it exists. This is what you seem utterly unable to grasp. And yes, of course are arguing about scarcity. Time, labour, resources used to replicate machinery etc. are ALL scarce. Capitalism deals with this more efficiently precisely through the price mechanism. Even socialists have moved towards incorporating such an element into their systems, hence market socialism.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Scarcity reflects deficit. Not the potential of limited resources (which people and time AREN'T). Tell me HOW technocracy, a fixed economy based on EFFICIENCY, ignores the issue of scarcity. Science creates the STANDARD for problem solving. It's irrational to think capitalism supercedes its applications.
TruthDevours 4 years ago
Time is most definitely scarce. Doing something at what instant always precludes doing something else at that same instant. People are also limited vis-a-vis services that are desired, hence scarce. Merely saying it is based on efficiency does nothing to do away the fact that scarcity exists, i.e. that a given resource cannot be put to two conflicting uses at once. Science can do nothing about this on its own. It is precisely a fixed economy that can do nothing about scarcity.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
You aren't comparing scarcity in economics, but in physical dimensions. You're basically saying that matter is scarce compared to the space it occupies, and that if matter is infinite it is infinitely scarce. And that any amount of time is scarce compared to infinity. This observation of scarcity defines potential, not probability. Can we get back to economics? Silicon = abundant limited resource. Water = abundant unlimited resource. Oil = scarce limited resource, etc.
TruthDevours 4 years ago
I agree that science cannot change immutable physical laws. Subsequently, I agree we cannot ELIMINATE scarcity, by definition. We can still create efficient technology (recycling, renewable energy, etc.) and equitable economic systems (parecon, technocracy, etc.) with which to sustain ourselves. The best of these being a Technocracy, an economic system based on scientific reasoning. And now for my timely "thumbs down" and someting about liberty...
TruthDevours 4 years ago
Most of the technology we have was developed by people with a profit agenda.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
bessemer convertoers electirc arc furnaces, the spread of computers.
I'm not against government funded basic research.
Oh and most medical reserch takes palce in singapore and the US, and its mostly private.
Terilien 4 years ago
You've missed the point Terilien. Who provides funding for research isn't relevant. What's important is what kind of research is being funded and why. Private firms want to make money, not solutions. Treating the disease is far more lucrative than curing it. Private firms may also block other firms from pursuing alternatives to their products. Telling me the majority of a service is provided by a private business says nothing about the quality of the service.
TruthDevours 4 years ago
Yes and there are valid areas in which the government can provide research.
Terilien 4 years ago
This statement discerns neither the purpose nor the quality of this technology. I wouldn't compare penicilin to botox. But somehow, XOmniverse, I see this as a desperate lawyer's tactic. I don't believe you think this conclusions proves technology must or even generally is profit orientated. In capitalism, technology represents the will of the ruling class. In technocracy, technology represents the needs of the people.
TruthDevours 4 years ago
Ummmm no under capitalism technology represents the will of consumers.
Terilien 4 years ago
Tell me truth, what position do you expect to hold in this technocracy?
I'd also like to ask : Why haven't you taken the initiative to bring togetehr like minded people and make sucha community? Ther'es some very cheap land in the Us and canada. VERY.
Terilien 4 years ago
I should also point out that the soviet union pooled tons of money into scientific research, yet they had frequent shortages, and amassive surpluses of the most trivial goods.
not to mention that they could never get computer technology off the ground. its fine for there to be government funding of research, but the market does a great job of getting things off the ground :P.
Terilien 4 years ago
The real question of government versus private enterprise is argued on too philosophical and abstract a basis. Theoretically, planning may be good. But nobody has ever figured out the cause of government stupidity—and until they do (and find the cure), all ideal plans will fall into quicksand.
Terilien 4 years ago
richard feynman rules :P.
Terilien 4 years ago
The same reason the Soviets d