The Philosophy of Liberty - A simple understanding of Liberty in 8 Minutes...

A simple understanding of Liberty in 8 Minutes...



This is liberty as intended by America's founders, and perpetuated by Ayn Rand, Anarcho-Capitalists, and Libertarians. Liberty is liberty. Period.

Watch.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• liberty
• anarchist
• anarchism
• ayn rand
• objectivist
• objectivism
• freedom
• philosophy
• Ron Paul
• libertarian
• libertarianism
• obama health care
• socialism
• socialist
• fascist
• fascism
• tyranny
• tyrant
• stupid Americans

[jeffiek]

@Incrue One guy needs oil??????

Do you have a friggin clue how many cars it takes to consume the oil produced by BP ( or any other company )?

[fhellstrom]

@infikitsune The reason you have valuable property is that you deferred consumption to accumulate capital, something I am able to do as well. Or, this would be the reality, if it weren't for government intervention in the form of corporatism benefiting you, and taxes/regulations etc. making it artificially costly for me to become a capitalist in my own right. THAT'S a class system. Besides, in a market economy, capitalists must direct their capital to its most valuable use or they will lose it.)

[Incrue]

One have to be very naive to not see how anarchy is convenient to the big corporations.'but if they do bad things the market will punish them', Nops.BP, can do anything, if one guy needs oil for his car he don't give a shit for were this oil came from.

[midsummerssun]

Do you actually own yourself? Had it not for your parents, you wouldn't be here. Had it not for your society, you wouldn't be the person you are right now. Humans are sociable animals, we depend on our societies to survive and thus, are in debt with our societies. Absolute 'liberty', if it could be called so, would be the utmost destruction of humankind.

[controllingaim]

I love this video! stop supporting the government! ANARCHY is LOVE!

[infikitsune]

Actually, if I have property and you don't, I'm better off if I merely rent my property to you in exchange for labor, instead of trading it. That way, I always have something that you want, without having to expend any labor myself. Then I can pass my property on to my children, and you can pass your nothing on to your children, and we have what's called a class system.

[Altik0]

1:58 - OR, we don't need to take control of nature in order for it to be worth something. I think National Parks are wonderful and valuable BECAUSE people haven't "put them to valuable use."

I find this outlook on liberty to be demeaning to its very premise, and a blatant monetization of all existence. The idea that life is only worth anything as a property is absurd, and gives way to the justification of complete atrocities to any reasonable perspective of justice.

[tgillet1]

I understand that this is a simple/basic explanation of Liberty, and so I think it is effective in that light (though a bit slow going), but ultimately it raises some very important questions that form the basis for conflict between those who generally support the philosophy of liberty. For instance, what is "force" and "theft" with regards to using the power of money as influence or in the case of pollution?

[Viperzka]

This neglects the concept of the social contract. We all give up certain rights in order to be a part of society. To gain access we are forced to perform a plethora of actions and to refrain from actions.

Additionally it does not take into account the unequal acquisition of property, nor how that property is acquired.

John Locke stated it best when he mentioned that property is the combination of freedom and nature. However, what happens when all of nature is owned?

[Jizzynuts]

I have a question:

If 'x' was abusive of the rights of 'y', how could 'x' be compensated and what would be done to 'y'?

This depiction of liberty suggests that if our rights are not respected, there is nothing we can do to stop it since we don't have the right to force the oppressive 'free agent' to abstain.

Further, it gives no incentive for people to respect others' rights, because there is no fear of punishment or retribution.

Is this the case or am I misunderstanding something?