@@CeaddaOfMercia the paths chosen by different groups to achieve freedom in some cases are so dramatically different that you can not include as being part of the same philosophy if the ancaps want to abolish government and another group wants to keep a strong government then those two ideas are so far apart that you the two groups have be considered part of two different philosophies secondly, just because governments have violated rights in the past doesn't mean we can't prevent it from violating our rights in the future we can prevent it if we get up and defend our rights lastly , it's nearly impossible to replace he public military because you have to defend very large areas of land and this can't be done by individual subscription, or the publicly sanctioned courts because to lock someone up you need the authority from the citizens
You are spot on when it comes to your statement that 'Libertarian' is an umbrella term, and that ideologies under it are 90% similar in principle, yet vastly differently in how, and how many of the principles are achieved.
Hey ancap want to unleash the cops? Do stick up for the corporations and the pigs who protect their property? "Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society" -Murray Rothbard
Liberals in 1930: laizzes-fiare (I know it is misspelled) Liberals in 1960: Keynes economics Liberals in 2010: Democratic socialist Liberals in 2020: Socialist Liberals in 2050: Communist
Another great video man, well done I might have missed it but if you've not done it yet would you consider doing a "how to convince people from other camps to become a libertarian"?
Hey, fellow libertarian. It would be cool if you made a video on Hans Hoppe's argumentation ethics, proving private property is a natural law, or simply through deductive reasoning.
@@CeaddaOfMercia Hoppe is a fascist. Almost as fascist as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. www.unkochmycampus.org/los-ch2-part-4-the-ideas-austrian-economics-aka-classical-liberalism-a-gateway-to-extremism "Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society" -Murray bin Rothbard
i posted this on Reddit The term "Libertarian" was originally coined in the 📷 Enlightenment to describe supporters of free will (as opposed to determinism) and with it generally free action. With the first recorded usage of the term being in 1789. As such, to say that "Libertarianism" is a strictly leftist term is not intellectually honest. Also, our interpretations of left and right came in the french revolution libertarianism was here way before that in Greece China and America in those times they were just ideologies not left or right furthermore originally right libs were originally called liberals until statists took that name if you search on Wikipedia right libertarianism the sidebar literally says liberalism
I like libertarianism until we get to the whole faith that capitalism will help the needy which many aren’t very well known for. There are companies that have been caught ripping up and trashing their clothes instead of just donating them or throwing them g away fish and the like to save on money, evilness. Sure free market, but there has to be some sanity here to though. A billionaire shouldn’t be able to just keep getting richer and destroy the world while so many around them suffer…this is what separates us anarchist from many libertarians it seems, definitely the Ayn Rand types.
I seem to fall into left lib, I have a huge amount of faith in unions and (voluntary) collective ownership of businesses. As long as people can associate freely its fine.
This is the reason I dislike the name Anarcho capitalism even though I'm an anarcho capitalist. If all exchanges are voluntary I am completely ok with it. I've met a ton of anarcho capitalists that absolutely love things like mutual aid for example. Really Anarcho capitalism would be more aptly described as voluntaryism.
Unions would work well in an ancap society, specifically because we would be skeptical of them and not allow them to gain too much power. Forced collective control of an economy is a state, and unions run the risk of becoming that if left unchecked, but so could corporations if left unchecked. They both address the balance of power when a state isn't meddling with it
Unions are perfectly fine in librightland, especially anarchies-capitalism. As long as its voluntary, there is nothing stopping unions or collective ownership, again, as long as it is voluntary
I hate to be sectarian, but I think we need to abstain from refering to small government liberals as libertarians: All it does is obscure what Libertarianism is by dividing the movement into different stands of incompatible belief systems; either you support the state and oppose individual sovereignty, or you oppose the state and support individual sovereignty.
Political compass tests are estimations, not surgical placements, I fall around the same area too. But also bare in mind, he never would've actually taken the test
I saw a compass test place thatcher as the same level of authoritarianism as Stalin. Whereas a lot of her policies were based on the ideas of personal freedom and responsibility, altho she wasn’t exactly a libertarian
How about anarchism instead? Anarchists aim to create a society with minimal hierarchy and maximum freedom, often emphasizing mutual aid, cooperation, and collective well-being. In contrast, some libertarians seem to idolize the free market and individual success, even if it means neglecting the vulnerable and perpetuating inequality. The 1800s America idealized by some libertarians was indeed marked by exploitation, inequality, and social injustices, which anarchists and many others would like to avoid repeating. Anarchists seek a more compassionate and inclusive society, while some libertarians appear to prioritize economic freedom over social responsibility.
Some people are born with genius IQs, that should not mean that they have more rights and in the eyes of the law they should be seen as equal to kids that eat tide pods
Heavily disagree that America's Constitution was set up for liberty, it's more free than a Monarchy, true, but it still sets up the system of tyranny that moved on. I agree it may be the greatest event in Libertarianism, so far. But it is far from entirely positive.
One of Rothbard's closest colleagues/stutent Hans Hermann Hoppe makes a pretty good chase for the fact that monarchy may actually be the preferred system if you must have a state. See: "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans Hermann Hoppe.
@@Accuracy158 I disagree with that analysis, I don't believe one is better or worse, oppression is oppression. The whims of a Majority are no better than the whims of a King. Neither gained their positions of authority justly. The Covenant Community could form a Monarchy, sure, but we're talking about kings of old ages here. Many of which were just as bad as the mobs who control us now, simply without the modern technology to control as efficiently.
You must be trying to disagree just for the sake of disagreement. I said the *ideas* within the constitution. Freedom of speech, gun rights, privacy and so on. Did you miss the big part literally straight after where I said how far it fell in it's objective to restrain government?
@@CeaddaOfMercia I disagree where I disagree, you don't have to be so rude, disagreement is a healthy thing, if I was just going to agree with everything you said I'd have no reason to even leave a comment. The ideas within the Constitution are exactly what I am talking about, the very base of the Constitution, which newsflash, was not the Amendments, but the Articles, the Amendments were... Amendments. The Bill of Rights were added as a way to convince the Anti-Federalist to help it get ratify. They set up the system of the Executive Branch, they set up the Legislative (which had more powers than the already existent Confederation Congress), and they set up the Judicial Branch. They took away states rights, which of course American state governments shouldn't have the powers they do either, but it's at least better than giving so many of these powers to the Federal government only to say "well whatever we don't say we can do, the states can do it I guess...". Just because the Bill of Rights Amendments themselves, defended some rights within the system of oppression they set up in the first place, does NOT mean the Constitution was a positive thing. Like I said, better than the preexisting systems, but still bad. I mean it got to the point where Rhode Island almost did not ratify, so they planned to embargo the state and destroy it's economy to get it to do so. Also this is a bit off topic, but I don't buy the whole "George Washington never intended to lead the thing" thing. But that's just a personal thought.
@@CeaddaOfMercia I think the idea of the constitution was set up a government. Freedom of speech, gun rights, privacy, and so on weren't even really mentioned until the amendments around three years later. But you could say the idea was to have a limited government and they did say that they were trying to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
Your right only my based ancap utopia that totally wont get invaded by Neo-Imperialists from over sea's in 2 seconds counts as real libertarianism. Those silly statists who think limited government is a good idea are crypto authoritarians.
Libertarian: Do not take my stuff, do not atack me and we can trade and be friends.
Communist: Comrade, you misspelled *our.*
This should be the goal of all men
Love this comment!!!!!
Fascist: don't mess with my stuff
No step on snek
Well spoken. And as always a short, but informative video with a clear message.
Thank you kindly!
@@CeaddaOfMercia the paths chosen by different groups to achieve freedom in some cases are so dramatically different that you can not include as being part of the same philosophy
if the ancaps want to abolish government and another group wants to keep a strong government then those two ideas are so far apart that you the two groups have be considered part of two different philosophies
secondly, just because governments have violated rights in the past doesn't mean we can't prevent it from violating our rights in the future
we can prevent it if we get up and defend our rights
lastly , it's nearly impossible to replace he public military because you have to defend very large areas of land and this can't be done by individual subscription, or the publicly sanctioned courts because to lock someone up you need the authority from the citizens
You are spot on when it comes to your statement that 'Libertarian' is an umbrella term, and that ideologies under it are 90% similar in principle, yet vastly differently in how, and how many of the principles are achieved.
Anarcho capitalist here 👋
Based
@@HornlessRam Rothbard>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@@awo4101 Bob Murphy is a great resource if you have questions about defense and justice
Hey ancap want to unleash the cops? Do stick up for the corporations and the pigs who protect their property?
"Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society"
-Murray Rothbard
@@MichaelShulski if Rothbard really said that his position on the homeless was callous
The only things i need to know about Libertarianism is learned from Pete Quinones.
Damn I love when you post because your videos are always great resources to provide people!
Liberals in 1930: laizzes-fiare (I know it is misspelled)
Liberals in 1960: Keynes economics
Liberals in 2010: Democratic socialist
Liberals in 2020: Socialist
Liberals in 2050: Communist
@Hoppean classical liberals are but there are generally labeled as libertarians.
You probably could’ve googled the correct spelling in the time it took to type the explanation 😫
I will never get sick of hearing your words on rights.
You're awesome Anglo! Thanks for the great videos.
Another great video man, well done
I might have missed it but if you've not done it yet would you consider doing a "how to convince people from other camps to become a libertarian"?
Much appreciated
Another Scottish libertarian? Didn’t know that exists. This makes me significantly more hopeful
@@abford03 we're rare but we do exist
based
YYYEEEESSSSS NEW VIDEO
Hey, fellow libertarian. It would be cool if you made a video on Hans Hoppe's argumentation ethics, proving private property is a natural law, or simply through deductive reasoning.
I've already done a video saying all property is private through the homestead principle, but I might do argumentation ethics one day too
@@CeaddaOfMercia Hoppe is a fascist. Almost as fascist as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.
www.unkochmycampus.org/los-ch2-part-4-the-ideas-austrian-economics-aka-classical-liberalism-a-gateway-to-extremism
"Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society"
-Murray bin Rothbard
@@MichaelShulski Hoppe,Mises and Rothbard all reject Corporatism , Romantic Nationalism and German Idealism
2:35 2:45 3:16 3:41 4:24 7:16
Totally subscribing 🤯
(800th comment)
Great video
i posted this on Reddit The term "Libertarian" was originally coined in the 📷 Enlightenment to describe supporters of free will (as opposed to determinism) and with it generally free action. With the first recorded usage of the term being in 1789. As such, to say that "Libertarianism" is a strictly leftist term is not intellectually honest. Also, our interpretations of left and right came in the french revolution libertarianism was here way before that in Greece China and America in those times they were just ideologies not left or right furthermore originally right libs were originally called liberals until statists took that name if you search on Wikipedia right libertarianism the sidebar literally says liberalism
You should do a Sam Seder debunk
To be honest I don't know who that is
Anglo Libertarian that’s definitely a good thing lol
How on earth can anyone refer to a libertarian as a communist when it’s the diametrical opposite.
lol real you litterally can’t get more opposite
I like libertarianism until we get to the whole faith that capitalism will help the needy which many aren’t very well known for. There are companies that have been caught ripping up and trashing their clothes instead of just donating them or throwing them g away fish and the like to save on money, evilness. Sure free market, but there has to be some sanity here to though. A billionaire shouldn’t be able to just keep getting richer and destroy the world while so many around them suffer…this is what separates us anarchist from many libertarians it seems, definitely the Ayn Rand types.
How can I share this on Instagram?
I posted the whole thing on IG, if you go on my profile you can find it and put it on your story 👍
I seem to fall into left lib, I have a huge amount of faith in unions and (voluntary) collective ownership of businesses. As long as people can associate freely its fine.
This is the reason I dislike the name Anarcho capitalism even though I'm an anarcho capitalist. If all exchanges are voluntary I am completely ok with it. I've met a ton of anarcho capitalists that absolutely love things like mutual aid for example. Really Anarcho capitalism would be more aptly described as voluntaryism.
Unions are great when they cant use the power of the state as their baseball bat
@@noahkirby6061 State enforced unions are literal economic cancer
Unions would work well in an ancap society, specifically because we would be skeptical of them and not allow them to gain too much power. Forced collective control of an economy is a state, and unions run the risk of becoming that if left unchecked, but so could corporations if left unchecked. They both address the balance of power when a state isn't meddling with it
Unions are perfectly fine in librightland, especially anarchies-capitalism. As long as its voluntary, there is nothing stopping unions or collective ownership, again, as long as it is voluntary
I hate to be sectarian, but I think we need to abstain from refering to small government liberals as libertarians: All it does is obscure what Libertarianism is by dividing the movement into different stands of incompatible belief systems; either you support the state and oppose individual sovereignty, or you oppose the state and support individual sovereignty.
Ok gatekeeper
@@NoName-eb1od It's not gatekeeping to point out inconsistent principles as... inconsistent; you wouldn't call a Social Democrat a Libertarian.
Yes because they're not small government liberals. Unless you use the term liberal to mean classical liberal, there's no such thing
@@CeaddaOfMercia my bad
@@CeaddaOfMercia I use liberal as an umbrella term to refer to an adherent of Liberalism, including, but not limited to, Classical Liberalism.
lol, you guys should organize
9:31 Why isn't Rothbard farthest bottom farthest right?
Political compass tests are estimations, not surgical placements, I fall around the same area too. But also bare in mind, he never would've actually taken the test
I saw a compass test place thatcher as the same level of authoritarianism as Stalin. Whereas a lot of her policies were based on the ideas of personal freedom and responsibility, altho she wasn’t exactly a libertarian
@@tomk6292 and Pinochet being more authoritarian than Hitler, Stalin and Mao confused me tbh
first
Second
How about anarchism instead? Anarchists aim to create a society with minimal hierarchy and maximum freedom, often emphasizing mutual aid, cooperation, and collective well-being. In contrast, some libertarians seem to idolize the free market and individual success, even if it means neglecting the vulnerable and perpetuating inequality.
The 1800s America idealized by some libertarians was indeed marked by exploitation, inequality, and social injustices, which anarchists and many others would like to avoid repeating. Anarchists seek a more compassionate and inclusive society, while some libertarians appear to prioritize economic freedom over social responsibility.
Riddle me this, Anglo Libertarian:
How can all men be created equal while also being naturally hierarchical?
All men are created equal in the sense that all men have equal rights (using men to mean humans) not in the sense that all men have equal capabilities
Some people are born with genius IQs, that should not mean that they have more rights and in the eyes of the law they should be seen as equal to kids that eat tide pods
It's up to each person to be a part of a hierarchy.
Heavily disagree that America's Constitution was set up for liberty, it's more free than a Monarchy, true, but it still sets up the system of tyranny that moved on. I agree it may be the greatest event in Libertarianism, so far. But it is far from entirely positive.
One of Rothbard's closest colleagues/stutent Hans Hermann Hoppe makes a pretty good chase for the fact that monarchy may actually be the preferred system if you must have a state.
See: "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans Hermann Hoppe.
@@Accuracy158 I disagree with that analysis, I don't believe one is better or worse, oppression is oppression. The whims of a Majority are no better than the whims of a King. Neither gained their positions of authority justly. The Covenant Community could form a Monarchy, sure, but we're talking about kings of old ages here. Many of which were just as bad as the mobs who control us now, simply without the modern technology to control as efficiently.
You must be trying to disagree just for the sake of disagreement. I said the *ideas* within the constitution. Freedom of speech, gun rights, privacy and so on. Did you miss the big part literally straight after where I said how far it fell in it's objective to restrain government?
@@CeaddaOfMercia I disagree where I disagree, you don't have to be so rude, disagreement is a healthy thing, if I was just going to agree with everything you said I'd have no reason to even leave a comment. The ideas within the Constitution are exactly what I am talking about, the very base of the Constitution, which newsflash, was not the Amendments, but the Articles, the Amendments were... Amendments. The Bill of Rights were added as a way to convince the Anti-Federalist to help it get ratify. They set up the system of the Executive Branch, they set up the Legislative (which had more powers than the already existent Confederation Congress), and they set up the Judicial Branch. They took away states rights, which of course American state governments shouldn't have the powers they do either, but it's at least better than giving so many of these powers to the Federal government only to say "well whatever we don't say we can do, the states can do it I guess...". Just because the Bill of Rights Amendments themselves, defended some rights within the system of oppression they set up in the first place, does NOT mean the Constitution was a positive thing. Like I said, better than the preexisting systems, but still bad. I mean it got to the point where Rhode Island almost did not ratify, so they planned to embargo the state and destroy it's economy to get it to do so. Also this is a bit off topic, but I don't buy the whole "George Washington never intended to lead the thing" thing. But that's just a personal thought.
@@CeaddaOfMercia I think the idea of the constitution was set up a government. Freedom of speech, gun rights, privacy, and so on weren't even really mentioned until the amendments around three years later. But you could say the idea was to have a limited government and they did say that they were trying to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
are u an objectivist?
Nah
@@CeaddaOfMercia , why do you personally object to it?
I am
ud really put washington as a centrist?
Do you think ppl c libertarian as racist as its an anglo concept?
Idiots always see whatever they want to see. It's also not just an Anglo concept but broadly European
Anglo is not a real libertarian
And?
Your right only my based ancap utopia that totally wont get invaded by Neo-Imperialists from over sea's in 2 seconds counts as real libertarianism. Those silly statists who think limited government is a good idea are crypto authoritarians.
@@MrMurica c'mon this is why libright isn't united😑😑
@@MrMurica Which nation except maybe North American indigenous people claim American land? What invasion exactly are you so afraid of?