@@SubscribetoEndTheLGBTcommunity Not at all. They're anti-war and pro-2A so long as people don't use their weapons for murder. There is a difference between murder and self defense. Also, they don't believe abortion should be regulated by the government but should be up to the individual. That's not the same as being an abortionist. I'm pro-life pro-choice so I agree with that philosophy. I would never abort a baby but I think the government should not enforce abortion or anti-abortion. Democrats typically want to force abortion and Republicans typically want to force anti-abortion. "Don't hurt people. Don't take their stuff."
This man is 100% correct. This is why we need to disband republicans and democrats and instead vote on issues. But seeing as how that will never happen, vote Libertarian if you are Economically conservative and socially liberal!
+firexgodx980 Even then, Conservative economic policies are not completely inline with Libertarian. Conservative is all about maintaining the status quo, and the current status quo of the economy is nothing like what Libertarians want, especially when we talk about issues such as defense spending (which Libertarians wants cut to the minimum). There are some overlaps that makes the two beliefs seemingly the same, but the basis for their policies and beliefs are different. Same with Liberals, many liberals takes social liberalism to the 'extreme' with policies such as Affirmative Action or completely banning religious elements from, well, everything. Libertarian policies are a lot more passive than Conservative and Liberal policies.
Senator Rand Paul had elaborated this in one of his interviews that Republicans are good with most of economic liberties whereas Democrats are good with most of personal liberties. Libertarians are good on both of these liberties.
@@taoliu3949 If conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, why is it the liberal college students that are shouting down anyone for thinking different, and conservatives that are run off campus? Your assumptions are the status quo my friend.
That's funny, because I've been saying these two "First Principles" to friends of mine for a while now and so far they've been observed. I've also noticed that neither party holds to the exact definition of their ideology. (Modern) Liberalism is the moral absolute belief that there are no moral absolutes and that all laws should be based upon the fleeting whims of the majority. (Modern) Conservatism is the belief in moral absolutes (self-evident regardless of opinion) and that ONLY those should be the basis of law All the "issues" are just icing on the cake to keep us distracted.
Agree with these definitions. Modern Liberals claim to have the market cornered for humanitarian efforts. They ignore the fact that Modern Conservatives can support the same efforts (most likely through different means) with moral absolutes.
You weren't made to watch this video. You chose to. Curiosity drives learning. It may have helped that your focus was not disrupted by a social environment (classroom)
Mind blown..... I have always believed in freedom first. This means that if my decision brings disaster opon me so be it. You don't HAVE TO HELP ME! Your help is nice and if offered freely or with strings it still is up to me to take it. There is more to it than that but I find that I like first principles. Thank you!
therasheck It sounds like you're a big fan of NEGATIVE rights, which many libertarians promote. Liberals and progressives back many different kinds of POSITIVE rights.
@@IS0T0P3_90 He considered slavery to be a necessary evil. It was an okay thing at the time but he was against it and even said that sometime after there would have to be conversations about it. Also, he let his own slaves be free when he died.
When it comes to guns, tobacco, soda, trans fat, taxes, fireworks, and property rights. Conservatives favor more freedom. When it comes to abortion, gays, drugs, sex and free speech, liberals favor more freedom.
The case has not been made at all, Learn Liberty is a nice shiny output for old arguments on 'Libertarian' propaganda, the fact that these arguments are not new and we still have huge problems after all this time should be saying something, they do not work, its a fantasy. It comes down to the kind of freedoms these right-wing thinktanks are espousing, they couldnt care less about your personal freedom, that is a side issue that sounds nice for propaganda terms, they care (ultimately) about corporate freedom. They worry deeply about democracy because this means the plebiscite could take away their power to own everything that society depends on. Everyone likes 'freedom' but it is a term that is abused constantly by the libertarian right: NO your businesses should not destroy the environment; pollute our atmosphere; use innapropriate chemicals in foods and toiletrees; not pay any tax (because we all depend on roads and infrastructure which needs paying for) or offload any losses onto the state; buy elections etc etc, that is not the kind of freedom society needs. Other freedoms ofcourse are fine.
That's where you draw the line. Abortion does not interfere with the rights of anyone participating in society. Birthing a child into poverty does. When a child is brought into the world as a liability on all of society, all of society loses freedom.
I don't think that liberals want to prohibit prayer in school, they just don't want the prayer imposed in school, HUGE difference. Otherwise, it seems to me that liberals want as much freedom in life as possible, while considering economy liberty not as much important, just technicalities, mainly probably because things like taxes and minimum wage are not perceived as immoral (I used to be like that, I ended up libertarian). So, freedom of being gay, hooker, drinker, smoker (of anything) are very obvious liberties for a liberal, but a social conservative just doesn't care about them, they just want other people to follow their "morals" and they seem happy, in general, when sinners go to jail for smoking the wrong plant or being ostracized because they don't go to Church. To me, a working class liberal is a person that needs one last deep debate to become libertarian.
Alexandru Dragoi lol lots of public schools wouldn’t want it no more now that we have a lot of students In different races who are Catholics,Muslims,Buddhists,and even little bit of satanism for now on. You don’t even know if Muslim Americans or people who love the devil would go crazy and make the school go chaos. You got public schools to do prayer.
I disagree with the conclusion that we must think not in "issues" but in "first principles." We like to follow ideological divides because it allows us to avoid acknowledging that the world is complex and not easily explained. Nuance is the least comforting, but best approach to dealing with the world around us. Just think: Our existence in this universe is completely inconsequential. The political divides we've created for ourselves comes from a fixation on our imagined self importance.
I'm glad the video helped. The diagram I'm showing isn't my creation. It is called a Nolan chart. If you google it, you'll find short quizzes that ask you questions about specific issues that relate to freedom and then show where you fall on the Nolan chart.
Universal healthcare is not "requiring everyone to have healthcare". It's universal, so it's just kind there if you want it. It's not like Obama care where you are fined or whatever if you don't have healthcare. Obama Care is just forced private healthcare, not universal healthcare in the traditional sense. I feel like these arguments are constrained to American politics, which is a problem sine American politics are mainly right wing. Even the "left" if right wing. Anyone centrist and beyond is considered a commie. This "Learn Liberty" is just American Libertarian ego-strocking. Not only that, but they have managed to totally skew the political spectrum with what Orwell (ironically loved by the American right-wing, despite being a socialist) would call double speak.
The only way to pay for Universal Healthcare is through taxes, which is through force. Thus Universal health care = less freedom is the point I think he's trying to make.
You can make that case all day, but if you roll around getting a hard on for freedom, you will have to realize that by living with a group of people, you are accommodating them. Ultimate freedom of choice is impossible since different decisions would interfere with each other, that is why people compromise with each other in small scale relationships, and that is why we have a system of government on large scale relationships. With that out of the way, we could do two things, as I assume you would be inclined towards one of them... privatize everything, including the use of force, or establish a democratic union which makes decisions and enforces them through popular consensus. As I believe the former would lead to a pseudo-feudal tyranny, I am inclined towards the latter. Now for healthcare. The reason why most people like the idea of social allocated healthcare is not that they believe it will be free, but because they don't want their healthcare needs being met by people who are, at the bottom line, interested in profits over quality of service. You can make the claim that since they are interested in profits, and they are competing with others, this will drive the quality of service up. (on a varying degree) Not only is this empirically wrong, but it isn't even intuitive when considering basic economics.
"The wrong place to start is the effect of policies on people. The right place to start is at the first principles. Do we or do we not have right to property and life?" love this quote!
only a libertarian could come up with the minimum wage and universal healthcare as "less economic freedom". I want him to draw graphs on his whiteboard to show me how black is white.
yes, that's the whole point of it. And yes, I believe absolutely that people should be forced to get healthcare insurance. Just like they should be forced to have a home, buy enough food to not starve, be forced to have access to drinking water and enough air to breath.
The point here is CHOICE. That's what freedom means, to have a choice in the matter. People should not be forced to do anything, rather they should be free to make the choices to dictate their own lives. That is the meaning of freedom. By forcing people to purchase anything, you are taking away their economic freedoms. Libertarians believe people should not be forced to do anything, rather they should be free to choose for themselves because they understand their own needs the most.
let's for the sake of argument accept that there would exist people who, given the choice, would choose to have no health coverage even if they could afford it. Of the 50 million people in the US with no health insurance, how many of them are forced to go without health insurance because they cannot afford it? Clearly the overwhelming majority. This is actual reality. The reality is, that the effect of making health insurance compulsary, is more freedom. Reality matters, not ideology.
alienzen You need to have data to back this up... A lot of people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, true, but there's also a lot of them who feel they do not need it. There's a reason why the ACA requires everyone to buy insurance, because many young healthy people are forsaking health insurance. ACA needs these people buying health insurance as well otherwise medical insurance costs would balloon out. That's how insurance works, you need to have both healthy and unhealthy people in the system so they balance each other out. Not being able to afford something is not the same as not having a choice, in many cases they CAN afford it, they just choose not to buy it because they prioritise other things over it. The ACA is not making anything affordable, it's making people spend money on something that they could spend it on something else they feel they need more. Money is not infinite, it's not possible to give everyone everything. Everyone has a finite amount of money, it's their choice how to spend it because they know what they need the most.
It does. Violating assumptions doesn't cause the economic principle to be void. It just introduces some noise. It's like violating the assumption of a frictionless surface in physics. Introducing friction doesn't make gravity change directions. It just makes the analysis a lot more complicated in exchange for a little more realism.
Finally, someone mentions that we should be arguing from first principles!! I frequently find myself in discussions where other individuals try to make their points based on outcomes of policy. This is wrong-headed, indeed.
I've always founds the terms conservative and liberal to be too vague and imprecise to have much relevance. The real dichotomy here is liberty versus statism, and I think it would help society tremendously if people understood that.
@Kevashida As a side note , let's say you own a house. You signed a mortgage and placed your family member's name also on the mortgage. You never miss a payment, you are never late. Your family member gets into fiscal trouble and has to declare bankruptcy. Let's say over medical payments. Still the mortgage payments are on time, and in the full amount, every month. What should the bank do with your mortgage?
I care far less about the actual individual and the potential individual than all of the other individuals forming the society. If the actual individual is considering abortion, there's a good chance that said abortion will save the society at large tens, if not hundreds of thousand dollars worth of resources. Those resources would be taken away from society by force, thus reducing freedom on a large scale. Child bearing is a responsibility, and one that should be personal, not public.
As an ancap/voluntarist my principles are that everything in society should be voluntary, you should not force people and you should also of course honor your agreements. People should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies. They should be able to organize themselves however they want as long as people are not forced into to something..
By Liberty and Freedom are not synonymous. Liberty is merely being "free from" constraint. Freedom means you are free to rule yourself to a certain extent, but there are constraints because you are not an island. You are not autonomous. You have to live among others, unless you want to dwell in international waters for the rest of your life, but how productive could you possibly be? Freedom requires both liberty from and purpose toward a productive goal to be, otherwise it isn't.
Lots of things are about Power. Morality is a foundation that keeps you grounded when you possess and use it. It's a frame of mind that one must have if one is to use Power to both remain unharmed and to prosper and grow. This is analogous to how to succeed in any sport; your mind has to be grounded in the basic truth of the sport you're playing. If your football team believes it ought to be playing soccer, how many games do you think they're going to win?
You are mistaken. First, the average person in the US earns around $40,000 a year in wages (the median is lower; probably around $30,000). Second, according to Congressional Budget Office numbers (which are linked from the White House website), the average one-percenter pays a 28% tax (all federal taxes combined) compared to 14% for the average middle-class person. These numbers are *after* applying deductions, exemptions, loopholes, etc.
@kDest (page 4) In summary, import tariffs only serve to reduce the wealth of the general public. However, certain domestic, less competitive & less efficient producers and their workforce will benefit. So, the policy serves special interests at public expense. Now it's your turn to demonstrate why anything I've said is either "unlikely" or false.
Classical liberalism is a philosophy that begins with the assumption that each person owns himself and then constructs a body of principles that flow logically from that assumption. Libertarianism is a political movement that seeks many of the ends that can be justified using classical liberal thought.
@MegaLazygamer you realize that change came with a change in the locations of the issues. He didn't say Liberals want more freedom, instead he said that you can classify those same issues in a very different way.
The protective laws were eventually ruled unconstitutional. Still, it does not change the hypothesis that the lack of minimum wage would drive wages down to nothing.
One point in this film is that it is RIGHT to start from first principles, but WRONG to start with effects. No form of decision is wrong or right inherently. IF your principle is that you should declare absolute and unwavering beliefs from which you will not deviate, and then deduce your plans accordingly, go for it. That's your choice. If your principle is that the effects of your actions should be considered first, and that absolute thinking leads nearly invariably to harm, then thats ok too
This prof is totally reasonable and his point shoots straight to the heart of the matter. That is why I am a libertarian, small "L." Principles and philosophy over party. Once Americans can start putting the partisanship aside, and using their Reason instead of their emotions to make political decisions, we will have Liberty again. PS: and WTF is with people disliking this video? Are people that insecure about their little partisan paradigms and dogmas? No wonder this country is so ****ed up.
@jackie8mccall He may have defined the terms by way of the dictionary, but he interpreted those definitions in such a way to support his argument. Did you notice the part where he redefined the terms to "more freedom," and "less freedom?" That is redefining the definitions and the fallacy I was noting.
@kDest "Macroeconomics is complex." No doubt. But when examining any specific economic or social policy in isolation, look at the shift in incentives that are created. People who are affected by said policies, either directly or indirectly, will react predictably to the incentives they create. Almost invariably, that will explain the unintended consequences of every policy.
Prohibiting prayer in public schools isn't something that needs to go on the liberal side. Separating church and public education is something this country is supposed to already be doing.
@ Prof Davis. The freedom axis is a fine way to analyze things. But to throw into the mix is the freedom from sin angle and the protestant insistence in the absence of perfect free will.
@tasp3 (however I find it more disconcerting that in lieu of a public option they would STILL mandate that I purchase insurance, when the private insurance industry is all that's left. I will gladly go on record and say I have no such intention of doing so, seeing as I loathe the health insurance industry)
No, the figures I'm quoting are the actual average tax rates that exist after the people take their deductions, loopholes, varying marginal tax rates, etc. Romney is one person. I am quoting the average of 1.1 million households.
I'm sorry, I could have sworn I saw Dubya's face in the "Economically Conservative" part of the graph. That must have been a mistake on LearnLiberty's part. I hope they correct it soon.
Leaders are held to a higher standard because of the culture branched off from Europe where the ones in power used to be kings. Most kings I have read about have an ego so they hold themselves up higher than the rest. In other cultures the leader does not hold themselves up. They are performing a public service and are in it to help not gain prestige. Which culture do you think is more productive?
@kDest The hard thing about all of this is that we can't run scientific experiments on entire nations. However, having 50 states allows for a degree of experimentation, provided that the states aren't subject to federal mandates. So, if either of us is wrong, then the mistake is that much more widespread. If UHC, or any policy, turns out to be such an unquestionably great idea at a state level, then other states would be pressured to follow suit to stay competitive.
@badluckwitcarpet . . . which goes back to why the income tax is unconstitutional. Our founders saw that it wasn't good to tax "private moneys" - which is what income usually is, for most people. Also, the same money shouldn't be taxed twice, which is also what the income tax does - you get tax taken out of your check (which is most of the time privately made money), then you buy about anything and its taxed again.
@kDest "before new businesses pop up to take in these workers." Why will new business pop up? Why haven't they shown up already, and if they have, why haven't they been able to attract local workers away from the multinationals' factories? Living standards have already increased thanks to sweatshops. The fact that those workers voluntarily accept such jobs shows that the alternatives were worse. I'm all for local business thriving too, but how will tariffs somehow bring that about?
@kDest That interpretation of the statistics may or may not mean anything about the effectiveness of UHC. Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. Americans have very different lifestyle habits when compared to other developed nations, esp regarding diet. This is influenced by various crop subsidies, esp to corn farmers. This leads to (among other things) excess supply of high fructose corn syrup, thus artificially reducing costs of things like soda relative to fresh fruits & veggies.
Here's how I see conservative and liberal in modern US politics: conservatism is about preserving the founding American political principles of individual rights, strict constitutionalism, economic freedom, rule of law, and limited government with sparing (or conservative), limited use of gov. intervention while liberalism refers to drifting away from said principles and then disguising it as "progress" or "hope and change." These aren't social meanings or classical definitions of course.
Prof. Davis is the first person I've heard in academia that even remotely explains clearly what is going on. Thank you sir! Thank you! To go slightly further. Conservatives favor some liberties and oppose others. Liberals prefer this liberty over that one. Two things must then be questioned. Why prefer this liberty and try to suppress another? What is your definition of liberty? Is liberty, you being allowed to do it or me being protected from you doing it?
What if your first principle IS to first consider the impact of your choices on people, rather than to reduce the practical issue to the abstract to justify increasing harm under the guise of "increasing freedom"? What then?
"The wrong place to start is with the effect of these things on people, the right place to start is at the "first principles."" That says it all right there. Fuck people my principles are more important.
You completely missed the point.... Obviously wealth opens options that would otherwise not be affordable, but he is talking about legality of options, not price of options.
Free trade- Less freedom for people with small businesses that can't compete globally Drug war- More freedom for people who make prescription drugs Gay marrage-Less freedom to discriminate Minimum wage-Freedom to not have to work below minimum wage to support self Do you get the picture? There is no such thing as "freedom" issues, only issues that redistribute freedom. Sometimes freedoms have to change hands to have a more fair country. That's just the way things are.
@Chad9976 I understand your sentiments, but I think he was bringing up that issue for the sake of the argument. I take it as generalizing the different stances of the role of religion in the government from both political sides.
Cont. It stops the school from enforcing it. The fourth one also violated the first amendment. The third example is against the government endorsing one religion over the other, which is unfair to anyone who isn't a christian. Quote from Rev Barry W. Lynn on the issue. “Government can’t serve everyone in the community when it endorses one faith over others. That sends the clear message that some are second-class citizens based on what they believe about religion.”
As a principle, it might appear to be sound; in practice, it doesn't come close. The issue is freedom and the taking of personal wealth is undertaken by force and is, thus, by definition, not freedom. Overwhelmingly, the taking of personal wealth from some people has been overwhelmingly harmful to the quality of lives within society, particularly in the case of "public charity". So little is spent (even in the military budget) for defense, that hardly helps your case.
Nothing about rights or liberty is self-evident. It's all arbitrary, based on ideas and values. This is why it is so hard to get people to agree about them. Saying something is "self-evident," is merely declaring it to be beyond question. Thus, there cannot be rational discussion about it.
What is mandatory prayer in public school supposed to be? I have never heard of anyone promoting that in my entire life. I have heard of banning prayer in public school though.
I disagree with the whole liberal / conservative issues slide where the issues are split up. Each issue is an issue onto itself and both sides take an opposing view point.
They have a video about minimum wage, but what they don't discuss is how it limits the freedom of the business owners to chose to chose the pay for their employees. If there are two workers, Sal being good, and Jim being bad at his work, the business owner would simply pay Sal $10 and Jim $5. But minimum wage forces the employer to pay a minimum of $8. Therefor, Jim is laid off because his job performance is not worth $8.
A quote from ffrf regarding the first article "We are not asking you to punish people for exercising their religious faith. We are asking you to discipline teachers for violating the law and abandoning their duties and to discipline students for skipping class." They aren't against the students being religious, but for skipping class, and because the teachers let that happen, willingly or not. The 2nd and 4th examples were school sponsored event, which again doesn't stop kids from praying cont.
Back when prayer was a common practice in the schools the schools were run by churches and were a community matter, not a federal one. There are lots of institutions actively trying to make it illegal to pray in schools. Whether or not christians at one time wanted to force prayer on others (which I find a dubious assertion), right now many (not all) atheists are trying to force prayer out of schools. If you think it should be a choice I agree with you 100% and we should work together.
I often hear the phrase 'control your work', or 'freedom of labor' yet I haven't heard anyone explain how that system would work. I understand the idea of redistributing capital but what do you mean (personally) by 'control your work'?
@ridaderek I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared.... To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.... We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.... If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements.... -- Thomas Jefferson You missed half of it. Context.
He mentions universal health care as a freedom issue, but I think it's more complicated than he lets on. In most countries health care is already universal, as there is a mandate that someone needing urgent care cannot be denied it regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. Requiring the purchase of insurance is designed to force everyone to pay for the health care that is already available to them.
The problem as I see it is that when the government gets involved there are unintended consequences that end up causing more problems than they solve. Like the subsidization of corn and the intervention in the sugar markets. It happens in everything from rent control and 'smart growth policies' to minimum wage and equal pay laws. Unfortunately people usually only look at the good intentions of these programs and not their economic effects. People choose idealistic morality over economic reality
no... that's a completely separate idea. In your example, some people are losing their freedom entirely. In my example, some people are losing their PRIVILEGE that freedom may exist for those who didn't have any in the beginning. In your example, it is assumed they are both equal in power and freedom and then one of the groups bands together against the other. In mine, they are not equal and they band together for the equality of freedom.
No. Divorce is the legal means by which a contract is dissolved. If marrage is not a contract than divorce would not be necessary to dissolve it in the first place.
*I do know that this video is six years old, but still wanted to interject here. Anybody arguing about the classification of certain issues on the "more freedom" or "less freedom" scale by Dr. Davies has missed the purpose of this video. That was merely a tool to help explicate his point. The purpose is to start political debate on "first principles", instead of issues. There is a reason why youtube comment section debates are never resolved, and it is for the precise reason, in my opinion, that has been stated here. When we debate issues that are contingent upon ideas not agreed upon by both parties, it is logically impossible to convince either party to change.
he never questioned whether these positions should be ascribed to conservatives or liberals---- the economic positions like reducing taxes should be described as liberal positions--------- I would rather stick to issues each position on an issue should be described as conservative or liberal---------- the more conservative positions you have the conservative you are
@TheLeperMessi4h So you're saying we shouldn't have a tax bracket? I was more talking about the way corporations are taxed versus individuals (even though due to a few hundred lawsuits following the end of the civil war corporations are people legally), not the highest classes. I do think we need to raise the bracket on those who make their money from dividends and capital gains but not tax higher on smaller investment profits. I'm not saying eliminate taxes on the lower class
@kDest "Better health is good" depends on the cost of achieving it. Is it worthwhile at any per capita cost to taxpayers? Not to mention the moral cost? Or the reduced competitive pressure on related industries and the associated unfair advantages? Why force everyone into a system when only a tiny fraction are involuntarily uninsured, a further fraction of which are truly at risk? One thing that would prevent the poorest of the poor from staying that way is getting rid of minimum wage.
His point about first principles assumes that they are so fundamental that we needn't consider cases where it doesn't apply. This causes problems like in his example of 'do we have property right?'. To simply say 'yes' without regard for its limits is a mistake. An example of the limits of property rights is when the acquisitions of that property is damaging. Does a drug baron have the right to keep all they have accumulated? Life happens in a social context.
The first time my canadian friends introduce me to the left-right political compass, I was labeled as libertarian socialism. They told me I'm a liberal. They're conservative however. I told them "this is probably the worst measurement I've never seen in my life". They asked me why. I told them even if I support gay rights and many social issues, I am in full support of fiscal policy and make productive investment. How can they put me in a gang? Your graph is the one I'm looking for.
It doesn't matter if they say they are liberal or conservative, almost all politician want to take away your freedoms in one way or another. Ron Paul 2012!
To libertarians, freedom does not cease to be relevant when it comes to economic decisions. To modern liberals, freedom means what you feel you are entitled to using the property of other people.
Actually he described it as "everyone is forced to buy insurance" which raises a much larger issue. There were potential models proposed that would have in no way required people to buy insurance, if that is a problem for people. The insurance mandate is the worse aspect of the health care law passed by this Congress. Pretty much set the whole reform attempt to ultimately fail as it will be ruled unconstitutional (and rightly so).
This is a really confusing example. The rich person, normally cannot buy the piece of art below market value, the appraiser cannot legally appraise it for anything but market value, and the savings on a $2000 tax write off would barely cover a $500 appraisal fee, even at the highest tax bracket. You don't get $2000 off your taxes, you get $2000 off your taxable income. Further, art isn't necessarily tax deductible, though it can be.
@ridaderek That is why 80% of all failed mortgages can be traced to things like predatory lending, bank gimics( adjustable interest rate that start off low, with the lenders saying the interest will not raise and then the interest doubling.) Yes, one in five bad mortgages of the crash can be traced back to home owners, and at that number it still would have been a horrid thing, but four of five are the banks fault.
@kDest "In addition to public healthcare like medicare and medicaid, and the simple fact that any private healthcare system is going to be more expensive for the same quality of service as its public equivalent (profits, remember)." Actually, under those systems, the profit is already excessive and is insured by taxes, reducing the incentive for providers to compete on price to gain market share. Are healthcare prices not currently set privately? What change would make them rise?
I wasn't being dogmatic about libertarian first principles, but about the application of logic. One either believes that people own themselves or that they don't. Whichever of these you take as your first principle implies many other things. I'm simply arguing for consistency -- if one doesn't like the consequences that flow from one's first-principle-of-choice, then it's time to find a new first principle.
And let me just say that right now I am ecstatic, I don't argue to win arguments (argue isn't really the word I want to use but I can't think of another one) but to just make people think about other options there are.
> you might also dispute the numbers... I'm not disputing the numbers. The people who collect the actual data are disputing the numbers. I'm merely reporting what they said.
I was actually quite confused when you were dividing the issues between conservative and liberal. It would have been much easier to follow if you said wanting or not wanting to end the drug war, or wanting/not wanting to make illegal prayer in public schools. I also think the video could have sorted the difference between economic freedom and social freedom, which would have introduced libertarianism, statism, and centralism.
No, they wanted people to be allowed to have school prayer, not for it to be mandatory. They wanted to exercise the first amendment through prayer, not force people to pray.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Just a note for everyone. This is also the way Libertarians see/view the republican and democratic parties.
I thought that was the point of the video.
The libertarian party are murderous abortionists
@@SubscribetoEndTheLGBTcommunity Not at all. They're anti-war and pro-2A so long as people don't use their weapons for murder. There is a difference between murder and self defense. Also, they don't believe abortion should be regulated by the government but should be up to the individual. That's not the same as being an abortionist. I'm pro-life pro-choice so I agree with that philosophy. I would never abort a baby but I think the government should not enforce abortion or anti-abortion. Democrats typically want to force abortion and Republicans typically want to force anti-abortion. "Don't hurt people. Don't take their stuff."
Libertarian here
@@gauravagrawal4564 Same. I was nonpartisan for 4 years but nowadays I'm a proud Libertarian since I finally found a platform I actually liked.
This man is 100% correct. This is why we need to disband republicans and democrats and instead vote on issues. But seeing as how that will never happen, vote Libertarian if you are Economically conservative and socially liberal!
+firexgodx980 Even then, Conservative economic policies are not completely inline with Libertarian. Conservative is all about maintaining the status quo, and the current status quo of the economy is nothing like what Libertarians want, especially when we talk about issues such as defense spending (which Libertarians wants cut to the minimum). There are some overlaps that makes the two beliefs seemingly the same, but the basis for their policies and beliefs are different. Same with Liberals, many liberals takes social liberalism to the 'extreme' with policies such as Affirmative Action or completely banning religious elements from, well, everything. Libertarian policies are a lot more passive than Conservative and Liberal policies.
Senator Rand Paul had elaborated this in one of his interviews that Republicans are good with most of economic liberties whereas Democrats are good with most of personal liberties. Libertarians are good on both of these liberties.
firexgodx980
>economically conservative
>socially liberal
Being this vain and degenerate
I’m socially conservative and economically far right
@@taoliu3949 If conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, why is it the liberal college students that are shouting down anyone for thinking different, and conservatives that are run off campus?
Your assumptions are the status quo my friend.
That's funny, because I've been saying these two "First Principles" to friends of mine for a while now and so far they've been observed. I've also noticed that neither party holds to the exact definition of their ideology.
(Modern) Liberalism is the moral absolute belief that there are no moral absolutes and that all laws should be based upon the fleeting whims of the majority.
(Modern) Conservatism is the belief in moral absolutes (self-evident regardless of opinion) and that ONLY those should be the basis of law
All the "issues" are just icing on the cake to keep us distracted.
Agree with these definitions. Modern Liberals claim to have the market cornered for humanitarian efforts. They ignore the fact that Modern Conservatives can support the same efforts (most likely through different means) with moral absolutes.
Well said, thanks.
I learn more from these vids than I did in college... real talk...
what college did u go to?
Do you make the distinction of what is fake talk in your comments?
You weren't made to watch this video. You chose to. Curiosity drives learning. It may have helped that your focus was not disrupted by a social environment (classroom)
Mind blown.....
I have always believed in freedom first.
This means that if my decision brings disaster opon me so be it. You don't HAVE TO HELP ME! Your help is nice and if offered freely or with strings it still is up to me to take it. There is more to it than that but I find that I like first principles. Thank you!
therasheck
It sounds like you're a big fan of NEGATIVE rights, which many libertarians promote.
Liberals and progressives back many different kinds of POSITIVE rights.
Owning a gun is a right, (and a personal freedom). Hillary's position on that scale must be very incorrect.
what Conservative is demanding "mandatory" prayer in school?
+Strax Sal it was popular during the 1960s to 1970s in the republican party in america.
and it was illegal in some states, not to attend church regularly, at the time of ratification of the 1st Amendment. So what's your point?
*****
true.
you obviously never been to the deep south have you i live in south Carolina and we have tons of religious bullshit laws like that here
@@Ashclayton1994 I live in the south you live in the stat of insanety
I'm voting for George washington!
Let's go Alexander Hamilton!
Patrick Henry!
@@IS0T0P3_90 He considered slavery to be a necessary evil. It was an okay thing at the time but he was against it and even said that sometime after there would have to be conversations about it. Also, he let his own slaves be free when he died.
Thomas Jefferson was better
@@IS0T0P3_90 if you pay taxes you are a slave. Slavery never ended it just changed names. CALLED TAXATION.
Americans have backwards terms. Australia uses the terms correct. Liberal conservative party vs the socialist socially backwards party.
When it comes to guns, tobacco, soda, trans fat, taxes, fireworks, and property rights. Conservatives favor more freedom.
When it comes to abortion, gays, drugs, sex and free speech, liberals favor more freedom.
Making the case for Libertarians.
The case has not been made at all, Learn Liberty is a nice shiny output for old arguments on 'Libertarian' propaganda, the fact that these arguments are not new and we still have huge problems after all this time should be saying something, they do not work, its a fantasy. It comes down to the kind of freedoms these right-wing thinktanks are espousing, they couldnt care less about your personal freedom, that is a side issue that sounds nice for propaganda terms, they care (ultimately) about corporate freedom. They worry deeply about democracy because this means the plebiscite could take away their power to own everything that society depends on. Everyone likes 'freedom' but it is a term that is abused constantly by the libertarian right: NO your businesses should not destroy the environment; pollute our atmosphere; use innapropriate chemicals in foods and toiletrees; not pay any tax (because we all depend on roads and infrastructure which needs paying for) or offload any losses onto the state; buy elections etc etc, that is not the kind of freedom society needs. Other freedoms ofcourse are fine.
@@l000tube ... You've just pointed out so many issues that have been disproven looong time ago ..
@@sefisyara5961 Elaborate further if you like ...
That's where you draw the line. Abortion does not interfere with the rights of anyone participating in society. Birthing a child into poverty does. When a child is brought into the world as a liability on all of society, all of society loses freedom.
I don't think that liberals want to prohibit prayer in school, they just don't want the prayer imposed in school, HUGE difference. Otherwise, it seems to me that liberals want as much freedom in life as possible, while considering economy liberty not as much important, just technicalities, mainly probably because things like taxes and minimum wage are not perceived as immoral (I used to be like that, I ended up libertarian). So, freedom of being gay, hooker, drinker, smoker (of anything) are very obvious liberties for a liberal, but a social conservative just doesn't care about them, they just want other people to follow their "morals" and they seem happy, in general, when sinners go to jail for smoking the wrong plant or being ostracized because they don't go to Church. To me, a working class liberal is a person that needs one last deep debate to become libertarian.
Alexandru Dragoi lol lots of public schools wouldn’t want it no more now that we have a lot of students In different races who are Catholics,Muslims,Buddhists,and even little bit of satanism for now on.
You don’t even know if Muslim Americans or people who love the devil would go crazy and make the school go chaos.
You got public schools to do prayer.
No
I disagree with the conclusion that we must think not in "issues" but in "first principles."
We like to follow ideological divides because it allows us to avoid acknowledging that the world is complex and not easily explained. Nuance is the least comforting, but best approach to dealing with the world around us.
Just think: Our existence in this universe is completely inconsequential. The political divides we've created for ourselves comes from a fixation on our imagined self importance.
"issues" a.k.a elite-manufactured distractions
I'm glad the video helped. The diagram I'm showing isn't my creation. It is called a Nolan chart. If you google it, you'll find short quizzes that ask you questions about specific issues that relate to freedom and then show where you fall on the Nolan chart.
Universal healthcare is not "requiring everyone to have healthcare". It's universal, so it's just kind there if you want it. It's not like Obama care where you are fined or whatever if you don't have healthcare. Obama Care is just forced private healthcare, not universal healthcare in the traditional sense. I feel like these arguments are constrained to American politics, which is a problem sine American politics are mainly right wing. Even the "left" if right wing. Anyone centrist and beyond is considered a commie. This "Learn Liberty" is just American Libertarian ego-strocking. Not only that, but they have managed to totally skew the political spectrum with what Orwell (ironically loved by the American right-wing, despite being a socialist) would call double speak.
Right but it's not private, it's publicly allocated health care.
The only way to pay for Universal Healthcare is through taxes, which is through force. Thus Universal health care = less freedom is the point I think he's trying to make.
You can make that case all day, but if you roll around getting a hard on for freedom, you will have to realize that by living with a group of people, you are accommodating them. Ultimate freedom of choice is impossible since different decisions would interfere with each other, that is why people compromise with each other in small scale relationships, and that is why we have a system of government on large scale relationships.
With that out of the way, we could do two things, as I assume you would be inclined towards one of them... privatize everything, including the use of force, or establish a democratic union which makes decisions and enforces them through popular consensus. As I believe the former would lead to a pseudo-feudal tyranny, I am inclined towards the latter.
Now for healthcare. The reason why most people like the idea of social allocated healthcare is not that they believe it will be free, but because they don't want their healthcare needs being met by people who are, at the bottom line, interested in profits over quality of service. You can make the claim that since they are interested in profits, and they are competing with others, this will drive the quality of service up. (on a varying degree) Not only is this empirically wrong, but it isn't even intuitive when considering basic economics.
John Edwards in the end, i have to pay the government a fee, or buy their shitty product, if i don't the end result is me with a gun to my head...
TL; DR Compare and contrast North Korea with South Korea.
"The wrong place to start is the effect of policies on people. The right place to start is at the first principles. Do we or do we not have right to property and life?" love this quote!
only a libertarian could come up with the minimum wage and universal healthcare as "less economic freedom". I want him to draw graphs on his whiteboard to show me how black is white.
Minimum wage forces businesses to pay a wage that is not be subjective to free market demand. Universal Healthcare forces everyone to buy insurance.
yes, that's the whole point of it. And yes, I believe absolutely that people should be forced to get healthcare insurance. Just like they should be forced to have a home, buy enough food to not starve, be forced to have access to drinking water and enough air to breath.
The point here is CHOICE. That's what freedom means, to have a choice in the matter. People should not be forced to do anything, rather they should be free to make the choices to dictate their own lives. That is the meaning of freedom. By forcing people to purchase anything, you are taking away their economic freedoms. Libertarians believe people should not be forced to do anything, rather they should be free to choose for themselves because they understand their own needs the most.
let's for the sake of argument accept that there would exist people who, given the choice, would choose to have no health coverage even if they could afford it. Of the 50 million people in the US with no health insurance, how many of them are forced to go without health insurance because they cannot afford it? Clearly the overwhelming majority. This is actual reality. The reality is, that the effect of making health insurance compulsary, is more freedom. Reality matters, not ideology.
alienzen You need to have data to back this up... A lot of people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, true, but there's also a lot of them who feel they do not need it. There's a reason why the ACA requires everyone to buy insurance, because many young healthy people are forsaking health insurance. ACA needs these people buying health insurance as well otherwise medical insurance costs would balloon out. That's how insurance works, you need to have both healthy and unhealthy people in the system so they balance each other out. Not being able to afford something is not the same as not having a choice, in many cases they CAN afford it, they just choose not to buy it because they prioritise other things over it. The ACA is not making anything affordable, it's making people spend money on something that they could spend it on something else they feel they need more. Money is not infinite, it's not possible to give everyone everything. Everyone has a finite amount of money, it's their choice how to spend it because they know what they need the most.
It does. Violating assumptions doesn't cause the economic principle to be void. It just introduces some noise. It's like violating the assumption of a frictionless surface in physics. Introducing friction doesn't make gravity change directions. It just makes the analysis a lot more complicated in exchange for a little more realism.
I don't believe I have heard any conservatives asking for "mandatory prayer". That was simply put there to even the scales.
The school is an educational institution, not a church. If you want someone to lead your prayers you may go to church.
Finally, someone mentions that we should be arguing from first principles!! I frequently find myself in discussions where other individuals try to make their points based on outcomes of policy. This is wrong-headed, indeed.
I've always founds the terms conservative and liberal to be too vague and imprecise to have much relevance. The real dichotomy here is liberty versus statism, and I think it would help society tremendously if people understood that.
In political science, economic liberalism refers to the views favouring free trade and fewer regulations. I hate how Americans hijack the terms.
@Kevashida As a side note , let's say you own a house. You signed a mortgage and placed your family member's name also on the mortgage. You never miss a payment, you are never late. Your family member gets into fiscal trouble and has to declare bankruptcy. Let's say over medical payments. Still the mortgage payments are on time, and in the full amount, every month. What should the bank do with your mortgage?
I care far less about the actual individual and the potential individual than all of the other individuals forming the society. If the actual individual is considering abortion, there's a good chance that said abortion will save the society at large tens, if not hundreds of thousand dollars worth of resources. Those resources would be taken away from society by force, thus reducing freedom on a large scale. Child bearing is a responsibility, and one that should be personal, not public.
As an ancap/voluntarist my principles are that everything in society should be voluntary, you should not force people and you should also of course honor your agreements.
People should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies. They should be able to organize themselves however they want as long as people are not forced into to something..
Great video, more of America needs to think this way!
Minimum wages were enacted to prevent competition from women and minorities. There are plenty of historical citations on this topic.
By Liberty and Freedom are not synonymous. Liberty is merely being "free from" constraint. Freedom means you are free to rule yourself to a certain extent, but there are constraints because you are not an island. You are not autonomous. You have to live among others, unless you want to dwell in international waters for the rest of your life, but how productive could you possibly be?
Freedom requires both liberty from and purpose toward a productive goal to be, otherwise it isn't.
Lots of things are about Power. Morality is a foundation that keeps you grounded when you possess and use it. It's a frame of mind that one must have if one is to use Power to both remain unharmed and to prosper and grow. This is analogous to how to succeed in any sport; your mind has to be grounded in the basic truth of the sport you're playing. If your football team believes it ought to be playing soccer, how many games do you think they're going to win?
You are mistaken. First, the average person in the US earns around $40,000 a year in wages (the median is lower; probably around $30,000). Second, according to Congressional Budget Office numbers (which are linked from the White House website), the average one-percenter pays a 28% tax (all federal taxes combined) compared to 14% for the average middle-class person. These numbers are *after* applying deductions, exemptions, loopholes, etc.
@kDest (page 4) In summary, import tariffs only serve to reduce the wealth of the general public. However, certain domestic, less competitive & less efficient producers and their workforce will benefit. So, the policy serves special interests at public expense. Now it's your turn to demonstrate why anything I've said is either "unlikely" or false.
Classical liberalism is a philosophy that begins with the assumption that each person owns himself and then constructs a body of principles that flow logically from that assumption.
Libertarianism is a political movement that seeks many of the ends that can be justified using classical liberal thought.
@MegaLazygamer you realize that change came with a change in the locations of the issues. He didn't say Liberals want more freedom, instead he said that you can classify those same issues in a very different way.
The protective laws were eventually ruled unconstitutional. Still, it does not change the hypothesis that the lack of minimum wage would drive wages down to nothing.
One point in this film is that it is RIGHT to start from first principles, but WRONG to start with effects. No form of decision is wrong or right inherently. IF your principle is that you should declare absolute and unwavering beliefs from which you will not deviate, and then deduce your plans accordingly, go for it. That's your choice. If your principle is that the effects of your actions should be considered first, and that absolute thinking leads nearly invariably to harm, then thats ok too
This prof is totally reasonable and his point shoots straight to the heart of the matter. That is why I am a libertarian, small "L."
Principles and philosophy over party. Once Americans can start putting the partisanship aside, and using their Reason instead of their emotions to make political decisions, we will have Liberty again.
PS: and WTF is with people disliking this video? Are people that insecure about their little partisan paradigms and dogmas? No wonder this country is so ****ed up.
@jackie8mccall He may have defined the terms by way of the dictionary, but he interpreted those definitions in such a way to support his argument. Did you notice the part where he redefined the terms to "more freedom," and "less freedom?" That is redefining the definitions and the fallacy I was noting.
@kDest "Macroeconomics is complex." No doubt. But when examining any specific economic or social policy in isolation, look at the shift in incentives that are created. People who are affected by said policies, either directly or indirectly, will react predictably to the incentives they create. Almost invariably, that will explain the unintended consequences of every policy.
So, both are at a tie?
@residentzombie What does that have to do with mandatory prayer?
Prohibiting prayer in public schools isn't something that needs to go on the liberal side. Separating church and public education is something this country is supposed to already be doing.
@ Prof Davis. The freedom axis is a fine way to analyze things. But to throw into the mix is the freedom from sin angle and the protestant insistence in the absence of perfect free will.
@ridaderek exactly. You have to look at long term results. I invite you to do so.
@tasp3
(however I find it more disconcerting that in lieu of a public option they would STILL mandate that I purchase insurance, when the private insurance industry is all that's left. I will gladly go on record and say I have no such intention of doing so, seeing as I loathe the health insurance industry)
Essentially yes. That is, if you define both as advocates of maximum economic and social freedoms.
No, the figures I'm quoting are the actual average tax rates that exist after the people take their deductions, loopholes, varying marginal tax rates, etc. Romney is one person. I am quoting the average of 1.1 million households.
I'm sorry, I could have sworn I saw Dubya's face in the "Economically Conservative" part of the graph. That must have been a mistake on LearnLiberty's part. I hope they correct it soon.
Leaders are held to a higher standard because of the culture branched off from Europe where the ones in power used to be kings. Most kings I have read about have an ego so they hold themselves up higher than the rest.
In other cultures the leader does not hold themselves up. They are performing a public service and are in it to help not gain prestige.
Which culture do you think is more productive?
@kDest The hard thing about all of this is that we can't run scientific experiments on entire nations. However, having 50 states allows for a degree of experimentation, provided that the states aren't subject to federal mandates. So, if either of us is wrong, then the mistake is that much more widespread. If UHC, or any policy, turns out to be such an unquestionably great idea at a state level, then other states would be pressured to follow suit to stay competitive.
@badluckwitcarpet . . . which goes back to why the income tax is unconstitutional. Our founders saw that it wasn't good to tax "private moneys" - which is what income usually is, for most people. Also, the same money shouldn't be taxed twice, which is also what the income tax does - you get tax taken out of your check (which is most of the time privately made money), then you buy about anything and its taxed again.
@kDest "before new businesses pop up to take in these workers." Why will new business pop up? Why haven't they shown up already, and if they have, why haven't they been able to attract local workers away from the multinationals' factories? Living standards have already increased thanks to sweatshops. The fact that those workers voluntarily accept such jobs shows that the alternatives were worse. I'm all for local business thriving too, but how will tariffs somehow bring that about?
@kDest That interpretation of the statistics may or may not mean anything about the effectiveness of UHC. Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. Americans have very different lifestyle habits when compared to other developed nations, esp regarding diet. This is influenced by various crop subsidies, esp to corn farmers. This leads to (among other things) excess supply of high fructose corn syrup, thus artificially reducing costs of things like soda relative to fresh fruits & veggies.
Here's how I see conservative and liberal in modern US politics: conservatism is about preserving the founding American political principles of individual rights, strict constitutionalism, economic freedom, rule of law, and limited government with sparing (or conservative), limited use of gov. intervention while liberalism refers to drifting away from said principles and then disguising it as "progress" or "hope and change." These aren't social meanings or classical definitions of course.
Prof. Davis is the first person I've heard in academia that even remotely explains clearly what is going on. Thank you sir! Thank you!
To go slightly further. Conservatives favor some liberties and oppose others. Liberals prefer this liberty over that one. Two things must then be questioned. Why prefer this liberty and try to suppress another? What is your definition of liberty? Is liberty, you being allowed to do it or me being protected from you doing it?
What if your first principle IS to first consider the impact of your choices on people, rather than to reduce the practical issue to the abstract to justify increasing harm under the guise of "increasing freedom"? What then?
@becanshrman Depends on your definition.
"The wrong place to start is with the effect of these things on people, the right place to start is at the "first principles."" That says it all right there. Fuck people my principles are more important.
You completely missed the point.... Obviously wealth opens options that would otherwise not be affordable, but he is talking about legality of options, not price of options.
Free trade- Less freedom for people with small businesses that can't compete globally
Drug war- More freedom for people who make prescription drugs
Gay marrage-Less freedom to discriminate
Minimum wage-Freedom to not have to work below minimum wage to support self
Do you get the picture? There is no such thing as "freedom" issues, only issues that redistribute freedom. Sometimes freedoms have to change hands to have a more fair country. That's just the way things are.
Great points here.
@Chad9976 I understand your sentiments, but I think he was bringing up that issue for the sake of the argument. I take it as generalizing the different stances of the role of religion in the government from both political sides.
Social Issues- Liberals
Economic Issues- Conservatives
Cont. It stops the school from enforcing it. The fourth one also violated the first amendment. The third example is against the government endorsing one religion over the other, which is unfair to anyone who isn't a christian. Quote from Rev Barry W. Lynn on the issue. “Government can’t serve everyone in the community when it endorses one faith over others. That sends the clear message that some are second-class citizens based on what they believe about religion.”
As a principle, it might appear to be sound; in practice, it doesn't come close. The issue is freedom and the taking of personal wealth is undertaken by force and is, thus, by definition, not freedom. Overwhelmingly, the taking of personal wealth from some people has been overwhelmingly harmful to the quality of lives within society, particularly in the case of "public charity". So little is spent (even in the military budget) for defense, that hardly helps your case.
Nothing about rights or liberty is self-evident. It's all arbitrary, based on ideas and values. This is why it is so hard to get people to agree about them. Saying something is "self-evident," is merely declaring it to be beyond question. Thus, there cannot be rational discussion about it.
What is mandatory prayer in public school supposed to be? I have never heard of anyone promoting that in my entire life.
I have heard of banning prayer in public school though.
There was something about mandatory prayer in school but that was over half a century ago it's A long dead issue.
I disagree with the whole liberal / conservative issues slide where the issues are split up. Each issue is an issue onto itself and both sides take an opposing view point.
They have a video about minimum wage, but what they don't discuss is how it limits the freedom of the business owners to chose to chose the pay for their employees. If there are two workers, Sal being good, and Jim being bad at his work, the business owner would simply pay Sal $10 and Jim $5. But minimum wage forces the employer to pay a minimum of $8. Therefor, Jim is laid off because his job performance is not worth $8.
A quote from ffrf regarding the first article "We are not asking you to punish people for exercising their religious faith. We are asking you to discipline teachers for violating the law and abandoning their duties and to discipline students for skipping class." They aren't against the students being religious, but for skipping class, and because the teachers let that happen, willingly or not. The 2nd and 4th examples were school sponsored event, which again doesn't stop kids from praying cont.
Back when prayer was a common practice in the schools the schools were run by churches and were a community matter, not a federal one.
There are lots of institutions actively trying to make it illegal to pray in schools. Whether or not christians at one time wanted to force prayer on others (which I find a dubious assertion), right now many (not all) atheists are trying to force prayer out of schools. If you think it should be a choice I agree with you 100% and we should work together.
I often hear the phrase 'control your work', or 'freedom of labor' yet I haven't heard anyone explain how that system would work. I understand the idea of redistributing capital but what do you mean (personally) by 'control your work'?
@ridaderek I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared.... To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.... We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.... If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements....
-- Thomas Jefferson
You missed half of it. Context.
I did, the only examples I found was banning mandatory prayer in school.
precisely!
Bom vid - mas onde está o link para o original?
@yuothineyesasian What does that have to do with forcing people to pray?
He mentions universal health care as a freedom issue, but I think it's more complicated than he lets on. In most countries health care is already universal, as there is a mandate that someone needing urgent care cannot be denied it regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. Requiring the purchase of insurance is designed to force everyone to pay for the health care that is already available to them.
The problem as I see it is that when the government gets involved there are unintended consequences that end up causing more problems than they solve. Like the subsidization of corn and the intervention in the sugar markets. It happens in everything from rent control and 'smart growth policies' to minimum wage and equal pay laws. Unfortunately people usually only look at the good intentions of these programs and not their economic effects. People choose idealistic morality over economic reality
no... that's a completely separate idea. In your example, some people are losing their freedom entirely. In my example, some people are losing their PRIVILEGE that freedom may exist for those who didn't have any in the beginning.
In your example, it is assumed they are both equal in power and freedom and then one of the groups bands together against the other.
In mine, they are not equal and they band together for the equality of freedom.
No. Divorce is the legal means by which a contract is dissolved. If marrage is not a contract than divorce would not be necessary to dissolve it in the first place.
*I do know that this video is six years old, but still wanted to interject here.
Anybody arguing about the classification of certain issues on the "more freedom" or "less freedom" scale by Dr. Davies has missed the purpose of this video. That was merely a tool to help explicate his point. The purpose is to start political debate on "first principles", instead of issues. There is a reason why youtube comment section debates are never resolved, and it is for the precise reason, in my opinion, that has been stated here. When we debate issues that are contingent upon ideas not agreed upon by both parties, it is logically impossible to convince either party to change.
he never questioned whether these positions should be ascribed to conservatives or liberals---- the economic positions like reducing taxes should be described as liberal positions--------- I would rather stick to issues each position on an issue should be described as conservative or liberal---------- the more conservative positions you have the conservative you are
@TheLeperMessi4h
So you're saying we shouldn't have a tax bracket? I was more talking about the way corporations are taxed versus individuals (even though due to a few hundred lawsuits following the end of the civil war corporations are people legally), not the highest classes. I do think we need to raise the bracket on those who make their money from dividends and capital gains but not tax higher on smaller investment profits. I'm not saying eliminate taxes on the lower class
If only everybody in the world understood these principles that make so much sense!
@kDest "Better health is good" depends on the cost of achieving it. Is it worthwhile at any per capita cost to taxpayers? Not to mention the moral cost? Or the reduced competitive pressure on related industries and the associated unfair advantages? Why force everyone into a system when only a tiny fraction are involuntarily uninsured, a further fraction of which are truly at risk? One thing that would prevent the poorest of the poor from staying that way is getting rid of minimum wage.
His point about first principles assumes that they are so fundamental that we needn't consider cases where it doesn't apply. This causes problems like in his example of 'do we have property right?'. To simply say 'yes' without regard for its limits is a mistake. An example of the limits of property rights is when the acquisitions of that property is damaging. Does a drug baron have the right to keep all they have accumulated? Life happens in a social context.
The first time my canadian friends introduce me to the left-right political compass, I was labeled as libertarian socialism. They told me I'm a liberal. They're conservative however.
I told them "this is probably the worst measurement I've never seen in my life". They asked me why. I told them even if I support gay rights and many social issues, I am in full support of fiscal policy and make productive investment. How can they put me in a gang?
Your graph is the one I'm looking for.
It doesn't matter if they say they are liberal or conservative, almost all politician want to take away your freedoms in one way or another.
Ron Paul 2012!
To libertarians, freedom does not cease to be relevant when it comes to economic decisions. To modern liberals, freedom means what you feel you are entitled to using the property of other people.
Actually he described it as "everyone is forced to buy insurance" which raises a much larger issue. There were potential models proposed that would have in no way required people to buy insurance, if that is a problem for people. The insurance mandate is the worse aspect of the health care law passed by this Congress. Pretty much set the whole reform attempt to ultimately fail as it will be ruled unconstitutional (and rightly so).
This is a really confusing example. The rich person, normally cannot buy the piece of art below market value, the appraiser cannot legally appraise it for anything but market value, and the savings on a $2000 tax write off would barely cover a $500 appraisal fee, even at the highest tax bracket. You don't get $2000 off your taxes, you get $2000 off your taxable income. Further, art isn't necessarily tax deductible, though it can be.
@ridaderek That is why 80% of all failed mortgages can be traced to things like predatory lending, bank gimics( adjustable interest rate that start off low, with the lenders saying the interest will not raise and then the interest doubling.) Yes, one in five bad mortgages of the crash can be traced back to home owners, and at that number it still would have been a horrid thing, but four of five are the banks fault.
@kDest "In addition to public healthcare like medicare and medicaid, and the simple fact that any private healthcare system is going to be more expensive for the same quality of service as its public equivalent (profits, remember)."
Actually, under those systems, the profit is already excessive and is insured by taxes, reducing the incentive for providers to compete on price to gain market share. Are healthcare prices not currently set privately? What change would make them rise?
I wasn't being dogmatic about libertarian first principles, but about the application of logic. One either believes that people own themselves or that they don't. Whichever of these you take as your first principle implies many other things. I'm simply arguing for consistency -- if one doesn't like the consequences that flow from one's first-principle-of-choice, then it's time to find a new first principle.
And let me just say that right now I am ecstatic, I don't argue to win arguments (argue isn't really the word I want to use but I can't think of another one) but to just make people think about other options there are.
> you might also dispute the numbers...
I'm not disputing the numbers. The people who collect the actual data are disputing the numbers. I'm merely reporting what they said.
I was actually quite confused when you were dividing the issues between conservative and liberal. It would have been much easier to follow if you said wanting or not wanting to end the drug war, or wanting/not wanting to make illegal prayer in public schools. I also think the video could have sorted the difference between economic freedom and social freedom, which would have introduced libertarianism, statism, and centralism.
No, they wanted people to be allowed to have school prayer, not for it to be mandatory. They wanted to exercise the first amendment through prayer, not force people to pray.