I was a Libertarian long before I ever heard the word Libertarian. It seems only natural that I have a right to my body and my freedoms and that no other man has more rights than do I. Or that any man has the right to impose his will on me as long as I am not violating anyone else's rights or freedoms. Why is Freedom such a hard idea for most people?
The crux of true libertarianism is essentially this: "Leave me the hell alone, I can handle my own affairs just fine." It's also really the only view that assigns people some measure of intelligence and demands that they be responsible for their own actions. You reap whatever it is you decided to sow; no one is going to tell you what that should be. Use your brain and figure it out for yourself.
Sure i leave you The Hell alone, please do not use our infrastructure in any way and if attacked or need police help sort it out yourself... Do not call sane society, 👍
Where would you suggest as the best place to live in the USA for a Libertarian? Freest state, county etc? I hear a lot about North Idaho. Any thoughts?
@googlenazicompany5935by brainwash them of what would make them happy or not. It's real in some corrupted one, but better be happy of what individual perceive as happy honestly.
@@InTheZ0n3 of course it goes for liberals! They exist because they worrie that the state is gonna take to much responsibility over things that an individual can handle fine by himself.
@@Kindacutehuh It depends on what one means by "liberalism". And it means a bit different things in America and Europe. In America it means what in Europe would be called social liberalism meaning the more left-leaning liberalism (incl. such things as welfare state, equal opportunity, economic intervention etc), as practised by Democratic Party in the USA. In Europe, such practices are associated with social democratic and other left parties, while liberalism means more of what Americans would call Libertarianism (basically, classical/conservative liberalism).
Libertarianism in a nut shell is using common sense. If you lack the ability to posses common sense and utilize critically thinking you’ll never find yourself to be a libertarian.
I am a libertarian. I am pro choice. I believe in equality. I believe it is the womans choice. If someone kills a pregnant woman they should only be charged with one murder. If a man decides that he doesn't want to be a father then he is not to be held accountable for the well being of that child. A women who doesn't want a child is called pro choice, a man who doesn't want a child is called a dead beat. 100% equality, not just when it is convenient for someone.
What does an individual who murders a pregnant woman being charged with two murders a breeching of gender equality? If the foetus is of a particular gestational age where it is developed enough for it to be classified as a living thing, it should be considered a double murder, it's just a fact. I am saying this as a libertarian myself who strongly supports gender equality and overall social equality.
The argument for libertarian pro-life goes as follows: 1. An fetus is a human being with Human Rights. 2. Libertarians believe that the right to life and liberty of other human beings should not be infringed. Conclusion: Taking (1) and (2) together: Libertarians believe that the right to life and liberty of fetuses should not be infringed. Now, Premise (1) is not libertarian or otherwise. It has nothing to do with libertarianism...either for or against it. The libertarian philosophy only comes into play with Premise (2). The argument for libertarian pro-choice would run like this: 1. A fetus is not a human being with Human Rights. 2. Libertarians believe that the right to life and liberty of other human beings should not be infringed conclusion: Nothing follows logically from 1 and 2 that prevents abortion, and therefore it is allowable. under premise (2) regarding personal liberty. (i.e. other human beings have the liberty to have an abortion) The point here is that the debate is about point (1), not point (2). And point one is not connected either in a positive or negative way to libertarianism.
Bill West You know, I think I saw an article that said 40% of women were okay with a draft for women. I know I am, and I think a draft only for men is not fair. I believe in true equality, so I don't want men to be disadvantaged or women to have special privileges.
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” - Peter Drucker. We are more lead by culture than principle, libertarianism means nothing when culture is broken. People just revert to the primitive mindset
I don’t think the NAP should coincide with libertarianism because it contradicts our ideals of limited government in which requires minimal taxation. So in truth, there must be some form of aggression for libertarianism to work and that does not fall in line with the NAP. Instead, I believe we should simply highlight the fact that government endeavors are both immoral to those who do not agree and inefficient. It is not the obligations government to force on the people what the government believes is best for themselves, but rather maintain order in which allows the people to decide accordingly.
@@Desolation66 If I'm not mistaken they take the nonagression principle as Ethics, because it cannot be arbitrary, whereas morals can. I might be wrong though.
I've been a Libertarian since I was 19, I've been a christain and I'm an atheist and a pantheist, non of these changed my view of Libertarianism. My position is most of the time it's more immoral for the government to do X , regardless of what other immoral thing is going on, with exception to clearly things necessary for society . Like prohibiting murder , theft , rape , ect. . At 18 I was prolife(three months ) I shifted to pro~choice(5months +) And I currently hold the position that abortion is a tragedy, but government prevention of such is a greater tragedy.
Libertarianism is a profoundly moral, ethical set of beliefs. It's founded on the assertion that people have a right to live without interference, and that they also have the right to ownership. The economics follow from that and, happily, they're good! However, even if state-confiscation could somehow lead to greater human happiness, it would still be unethical and could therefore not be rightly embraced.
Listened to this three times all the way through and the only thing I got from this that libertarians want the government controlling and intervening in less parts of the people's daily lives. This smart man said more stuff and I tried to pay attention, it only went in one ear and out the other.
I absolutely disagree with the notion that you can be an interventionalist in foreign policy and remain consistent with libertarianism. A basic and founding principle of libertarianism is the right to personal property in one's self, labor, and things. To aggress against other's property right in the form of foreign intervention or violence directly violates this basic tenant.
You can't have free trade if you don't have any influence in the world. If the US decides to maintain any worldwide defensive position then China, Russia and other dictatorial regimes will run tight over US. The US will totally isolated- only local free trade such as the South China Sea will just depend on the whims of Chinese Communist Party. With no position overseas the US can do nothing if China decides pay us millions for trade to continue.
Hello everybody! I think being a Libertarian is being an Absolutist and a follower of Self-Steemnisn. Ayn Rand describes this definitions in all her books and philosophy and I believe all Libertarians should read her books and learn more about her Romantic Manifest, the Atlas Shugged and specially her book "We The Living" where she predicts accurately what is happening right now in America. Everybody should read these books and follow Ayn Rand's message and philosophy...If you really think and believe that you are a Libertarian. "Hey! Little Apple Where Are You Rolling!
I feel like the fundamental libertarian belief basically sums up America, freedom, of virtually everything that doesn’t come at the extent of anyone’s rights. This is how things should be.
Since I became a US citizen, I have been researching where I fit in the political spectrum. I took several online tests and quizzes. So far, it looks like I am a pragmatic, realistic, left-leaning libertarian who is most passionate about some of the conservative views.
Please don’t jump down my throat. I’m not an expert in political ideology but I’m certainly interested. I hear the argument for every person having a right to do unto themselves as they wish. It’s a very basic principle but I feel the world has moved passed a basic existence. I’d like to refer to the huge number of people living on the streets while so high they can’t even move and also the number of them dropping dead. At what point does a persons right to ingest whatever they want weighed against not only the burden put on their fellow men by having their environment overrun by the aftermath but also the theoretical point where these drugs have become such a widespread problem that your country is put in jeopardy from the lack of functionality that can take place. Unbridled drug use can also be used as a weapon by foreign adversaries who both with product and directed influence could push very dangerous substances on your population. At what point does the affect of individuals using drugs should it become a clear and present danger to the functionality of the non user’s life and well being constitute a forcible response to impose A removal of access to the drugs on the users?
@novedzor I fully respect that. I didn't mean to come across as someone who fully supports that theory, it was just one that I found while researching Libertarian philosophy. Abortion really is a very difficult and touchy subject. And don't forget, there's always the issue of rape/unconsenting sexual abuse as well. Personally, I find it hard to strongly support either side.
I am Libertarian and a Pagan. I don't follow in one system but a mix between all and no systems- examples sometimes socialism has valid points, sometimes democracy, labour, sometimes even communism in certain controversal aspects and sometimes controversal is the only way sometimes liberal is othertimes labour.. Mostly labour and democracy for me if I do choose. It really does come down to circumstance, peoples positions, fairness and right coutse and reason why at the time of an event or decision etc. I accept what I feel is the best course or option for humans and animals and the planets position in a given time or for the forseeable future. Whether it be alternatives towards climate change, anti-war and war, technological advancments, AI, Computing, education, healthcare, economy, elderly, childcare etc.. I follow the pursuit I feel is best suited to all people rather than specific categories and usally I end up being the one so called annoyinh one (think humane and thoughtfuls the one) in the house/congress who complely votes against the other decisions to come up with a 3rd outside the box alternative or none at all as sometimes there's no concrete solution at the current time without further investigation and questions to the right people! I am a very libetarian person also when it comes to voting I will vote not for the party that's got the most votes or doing better but the one I feel personally is better for the country or wold we rside in (I go for the most humane vote when acceptable to do so) not always the case sometimes you have to get a bit dirty depnding on whom and what the situation. On other occassions I will skip thew process of voting entirely (normally my way) like with Brexit for example I didn't vote but more stayed in the middle because I saw pros and cons for both leaving and staying just with neither really having a stronger hold on the other. I don't vote for anything that's catch 22 or swings and roundabouts I am too open minded and am in search for more alternative options we've never tried before. I always vote against anything regarding genocide, mass assassinations and race and hate wars unless the aggessor is the opposition and we're the defender and have no alternative but to fght in self defense then i'm on par with everyone else. I'm always against child offenses and animal abuse regardless of its nature! Not to be confused with eating to survive over harming with intent. Libertarians can come accross as very confusing, optimisitic and peccimistic and all inbetween. We're not we're simply realistic, intelligent open free thinkers who have no issue getting their hands clean or dirty for the greater good. One thing we are is unpredictable decision makers because we're so open and free minded we tend to make the best calls when others don't see it at first in the end it works out. Libertarians are like the Julio cesar of Emperors and Empresses. Most royals are libetarian reason why they rarely vote unless it's worth it. Sometimes the government don't have a solution regardless of which way they approach a situation. Sometimes it's best to do nothing until the right time to change comes. I find Libetarian people are the best types of people to be friends with, form groupies and circles or movments with. They don't judge and if they do we're open and honest rather than backstabbing lies. Great video good points.
I grew up in a Liberal household. I was told that Libertarianism is, lets just say, not the best ideology to follow. All Libertarianism means is "Leave me alone, and I will leave you alone." How is this portrayed as "Right Wing?" Libertarianism sounds like Human Decency.
Pretty much me. Your life, your family, your body, your affiliations, your problems, etc… same with me. If you need help, you can request it. If someone decides to start a charity to help the cause, good for them. Just… don’t force it down someone else’s throat.
I am a libertarian now and forever. Thank you. You go left, you go right, i'm going straight down the middle. Also, a porcupine vs an elephant... you will jump off, vs a donkey? Please! Less government more liberty! It's good to know where you finally belong. I thought I was a republican; I was growing up. The military and police corruption almost made me into a democrat. Learning where you stand in government is similar to what I imagine enlightenment must feel like
Libertarianism was started by an anarcho-communist. Declaring oneself as a libertarian, is self-declaring yourself as far left. "Joseph Déjacque (French: [deʒak]; 27 December 1821, in Paris - 18th November 1865, in Paris) was a French early anarcho-communist poet, philosopher and writer. He coined the term "libertarian" (French: libertaire) for himself[1][2] in a political sense in a letter written in 1857,[3] criticizing Pierre-Joseph Proudhon for his sexist views on women, his support of individual ownership of the product of labor and of a market economy. He also published an essay in 1858, titled "On 'Exchange'", in which he wrote that, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of their needs, whatever may be their nature."[4]"
What it is is exactly the ideals and values our founders had for this country if principles are adhered to. Why it does not catch on is perplexing. It does not help that they frequently put up off the wall candidates but damn people, it is all about liberty.
Yes, these were the ideals, but people kind of got sick of it when the elites had all the money and could just hire "company security forces" to beat up workers who didn´t want to work for unlivable wages.
Indeed , the question is : under what circumstances does a human being flourish in a complex society? Unbridled individualism is a map that can only lead to greed and selfishness as the neo-liberaliste as advocated for the last 40 years or so has demonstrated , the trbickle down, deregulations, privatisation etc..only serves the few which have profited from a system that was already in place and which resources were largely paid and worked for by the taxpayer as a collective. I can't see no conflict in adopting a form of libertarianism that is not sinonymous with a "me first " doctrine.
I disagree with the idea that libertarians think they are autonomous. I am a libertarian and I think that humans are interdependent on society and are able to function as an entity in and of itself (I am, of course, speaking from a purely economical standpoint)
I'd argue that libertarianism is in fact a moral commitment. The nonaggression principle being central to libertarianism where it is immoral to infringe on others' liberty, especially through violence.
Frankly watching this video it irritated me too, that it talked about things like free market. The reason for me not liking that, is that this way of describing libertarianism comes from the sixties. like before that it was used to describe socialists. Or in other words he seems to only describe libertarianism from a laissez-faire capitalist perspective.
Left-wing libertarianism, ie anarchism and later libertarian Marxism, were the first political movements to call themselves libertarian in a political sense. They seek to establish a “free association of producers” where the individuality of all flourishes under an egalitarian system of political economy, however only the Marxists and social-anarchists (collectivist-anarchists, anarchist-syndicalists, and libertarian communists) opposed all private or individual ownership of economic property and social class distinctions, meanwhile the individual-anarchists (mutualists, egoist-anarchists, and agorists/free-market anarchists) believe that an anarchist society or community would involve a combination of small-scale individual enterprise and larger cooperative enterprise in free exchange amongst each other, at least for the most part, with decentralised community planning also having its place in mutualism in particular. The term libertarianism was coined in 1789 and originally referred to the philosophical belief in free will and agency of the human mind, as opposed to determinism or fatalism. The kind of libertarianism that this channel promotes is a modernised form of classical liberalism: economically liberal/fiscally conservative (laissez-faire free market capitalism, free trade) socially/culturally liberal, and limited government derived in popular sovereignty ruling under the consent of the governed protecting the right of equal liberty (Anybody can do whatever they want so long as they don’t deprive anyone the capacity to do whatever they want).
@takadi that's the problem they're having in Egypt right now. The people want democracy and civil rights, but they can't figure out how to subordinate the military to civilian rule. This is the struggle of freedom, the struggle that was the american revolution. it's not about anarchy, it's about sovereignty and liberty.
I'm pretty sure telling someone it's illegal to have an abortion goes against the idea of libertinism. The individual should make their choice not the government
Unless there are obvious immortals like we would ban a murder in a libertarian society. Because that would be violating someone’s rights. So the argument is that a fetus is a human life because they are alive.
There are Libertarians that aren't pro-choice or close to isolationist? I thought those were two of the most important ideas of the ideology. That's definitely true for the Libertarian party. I know the party is seen as out there by some Libertarians, but no one running in it has these opposing views? What the hell have I been missing!?
@Locky Yes and no. “Libertarian” came into modern day inception as an ideological moniker for mid to late 19th century socialists, specifically including anarchists. Around the mid 20th century, American right wingers co-opted and began to use the term to describe varying forms of laissez-faire capitalism, restrictions on governmental, and N.A.P. adherence. In mainstream political parlance we generally just drop the “right-wing” when describing libertarians who lean right. But many on the left still use the term today to describe their ideologies. So yes, both left and right libertarians do hold similar goals in mind of “freedom” and “liberty”. But no, in they have different fundamental understandings of what achieving said freedom would entail.
No, libertarianism makes no such assumption. Indeed, it acknowledges that people are inherently not equal beyond the basic fact of being equally people. It's radical egalitarians who are observably wrong and have a literally impossible goal.
@@Nanofuture87 But you're "inherent" lack of equality isn't a naturally occuring phenomenon amongst human beings. Hoarding wealth and power, government sponsored monopolies, social bigotry, and so much more are the reasons for this inequality. Egaliatirians recognize the inherent lack of creativity and desire for doing actual good on the part of neoliberals, fascists, libertarians, etc.
@@peterosky790 There is an inherent lack of equality that is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Human beings are born in different places to different parents with different genetics, they grow up in different environments learning different things and meeting different people. Achieving total equality is physically impossible and even attempting it leads to really dark places like eugenics, which was popular among progressives before fascists took it up. Libertarians want to do away with government sponsored monopolies. Saving wealth is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a free market and the only way to gain wealth in a free market in the first place is by providing some valuable service to others. Additionally, wealthier societies are more charitable, with people raised in relatively capitalist nations helping strangers more than people raised in socialist nations. Would there be inequality in a libertarian order? Absolutely, but it's better to be relatively poor while improving in absolute terms than to be equally destitute in an authoritarian nightmare. Libertarians want human flourishing. A lot of socialists have actively anti-human philosophies.
@@Nanofuture87 you want flourishing for humans you deem worthy. "Saving wealth" or HOARDING is actually TERRIBLE for a market economy. It quite literally removes money from circulation.
@@peterosky790 No, I want flourishing for the most people, which is what market economies accomplish in the long term. As for saving, what exactly do you think is happening? Do you think wealthy people have giant vaults of cash and coins that they swim in Scrooge McDuck style? No. They have their money in banks, which lend out funds, and investments which are presumably engaging in some productive activity. Even if they literally were holding physical cash, that too serves a function in a market economy. Removing money from circulation is not inherently bad just as adding money to circulation is not inherently good.
@stitty contd. Also correlation =/= causation, just because human trafficking increased in Austria and it's legal, doesn't necessarily mean those two are causal, and even if they are making them illegal wouldn't do anything since human trafficking is already illegal.
Libertarianism is explicitly NOT just a political doctrine. For info on the enormous world movement, and some great thought-tools GOOGLE Libertarian International Organization. Enjoy!
The term corporation actually comes from being incorporated by investors. Etymology does not change whenever you want it to fit your political platform.
He's taking his own view to seriously, libertarian party is so diverse, I feel it's the most diverse and ideas in specifics so this should be more unbiased I feel
Libertarianism is originally a word that French social-anarchists and anarcho-egoists (distinctly stirnerites, not randians) used to describe themselves after the government there made it illegal to discuss or advocate anarchism. Then Nozick took the term for his philosophy, which was very much a different one, and critiqued utilitarianism with it, utilitarians shot back with a thought experiment. That basically demonstrated that both utilitarianism and nozick's libertarianism were pretty crummy philosophies. Then Rand came along and took the name egoism from stirner, and slapped a "rational" on the front, deciding that the only "rational" self-interest was to become wealthy and thereby produce things. Stirner's philisophy, by comparison, encouraged people to abandon all concepts that were not altogether backed by reason, as they were fixed ideas; that one should strive to alleviate themselves of such fixed ideas and act in their self interest unfettered by such ideas as religion, capitalism, the state, etc. Stirner himself was a socialist, making it incredibly ironic that so many staunch anti-socialists invoked his name. The same, I suppose, is true of Mr. Orwell. "Libertarianism" died with Nozick's hit on Utilitarianism and the subsequent rebuttal. You are randians.
"What's called libertarianism in the United States is a significant deviation from traditional libertarian thought.Traditionally,say in Europe,"libertarian" meant the anti-state wing of the socialist party. In the United States,"libertarian" means ultra-capitalist; it means permitting capitalist institutions to function essentially without constraint, or virtually with no constraint.That's a recipe for one of the worst kinds of tyranny that exists: unaccountable corporate tyranny."- Chomsky
I have a genuine question: I understand the opposition to a notion of some government machine dictating the movement of every person. However, what if we scale down to a community level? If the old woman down the street lost her husband and her bad back makes it hard for her to keep up her house, doesn't libertarianism essentially condemn her to die alone in a collapsing house?
It doesn't, no. There's family, there's charity, there's mutual aid, there's insurance. There are all manner of ways to help people besides forcibly stealing from others.
The Economy is The Congress. Democracy, the rule of the people, is based on three pillars 1. Everyone has an equal vote. 2. Voting is not obligatory, ie veto (You may have to vote, but 'none of the above' must be an option). 3. The way you vote is private. Voting with ballots is for suckers. Voting with money is a much better idea. Social Democracy is achieved with unconditional basic income, an equal dividend of tax wealth for everyone, rich and poor alike. Political Democracy, however, can be augmented with a Conditional Income which must be spent in an Ultruistic Congressional Crowd Fund. In this Crowd Fund, everyone has 1. an equal amount of money 2. do not have to take part. 3. are anonymous in their choice. This is how you can use money to vote instead of ballots and make it democratic. By understanding economies as congressional, either partially in the case of UBI, or totally in the case of CBI, we can see we don't really live in a democracy at all, because the power of decision making is not ballots, but money. If we can demand an augmentation to our political system with an Alturistic Congressional Crowd Fund we could transition to a brighter more altruistic future full of potential and opportunity. Let me use an example for the UK, Foreign Aid. Create an Ultruistic Congressional Crowd fund for Foreign Aid, fill it with the campaigns of applicants for this aid, split the budget for foreign aid equally and proportionally as a credit into each citizen's Crowd Fund Account and let the people spend their way to the democratic decision on how that foreign aid money should be spent. Tax needs to be levied on the Demand, in every case. The only fair tax, is a tax on demand. If Tax on demand is levied at every stage of the supply chain (rather than at the end of the supply chain as in the case of UK VAT) the problem is solved. So there is a small tax on each transaction for goods or services; that's how the banks make money, every time someone uses a card to pay for something the bank takes a small percentage. That way we could over time abolish all other taxes like income tax, VAT, inheritence tax etc. Sponsor individuals and tax demand would create a very nice demand driven economy.
@TheLyricalGal Well corporations are for the most enabled by state intervention, so without state intervention, .i.e. a free market, they would lose almost all of their advantages. Corporations lobby for favorable regulations, regulations that make it harder for competing firms to enter the market. The term corporation comes from being incorporated by the state.
Munin497 Of course it will. Taxes and regulations are a problem not that much to big corporations which already accumulated enough capital to prosper, but to people who want to get on the market, but the economic system doesn't allow them to since it's to expensive. I won't even mention duties which are being established purely to defend local enterprise from other businesses offering cheaper or/and better products to consumer.
To me, one of the main tenets of libertarianism is not imposing one’s will or pressure on others. or at least minimizing it as much as possible. A society where people have the freedom to make choices without coercion or external influence.
@@tefky7964 Great insight! Detecting manipulation and deception can be challenging. It's important to recognize the varying degrees of manipulation that exist along a spectrum.
@@gamezswinger If I remember it right in game Watchdogs 2 companies were able to offer specific ads and information to all people based on their personal characteristics to fully influence their habits, votes and general life and we also know that it is pretty much possible today and on smaller scale it already happened. I don´t really see how that can be resolved on personal matter (just as many, many other issues). Also I just have to ask, how do libertarians plan to prevent their utopia from becoming something closer to Cyberpunk?
@@tefky7964 I'm not familiar with the game 'Watch Dogs 2,' but it sounds intriguing. I hope the libertarian utopia it portrays doesn't devolve into a cyberpunk nightmare! There are various strands of libertarianism online. Personally, I lean towards Noam Chomsky's libertarian socialism, though I'm unsure how it could practically be implemented.
@@gamezswinger I didn´t say that it portrays a utopia, Watchdogs shows our world and dangers of modern technologies. Cyberpunk on the other hand is pretty much a dystopia showing dangers of capitalism (and modern technologies). Also it kind of surprised me that you aren´t just a libertarian, but libertarian socialist, which is kind of in total opposition to "Huuray to unregulated capitalism" classical libertarians.
@@hiker2742 just because someone follows a particular political philosophy, doesnt mean that they support every politician that falls under that said philosophy. Do you think all conservatives and Republicans support President Trump? Cause they dont.
@@piratekingthaszar7912 You said earlier that you support him and would follow any word he said regardless of what anyone else thought, so how can you compare?
A belief in libertarianism doesn't necessitate a belief that every decision made by an individual is right, it simply acknowledges that it is indeed their right to make said decision. When given the right to make your own decisions, it would be unreasonable to say that one will always make the right decisions. but is it really our right to make their life decisions for them?
"A collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights." -Stewart Kyd (first treatise on corporate law 1793-1794)
Disagree -- Terminating the life of an infant is the most anti libertarian position anyone can hold. Permitting the freedom to destroy the liberty of another cannot promote the well being of anyone.
@@roia2727 it wouldn't really matter either way with that. Cause when the semen going in all it needs is just one of those sperm worms to get to the egg. Once that happens the rest just gives up and dies...
Can a person really be in favor of "free markets"? Is there such a thing as a "free market"? For example, would a free market include patents, trademarks, and copyrights that limit the ability of competitors to take advantage of the work of others? If so, how long should they be in effect? If not, then why invent new things if someone can come along and copy it and sell at a lower price? Also, should a company be able to purchase whatever they want so long as it is not illegal? If so, then companies should be able to purchase lobbyists who get legislatures to vote for policies that are preferentially beneficial to them. Which is to say that a libertarian view on "free markets" can and does lead to the sort of quasi-monopolistic and crony capitalist economic system we have today. Also, what about eminent domain? Should governments be able to force property owners to sell in order to make room for highways, dams, and other public infrastructure? If yes, then is this a massive violation of their property rights? If no, then there's always the possibility of one hold out preventing the construction of infrastructure that would increase the overall freedom of thousands or millions of others. Also, about self-ownership: at what point is a child capable of self-ownership? What are parents allowed to do if their self-owning child demands candy for every meal rather than a healthy diet? Would even the goofy New Age "punishment" of giving the child a "Time Out" be ruled a violation of the child's self-ownership? Finally, since most people around the world are more supportive of larger governments with hefty safety nets, then allowing them the freedom to immigrate to the US means that over time elections will favor policies antithetical to libertarians. So, once again libertarian policies necessarily lead to anti-libertarian political and economic systems. It seems that libertarianism is self-refuting and self-defeating.
Being from Slovak republic, I can say I am a libertarian as well. Here in Europe it's truly unbelievable how many people are government bootlickers. I wish that at least you won't end up like us, with a big government and even bigger bureaucratic colossus named the EU
Well I'm not necessarily arguing against limited liability, just pointing out that it's done with state intervention. Also limited liability IS enabled by the state, the state handles judicial matters, the fact that company and not the person in charge get's charged with something is something that's decided by the state. So yes it IS enabled by states as are corporations.
@ajsaccount1991 At the local level, purely-voluntary socialism can and has worked. I believe it is actually the natural way humans have evolved to live and the reason the idea of socialism is so popular today. That being said, I do not think it would at anything beyond a small town level. But being a libertarian, one cannot ban voluntary socialism, only oppose forced socialism.
Take telephone poles in the city for example. The telephone poles are erected mostly by government contracts, and all types of wire and lines runs through it which the private business use to provide services such as electricity, phone, internet, etc. If the government is too limited, then we will have private companies fighting and monopolizing the poles for business. So the government in fact provides a strong foundation for businesses to thrive, anyone that deny it need to get a brain.
I see myself as a Libertarian, in that I don't believe governments should be overly involved in the economy or in people's personal lives. So Free Markets - Yes; Very limited, restricted and devolved to autonomous regions, government powers - Absolutely But free movement of people? Across international borders? NO, certainly not Am I not really a Libertarian then?
@tomheppy Libertarianism is the absence of moral laws and you argue that that's moral theory? That's akin to the discussion of whether or not atheism is a religion.
Liberalism is not a religion, not a world view, not a special interests party. Liberalism is simply the lesson of the peaceful development of people in a free society. (Roland Baader) Matching T-shirt is available here: www.amazon.com/dp/B07KD719FL
Ah... I don't know anything really about libertarianism, so I'm confused about the abortion take. If you really believe in limited government and the idea it should have a smaller scope of influence on the lives of Americans, wouldn't it make the most sense (just based on principle) to oppose anti-abortion policies? I understand on an individual level one can be a libertarian and choose not to have an abortion (because following a specific moral code is a matter of personal choice), but in terms of policy it just seems to me regulations on abortion would be a very invasive law that would counteract the main point of being a libertarian. Can someone explain that to me so I can understand?
@takadi i certainly didn't say that... you haven't seen the "Libertopia" video on Somalia yet? And I certainly don't support bigotry, I was pointing out the error in the "we're for civil rights" position of the anarchists. In that context, yeah, it was a little funny.
Well, that's a nice, non-threatening way to put it, but I'm not sure it provides much guidance about libertarianism. I know not all libertarians go this way, but I rely on the non-aggression principle as the foundation of my libertarianism. It works well in considering the position to take on a lot of issues, but even with the NAP, issues like foreign policy or abortion are difficult to make clear. And sure, libertarianism is primarily a political philosophy, but the NAP provides moral guidance personally as well socially. Although I would admit as a personal moral guide, there are limits to what it covers. And really, most people are against crimes like murder, robbery, and rape, so the NAP should make sense to a lot of ordinary people. But of course, they get hung up on libertarian takes the other issues like prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography, etc. that they often don't agree with. So while it's important to provide outsiders with a positive look at libertarianism, we still need to provide enough information for a deeper understanding of libertarianism and its view on different issues.
@JRudolph86 "Libertarian philosophy holds firm to the idea of non-aggression and pro-life" It's not necessarily an act of aggression. Even if we were to grant that the fetus/embryo were alive and, more pertinently, a person, the cessation of a woman and the fetus/embryo living inside of her is no different than a person denying the things needed to save another person's life which is a non-aggressive yet death-inducing act. Still stands accordingly with Libertarian philosophy.
@takadi you're absolutely right, government IS force. So is your little DRO that enforces its will over any land claim or civil dispute. It is the Social Contract that provides us with really good options like "habeus corpus" and "innocent until proven guilty", not anarchy.
Anarchy actually works pretty nicely in practice, depending on the material conditions. In fact, no anarchic society has ever collapsed internally, only from external force... a reasonable outcome when most of the society isn't being violently coerced by the other part all the time.
@@cooldude6651 there's no such thing on earth as an anarchic society, unless you count monarchism. Lockean rights of life, liberty and property are secured in Law for all Citizens of a democratic republic; not necessarily so under petty tribal chiefs or a modern dictatorship. In fact, the only difference between monarchism and anarchism is scale. You become the state. Your sword, your justice. That goes for left-anarchism as well as anarcho-capitalism and that crap. However, if you think we should have a nature preserve where people can go back and live in the Holocene- as if that's some higher moral state of being, I might support it. We'll call it Australia...no that's taken. How about New Liberia?
The definition of "libertarian" as the anarcho-capitalism of Rothbard, Rockewell and the Mises Institute is a terrible distortion. I am a progressive libertarian, believing that the function of government is to protect the people without violating our rights. This protection can be extended to social welfare. Taxation is not necessarily theft. Government is not evil, but only the corruption of government and/or any violations of human liberty.
I was a Libertarian long before I ever heard the word Libertarian. It seems only natural that I have a right to my body and my freedoms and that no other man has more rights than do I. Or that any man has the right to impose his will on me as long as I am not violating anyone else's rights or freedoms. Why is Freedom such a hard idea for most people?
Oh how times have changed 🙁
@@23Eulogy23 Abortion is a prime example
I Love that!!!!
I've been asking the same question for 30 years man.
Because they haven't felt it in such a long time
The crux of true libertarianism is essentially this: "Leave me the hell alone, I can handle my own affairs just fine." It's also really the only view that assigns people some measure of intelligence and demands that they be responsible for their own actions. You reap whatever it is you decided to sow; no one is going to tell you what that should be. Use your brain and figure it out for yourself.
Sure i leave you The Hell alone, please do not use our infrastructure in any way and if attacked or need police help sort it out yourself... Do not call sane society, 👍
It is a frace idea cooked up by industrialist to maintain their monopoly and exploit people
@@ueks69 I think you're conflating libertarianism with anarchism.
@@ueks69
Stop being stupid
Anarchism is very different from what he is talking about
@@llibressal No i am not.
I can sum up libertarianism in one word.
"Freedom"
Where would you suggest as the best place to live in the USA for a Libertarian? Freest state, county etc? I hear a lot about North Idaho. Any thoughts?
@@richardgray3112 I have heard that. I appreciate your response. Can you give me some more details, such as first hand experience etc? Thanks
ScottySquatch exactly
Are libertarians against transgender?
Why would anyone force this on people?
Human happiness cannot be achieved when government tells us how to feel happy
So you worship corporations instead?
@@dilawn_bv no?
@Down with Corporate Amerika you either worship the divine, yourself, other people, or institutions
Depending on how you define the concept of worship
@googlenazicompany5935by brainwash them of what would make them happy or not. It's real in some corrupted one, but better be happy of what individual perceive as happy honestly.
@googlenazicompany5935because they tell you that you can not possibly be or want to be happy without the government
I think its not the government's job to have an answer for everything. Does that make me a libertarian?
No. That tenet goes for for all ideologies.
No, but you're still right
@@Kindacutehuh not liberals
@@InTheZ0n3 of course it goes for liberals! They exist because they worrie that the state is gonna take to much responsibility over things that an individual can handle fine by himself.
@@Kindacutehuh It depends on what one means by "liberalism".
And it means a bit different things in America and Europe.
In America it means what in Europe would be called social liberalism meaning the more left-leaning liberalism (incl. such things as welfare state, equal opportunity, economic intervention etc), as practised by Democratic Party in the USA.
In Europe, such practices are associated with social democratic and other left parties, while liberalism means more of what Americans would call Libertarianism (basically, classical/conservative liberalism).
Libertarianism in a nut shell is using common sense. If you lack the ability to posses common sense and utilize critically thinking you’ll never find yourself to be a libertarian.
I am a libertarian. I am pro choice. I believe in equality. I believe it is the womans choice. If someone kills a pregnant woman they should only be charged with one murder. If a man decides that he doesn't want to be a father then he is not to be held accountable for the well being of that child. A women who doesn't want a child is called pro choice, a man who doesn't want a child is called a dead beat. 100% equality, not just when it is convenient for someone.
What does an individual who murders a pregnant woman being charged with two murders a breeching of gender equality? If the foetus is of a particular gestational age where it is developed enough for it to be classified as a living thing, it should be considered a double murder, it's just a fact. I am saying this as a libertarian myself who strongly supports gender equality and overall social equality.
The argument for libertarian pro-life goes as follows:
1. An fetus is a human being with Human Rights.
2. Libertarians believe that the right to life and liberty of other human beings should not be infringed.
Conclusion: Taking (1) and (2) together: Libertarians believe that the right to life and liberty of fetuses should not be infringed.
Now, Premise (1) is not libertarian or otherwise. It has nothing to do with libertarianism...either for or against it. The libertarian philosophy only comes into play with Premise (2).
The argument for libertarian pro-choice would run like this:
1. A fetus is not a human being with Human Rights.
2. Libertarians believe that the right to life and liberty of other human beings should not be infringed
conclusion: Nothing follows logically from 1 and 2 that prevents abortion, and therefore it is allowable. under premise (2) regarding personal liberty. (i.e. other human beings have the liberty to have an abortion)
The point here is that the debate is about point (1), not point (2). And point one is not connected either in a positive or negative way to libertarianism.
Labels are dividing us
Bec to me gender equality means exactly as it states. So I’m saying sign women up for the draft for true equality
Bill West
You know, I think I saw an article that said 40% of women were okay with a draft for women. I know I am, and I think a draft only for men is not fair. I believe in true equality, so I don't want men to be disadvantaged or women to have special privileges.
Just registered as a Libertarian. Might even vote Libertarian this year.
Vote Momma Jo Jo ❤️
LOL CRINGE LOLBERT
Jorgensen 2020
Se vc está votando então não é um libertário
@@9ser930 you wat mate?
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” - Peter Drucker. We are more lead by culture than principle, libertarianism means nothing when culture is broken. People just revert to the primitive mindset
not a moral philosophy? but what about the nonaggression principle?
Is it moral philosophy to say "If you punch me, I punch you" and expect everybody to do the same?
Sheesh yes, it is. Everything you believe how humans ought to act is moral philosophy.
I don’t think the NAP should coincide with libertarianism because it contradicts our ideals of limited government in which requires minimal taxation. So in truth, there must be some form of aggression for libertarianism to work and that does not fall in line with the NAP. Instead, I believe we should simply highlight the fact that government endeavors are both immoral to those who do not agree and inefficient. It is not the obligations government to force on the people what the government believes is best for themselves, but rather maintain order in which allows the people to decide accordingly.
@@Desolation66 If I'm not mistaken they take the nonagression principle as Ethics, because it cannot be arbitrary, whereas morals can. I might be wrong though.
@@matheusorth5365
Objective morals are not arbitrary. Subjective morals vary by person.
I've been a Libertarian since I was 19, I've been a christain and I'm an atheist and a pantheist, non of these changed my view of Libertarianism.
My position is most of the time it's more immoral for the government to do X , regardless of what other immoral thing is going on, with exception to clearly things necessary for society .
Like prohibiting murder , theft , rape , ect. .
At 18 I was prolife(three months ) I shifted to pro~choice(5months +)
And I currently hold the position that abortion is a tragedy, but government prevention of such is a greater tragedy.
Libertarianism is a profoundly moral, ethical set of beliefs. It's founded on the assertion that people have a right to live without interference, and that they also have the right to ownership. The economics follow from that and, happily, they're good! However, even if state-confiscation could somehow lead to greater human happiness, it would still be unethical and could therefore not be rightly embraced.
I'm a Libertarian.
@@jacintojaramillo7267 You are a crazy person
Sean Feeney convince me that he is crazy in any way
I am too.
Can someone explain what it is but in dumb people words please?
@@josepena4921 No government, no taxes, no law enforcement
Always Think For Yourself and Question Authority ✌🏾🇺🇲
Listened to this three times all the way through and the only thing I got from this that libertarians want the government controlling and intervening in less parts of the people's daily lives.
This smart man said more stuff and I tried to pay attention, it only went in one ear and out the other.
You might want to work in your listening skills and your attention span.
@@scottryker4888 True, I don't really know how to though. Do you think reading a book once in a while could help with improving my attention span?
@@metalheadrobredbar6899 what is a book??
@@m.k.s.7417😂
Find something your interested in and research it
I love this professor.
I absolutely disagree with the notion that you can be an interventionalist in foreign policy and remain consistent with libertarianism. A basic and founding principle of libertarianism is the right to personal property in one's self, labor, and things. To aggress against other's property right in the form of foreign intervention or violence directly violates this basic tenant.
it`s not it`s just freedom...
You can't have free trade if you don't have any influence in the world. If the US decides to maintain any worldwide defensive position then China, Russia and other dictatorial regimes will run tight over US. The US will totally isolated- only local free trade such as the South China Sea will just depend on the whims of Chinese Communist Party. With no position overseas the US can do nothing if China decides pay us millions for trade to continue.
Property Right itself is a matter of debate in Libertarianism, Property Rights are the Prohibition of Everyone else from utilizing or doing something.
If those countries are directly threatening you and your private property it would go against no principle.
Hello everybody!
I think being a Libertarian is being an Absolutist and a follower of Self-Steemnisn. Ayn Rand describes this definitions in all her books and philosophy and I believe all Libertarians should read her books and learn more about her Romantic Manifest, the Atlas Shugged and specially her book "We The Living" where she predicts accurately what is happening right now in America. Everybody should read these books and follow Ayn Rand's message and philosophy...If you really think and believe that you are a Libertarian. "Hey! Little Apple Where Are You Rolling!
THE PARTY OF THE FUTURE!!!
I hope so. Trump's a 1-party system. Vote Libertarian
@@wiscorpio72
LMAO, it’s the Democrats in control buddy.
@@youreokayboah2128 I was surprised too that Biden won. Jorgensen got lower state percentages than Gary Johnson got.
@@wiscorpio72 Trump is as authoritarian as you come, he uses military’s and federal agents to crush the left.
@@wiscorpio72
“Projected winner**
I feel like the fundamental libertarian belief basically sums up America, freedom, of virtually everything that doesn’t come at the extent of anyone’s rights. This is how things should be.
Since I became a US citizen, I have been researching where I fit in the political spectrum. I took several online tests and quizzes. So far, it looks like I am a pragmatic, realistic, left-leaning libertarian who is most passionate about some of the conservative views.
Passionate about conservatism, but a left leaning lib? There's a flaw in those tests
As someone who has voted Libertarian, he said nothing I don't agree with. Older I get, more Libertarian I become.
Libertarianism is a great economic model for the gentiles. Much love from New York. Shalom!
Please don’t jump down my throat. I’m not an expert in political ideology but I’m certainly interested.
I hear the argument for every person having a right to do unto themselves as they wish. It’s a very basic principle but I feel the world has moved passed a basic existence. I’d like to refer to the huge number of people living on the streets while so high they can’t even move and also the number of them dropping dead. At what point does a persons right to ingest whatever they want weighed against not only the burden put on their fellow men by having their environment overrun by the aftermath but also the theoretical point where these drugs have become such a widespread problem that your country is put in jeopardy from the lack of functionality that can take place. Unbridled drug use can also be used as a weapon by foreign adversaries who both with product and directed influence could push very dangerous substances on your population. At what point does the affect of individuals using drugs should it become a clear and present danger to the functionality of the non user’s life and well being constitute a forcible response to impose A removal of access to the drugs on the users?
@novedzor I fully respect that. I didn't mean to come across as someone who fully supports that theory, it was just one that I found while researching Libertarian philosophy. Abortion really is a very difficult and touchy subject. And don't forget, there's always the issue of rape/unconsenting sexual abuse as well. Personally, I find it hard to strongly support either side.
I am Libertarian and a Pagan. I don't follow in one system but a mix between all and no systems- examples sometimes socialism has valid points, sometimes democracy, labour, sometimes even communism in certain controversal aspects and sometimes controversal is the only way sometimes liberal is othertimes labour.. Mostly labour and democracy for me if I do choose. It really does come down to circumstance, peoples positions, fairness and right coutse and reason why at the time of an event or decision etc. I accept what I feel is the best course or option for humans and animals and the planets position in a given time or for the forseeable future. Whether it be alternatives towards climate change, anti-war and war, technological advancments, AI, Computing, education, healthcare, economy, elderly, childcare etc.. I follow the pursuit I feel is best suited to all people rather than specific categories and usally I end up being the one so called annoyinh one (think humane and thoughtfuls the one) in the house/congress who complely votes against the other decisions to come up with a 3rd outside the box alternative or none at all as sometimes there's no concrete solution at the current time without further investigation and questions to the right people! I am a very libetarian person also when it comes to voting I will vote not for the party that's got the most votes or doing better but the one I feel personally is better for the country or wold we rside in (I go for the most humane vote when acceptable to do so) not always the case sometimes you have to get a bit dirty depnding on whom and what the situation. On other occassions I will skip thew process of voting entirely (normally my way) like with Brexit for example I didn't vote but more stayed in the middle because I saw pros and cons for both leaving and staying just with neither really having a stronger hold on the other. I don't vote for anything that's catch 22 or swings and roundabouts I am too open minded and am in search for more alternative options we've never tried before. I always vote against anything regarding genocide, mass assassinations and race and hate wars unless the aggessor is the opposition and we're the defender and have no alternative but to fght in self defense then i'm on par with everyone else. I'm always against child offenses and animal abuse regardless of its nature! Not to be confused with eating to survive over harming with intent. Libertarians can come accross as very confusing, optimisitic and peccimistic and all inbetween. We're not we're simply realistic, intelligent open free thinkers who have no issue getting their hands clean or dirty for the greater good. One thing we are is unpredictable decision makers because we're so open and free minded we tend to make the best calls when others don't see it at first in the end it works out. Libertarians are like the Julio cesar of Emperors and Empresses. Most royals are libetarian reason why they rarely vote unless it's worth it. Sometimes the government don't have a solution regardless of which way they approach a situation. Sometimes it's best to do nothing until the right time to change comes. I find Libetarian people are the best types of people to be friends with, form groupies and circles or movments with. They don't judge and if they do we're open and honest rather than backstabbing lies.
Great video good points.
I grew up in a Liberal household. I was told that Libertarianism is, lets just say, not the best ideology to follow.
All Libertarianism means is "Leave me alone, and I will leave you alone." How is this portrayed as "Right Wing?" Libertarianism sounds like Human Decency.
Amen I agree
Pretty much me. Your life, your family, your body, your affiliations, your problems, etc… same with me.
If you need help, you can request it. If someone decides to start a charity to help the cause, good for them.
Just… don’t force it down someone else’s throat.
I am attached by the Right as well as the Left for my views. I guess I am just unpopular. 🤷🏼♀️
the right and the left both are retarded.
the libertarians are a special kind of retarded.
ideology is for sheep who cant think for themselves.
The left as Biden has put more minorities in jail than any other politician in the last 30yrs
The right just tried to pass police reform bill and not one Democrat signed off on it
Kids and people you in cages along the boarder was out into effect by the Obama administration
@@coreys.canady2330
yeah. the left and the right both are retarded, at least their followers and defenders are.
Ive never gotten into politics bc I never agreed with either side and now i know why. Im libertarian. I have found my people!!!
I am a libertarian now and forever. Thank you. You go left, you go right, i'm going straight down the middle. Also, a porcupine vs an elephant... you will jump off, vs a donkey? Please! Less government more liberty! It's good to know where you finally belong. I thought I was a republican; I was growing up. The military and police corruption almost made me into a democrat. Learning where you stand in government is similar to what I imagine enlightenment must feel like
Libertarianism was started by an anarcho-communist. Declaring oneself as a libertarian, is self-declaring yourself as far left.
"Joseph Déjacque (French: [deʒak]; 27 December 1821, in Paris - 18th November 1865, in Paris) was a French early anarcho-communist poet, philosopher and writer. He coined the term "libertarian" (French: libertaire) for himself[1][2] in a political sense in a letter written in 1857,[3] criticizing Pierre-Joseph Proudhon for his sexist views on women, his support of individual ownership of the product of labor and of a market economy. He also published an essay in 1858, titled "On 'Exchange'", in which he wrote that, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of their needs, whatever may be their nature."[4]"
What it is is exactly the ideals and values our founders had for this country if principles are adhered to. Why it does not catch on is perplexing. It does not help that they frequently put up off the wall candidates but damn people, it is all about liberty.
Yes, these were the ideals, but people kind of got sick of it when the elites had all the money and could just hire "company security forces" to beat up workers who didn´t want to work for unlivable wages.
“You have to support free trade”
(outsourcing jobs to China)
“You have to support the free movement of people”
(open borders)
defending the borders means defending the private property.
Libertarians are the ultimate culmination of screwing us over
Im a republican but everyone keeps callijg me a libertarian... im not sure whst tosle of it
Indeed , the question is : under what circumstances does a human being flourish in a complex society? Unbridled individualism is a map that can only lead to greed and selfishness as the neo-liberaliste as advocated for the last 40 years or so has demonstrated , the trbickle down, deregulations, privatisation etc..only serves the few which have profited from a system that was already in place and which resources were largely paid and worked for by the taxpayer as a collective. I can't see no conflict in adopting a form of libertarianism that is not sinonymous with a "me first " doctrine.
I think we could all stand to be a little more libertarian in this day and age
This guy's definition of Libertarian doesn't describe any self-identified Libertarians I've ever met/heard of.
Nothing says autonomous individualism like joining a political party
I hope Libertarians will beat Gary Johnson's 5% in 2016.
I disagree with the idea that libertarians think they are autonomous. I am a libertarian and I think that humans are interdependent on society and are able to function as an entity in and of itself (I am, of course, speaking from a purely economical standpoint)
Libertarians believe that the most important thing in life is liberty. This guy talks a lot and says nothing.
I'd argue that libertarianism is in fact a moral commitment. The nonaggression principle being central to libertarianism where it is immoral to infringe on others' liberty, especially through violence.
"a commitment to never use initiatory force or coercion" Quite interesting quote.... reminds me of 'Ender's Game'
Well, this is me i suppose im a libertarian. I agree with all of these things. 👍
Can one not be a left-libertarian? The "free-market" is not necessarily most conducive to freedom, neither is it natural.
Frankly watching this video it irritated me too, that it talked about things like free market. The reason for me not liking that, is that this way of describing libertarianism comes from the sixties. like before that it was used to describe socialists. Or in other words he seems to only describe libertarianism from a laissez-faire capitalist perspective.
Libertarianism has always been about a free market economy. I dont see why you're complaining.
@@MrMattias87 not in revolutionary Spain or in Rojava. These are real life examples of libertarianism in action.
Left-wing libertarianism, ie anarchism and later libertarian Marxism, were the first political movements to call themselves libertarian in a political sense. They seek to establish a “free association of producers” where the individuality of all flourishes under an egalitarian system of political economy, however only the Marxists and social-anarchists (collectivist-anarchists, anarchist-syndicalists, and libertarian communists) opposed all private or individual ownership of economic property and social class distinctions, meanwhile the individual-anarchists (mutualists, egoist-anarchists, and agorists/free-market anarchists) believe that an anarchist society or community would involve a combination of small-scale individual enterprise and larger cooperative enterprise in free exchange amongst each other, at least for the most part, with decentralised community planning also having its place in mutualism in particular.
The term libertarianism was coined in 1789 and originally referred to the philosophical belief in free will and agency of the human mind, as opposed to determinism or fatalism. The kind of libertarianism that this channel promotes is a modernised form of classical liberalism: economically liberal/fiscally conservative (laissez-faire free market capitalism, free trade) socially/culturally liberal, and limited government derived in popular sovereignty ruling under the consent of the governed protecting the right of equal liberty (Anybody can do whatever they want so long as they don’t deprive anyone the capacity to do whatever they want).
@takadi that's the problem they're having in Egypt right now. The people want democracy and civil rights, but they can't figure out how to subordinate the military to civilian rule. This is the struggle of freedom, the struggle that was the american revolution. it's not about anarchy, it's about sovereignty and liberty.
1:28
is that a reference to immigration or to ''sovereign'' citizens?
@Payton Smith anyway immigration wouldn't be a problem as there would be no welfare state to support them. People would immigrate to work
I'm pretty sure telling someone it's illegal to have an abortion goes against the idea of libertinism. The individual should make their choice not the government
Unless there are obvious immortals like we would ban a murder in a libertarian society. Because that would be violating someone’s rights. So the argument is that a fetus is a human life because they are alive.
Where can I sing up to be a libertarian?
lp.org
monkey Rotary VoteDD.org is a virtual space for Americans wanting a new Libertarian leader in America.
There are Libertarians that aren't pro-choice or close to isolationist? I thought those were two of the most important ideas of the ideology. That's definitely true for the Libertarian party. I know the party is seen as out there by some Libertarians, but no one running in it has these opposing views? What the hell have I been missing!?
Yes. Most libertarians are pro life due to the fact that you are violating the rights of someone else aka the baby
@@eks_0 I've seen polls showing that most libertarians are pro-choice, because you own your own body and no one else has a right to it.
He’s speaking specifically to right-libertarianism, as opposed to left-libertarianism.
I dont think theres such a thing as left and right libertarianism
@Locky
What do you mean?
@@reflect. I thought that libertarians were neither left or right, and just defended any type of freedom if theres no agression
@Locky
Yes and no.
“Libertarian” came into modern day inception as an ideological moniker for mid to late 19th century socialists, specifically including anarchists. Around the mid 20th century, American right wingers co-opted and began to use the term to describe varying forms of laissez-faire capitalism, restrictions on governmental, and N.A.P. adherence. In mainstream political parlance we generally just drop the “right-wing” when describing libertarians who lean right. But many on the left still use the term today to describe their ideologies.
So yes, both left and right libertarians do hold similar goals in mind of “freedom” and “liberty”. But no, in they have different fundamental understandings of what achieving said freedom would entail.
I understand, but what would be the solution that is against the free market but that isnt against freedom?
Libertarianism assumes a level playing field for all "rational" humans. This is empirically untrue.
No, libertarianism makes no such assumption. Indeed, it acknowledges that people are inherently not equal beyond the basic fact of being equally people. It's radical egalitarians who are observably wrong and have a literally impossible goal.
@@Nanofuture87 But you're "inherent" lack of equality isn't a naturally occuring phenomenon amongst human beings. Hoarding wealth and power, government sponsored monopolies, social bigotry, and so much more are the reasons for this inequality. Egaliatirians recognize the inherent lack of creativity and desire for doing actual good on the part of neoliberals, fascists, libertarians, etc.
@@peterosky790 There is an inherent lack of equality that is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Human beings are born in different places to different parents with different genetics, they grow up in different environments learning different things and meeting different people. Achieving total equality is physically impossible and even attempting it leads to really dark places like eugenics, which was popular among progressives before fascists took it up. Libertarians want to do away with government sponsored monopolies. Saving wealth is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a free market and the only way to gain wealth in a free market in the first place is by providing some valuable service to others. Additionally, wealthier societies are more charitable, with people raised in relatively capitalist nations helping strangers more than people raised in socialist nations. Would there be inequality in a libertarian order? Absolutely, but it's better to be relatively poor while improving in absolute terms than to be equally destitute in an authoritarian nightmare. Libertarians want human flourishing. A lot of socialists have actively anti-human philosophies.
@@Nanofuture87 you want flourishing for humans you deem worthy. "Saving wealth" or HOARDING is actually TERRIBLE for a market economy. It quite literally removes money from circulation.
@@peterosky790 No, I want flourishing for the most people, which is what market economies accomplish in the long term. As for saving, what exactly do you think is happening? Do you think wealthy people have giant vaults of cash and coins that they swim in Scrooge McDuck style? No. They have their money in banks, which lend out funds, and investments which are presumably engaging in some productive activity. Even if they literally were holding physical cash, that too serves a function in a market economy. Removing money from circulation is not inherently bad just as adding money to circulation is not inherently good.
I’m proud to be a Libertarian Conservative
Me too.
Same! Hate how everyone thinks libertarians are just liberals that smoke weed.
You are foolish
@@benawesomebw1197 libertarians are liberals.
@@dot1754 Left-libertarianism sure.
@stitty contd.
Also correlation =/= causation, just because human trafficking increased in Austria and it's legal, doesn't necessarily mean those two are causal, and even if they are making them illegal wouldn't do anything since human trafficking is already illegal.
Libertarianism is the most wise political party ever to come into existence!
Libertarianism is explicitly NOT just a political doctrine. For info on the enormous world movement, and some great thought-tools GOOGLE Libertarian International Organization. Enjoy!
Libertarianism is anarchy with a suit and tie and I love it
The term corporation actually comes from being incorporated by investors. Etymology does not change whenever you want it to fit your political platform.
He's taking his own view to seriously, libertarian party is so diverse, I feel it's the most diverse and ideas in specifics so this should be more unbiased I feel
Libertarianism is originally a word that French social-anarchists and anarcho-egoists (distinctly stirnerites, not randians) used to describe themselves after the government there made it illegal to discuss or advocate anarchism. Then Nozick took the term for his philosophy, which was very much a different one, and critiqued utilitarianism with it, utilitarians shot back with a thought experiment. That basically demonstrated that both utilitarianism and nozick's libertarianism were pretty crummy philosophies.
Then Rand came along and took the name egoism from stirner, and slapped a "rational" on the front, deciding that the only "rational" self-interest was to become wealthy and thereby produce things. Stirner's philisophy, by comparison, encouraged people to abandon all concepts that were not altogether backed by reason, as they were fixed ideas; that one should strive to alleviate themselves of such fixed ideas and act in their self interest unfettered by such ideas as religion, capitalism, the state, etc. Stirner himself was a socialist, making it incredibly ironic that so many staunch anti-socialists invoked his name. The same, I suppose, is true of Mr. Orwell.
"Libertarianism" died with Nozick's hit on Utilitarianism and the subsequent rebuttal. You are randians.
Don't care, didn't ask
A new party is formed!!! Libertarian party of argentina! The president of the party is the Libertarian Economist José Luis Espert!
Yes, maybe there is hope for Argentina after all
I am something between a Libertarian and a Conservative.
I am a fascist
@@liam.s789 You are an absolute idiot... Luckily, there are only few people who think like you
@@sneakone1009 Na wouldn't say I'm 100% a fascist more auth right but not that high. Bruh ur legit a libertarian like you guys are fucken stupid.
"What's called libertarianism in the United States is a significant deviation from traditional libertarian thought.Traditionally,say in Europe,"libertarian" meant the anti-state wing of the socialist party. In the United States,"libertarian" means ultra-capitalist; it means permitting capitalist institutions to function essentially without constraint, or virtually with no constraint.That's a recipe for one of the worst kinds of tyranny that exists: unaccountable corporate tyranny."- Chomsky
I have a genuine question: I understand the opposition to a notion of some government machine dictating the movement of every person. However, what if we scale down to a community level? If the old woman down the street lost her husband and her bad back makes it hard for her to keep up her house, doesn't libertarianism essentially condemn her to die alone in a collapsing house?
It doesn't, no. There's family, there's charity, there's mutual aid, there's insurance. There are all manner of ways to help people besides forcibly stealing from others.
What does it mean to be libertarian?
Well, it's synonymous with "having a much larger than average IQ".
Ron Paul 2012
The Economy is The Congress. Democracy, the rule of the people, is based on three pillars 1. Everyone has an equal vote. 2. Voting is not obligatory, ie veto (You may have to vote, but 'none of the above' must be an option). 3. The way you vote is private.
Voting with ballots is for suckers. Voting with money is a much better idea. Social Democracy is achieved with unconditional basic income, an equal dividend of tax wealth for everyone, rich and poor alike. Political Democracy, however, can be augmented with a Conditional Income which must be spent in an Ultruistic Congressional Crowd Fund. In this Crowd Fund, everyone has 1. an equal amount of money 2. do not have to take part. 3. are anonymous in their choice. This is how you can use money to vote instead of ballots and make it democratic. By understanding economies as congressional, either partially in the case of UBI, or totally in the case of CBI, we can see we don't really live in a democracy at all, because the power of decision making is not ballots, but money. If we can demand an augmentation to our political system with an Alturistic Congressional Crowd Fund we could transition to a brighter more altruistic future full of potential and opportunity. Let me use an example for the UK, Foreign Aid. Create an Ultruistic Congressional Crowd fund for Foreign Aid, fill it with the campaigns of applicants for this aid, split the budget for foreign aid equally and proportionally as a credit into each citizen's Crowd Fund Account and let the people spend their way to the democratic decision on how that foreign aid money should be spent.
Tax needs to be levied on the Demand, in every case. The only fair tax, is a tax on demand. If Tax on demand is levied at every stage of the supply chain (rather than at the end of the supply chain as in the case of UK VAT) the problem is solved. So there is a small tax on each transaction for goods or services; that's how the banks make money, every time someone uses a card to pay for something the bank takes a small percentage. That way we could over time abolish all other taxes like income tax, VAT, inheritence tax etc. Sponsor individuals and tax demand would create a very nice demand driven economy.
Subscribed frm detroit.. Excellent
I disagree with the contention that libertarians believe that happiness is the highest end of humanity. That is beyond the scope of libertarianism.
@TheLyricalGal Well corporations are for the most enabled by state intervention, so without state intervention, .i.e. a free market, they would lose almost all of their advantages. Corporations lobby for favorable regulations, regulations that make it harder for competing firms to enter the market.
The term corporation comes from being incorporated by the state.
Munin497 Of course it will. Taxes and regulations are a problem not that much to big corporations which already accumulated enough capital to prosper, but to people who want to get on the market, but the economic system doesn't allow them to since it's to expensive. I won't even mention duties which are being established purely to defend local enterprise from other businesses offering cheaper or/and better products to consumer.
"Libertarianism is about freedom"
30 sec later...
"You have to support... You have to support... You have to support..."
-_-
To me, one of the main tenets of libertarianism is not imposing one’s will or pressure on others. or at least minimizing it as much as possible. A society where people have the freedom to make choices without coercion or external influence.
But you can´t make sure that there won´t be any external influence.
@@tefky7964 Great insight! Detecting manipulation and deception can be challenging. It's important to recognize the varying degrees of manipulation that exist along a spectrum.
@@gamezswinger If I remember it right in game Watchdogs 2 companies were able to offer specific ads and information to all people based on their personal characteristics to fully influence their habits, votes and general life and we also know that it is pretty much possible today and on smaller scale it already happened. I don´t really see how that can be resolved on personal matter (just as many, many other issues). Also I just have to ask, how do libertarians plan to prevent their utopia from becoming something closer to Cyberpunk?
@@tefky7964 I'm not familiar with the game 'Watch Dogs 2,' but it sounds intriguing. I hope the libertarian utopia it portrays doesn't devolve into a cyberpunk nightmare! There are various strands of libertarianism online. Personally, I lean towards Noam Chomsky's libertarian socialism, though I'm unsure how it could practically be implemented.
@@gamezswinger I didn´t say that it portrays a utopia, Watchdogs shows our world and dangers of modern technologies. Cyberpunk on the other hand is pretty much a dystopia showing dangers of capitalism (and modern technologies).
Also it kind of surprised me that you aren´t just a libertarian, but libertarian socialist, which is kind of in total opposition to "Huuray to unregulated capitalism" classical libertarians.
I'm a proud libertarian!
Why do you support Liz Warren?
@@hiker2742 just because someone follows a particular political philosophy, doesnt mean that they support every politician that falls under that said philosophy. Do you think all conservatives and Republicans support President Trump? Cause they dont.
@@piratekingthaszar7912 You said earlier that you support him and would follow any word he said regardless of what anyone else thought, so how can you compare?
A belief in libertarianism doesn't necessitate a belief that every decision made by an individual is right, it simply acknowledges that it is indeed their right to make said decision. When given the right to make your own decisions, it would be unreasonable to say that one will always make the right decisions. but is it really our right to make their life decisions for them?
Pure fantasy. A billionaire and Corporation's wet dream. Ripe for Corporate Welfare and exploitation of Wage labor
"A collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights."
-Stewart Kyd (first treatise on corporate law 1793-1794)
If you are not libertarian, you are wrong.
okay explain why? Libertarians are memed so hard for their stupidity!
@@liam.s789 because in principle, libertarians are the closest thing to what the founders wanted and intended.
libertarianism is all about the freedom of the individual against the forces of the collective.
Disagree -- Terminating the life of an infant is the most anti libertarian position anyone can hold. Permitting the freedom to destroy the liberty of another cannot promote the well being of anyone.
trapped cat go stop people from fapping and save all the million of sperm that doesn’t get fertilized too.
@@roia2727 it wouldn't really matter either way with that.
Cause when the semen going in all it needs is just one of those sperm worms to get to the egg.
Once that happens the rest just gives up and dies...
I could say larger temperature values. A larger increase in temperature, etc.
Can a person really be in favor of "free markets"? Is there such a thing as a "free market"? For example, would a free market include patents, trademarks, and copyrights that limit the ability of competitors to take advantage of the work of others? If so, how long should they be in effect? If not, then why invent new things if someone can come along and copy it and sell at a lower price?
Also, should a company be able to purchase whatever they want so long as it is not illegal? If so, then companies should be able to purchase lobbyists who get legislatures to vote for policies that are preferentially beneficial to them. Which is to say that a libertarian view on "free markets" can and does lead to the sort of quasi-monopolistic and crony capitalist economic system we have today.
Also, what about eminent domain? Should governments be able to force property owners to sell in order to make room for highways, dams, and other public infrastructure? If yes, then is this a massive violation of their property rights? If no, then there's always the possibility of one hold out preventing the construction of infrastructure that would increase the overall freedom of thousands or millions of others.
Also, about self-ownership: at what point is a child capable of self-ownership? What are parents allowed to do if their self-owning child demands candy for every meal rather than a healthy diet? Would even the goofy New Age "punishment" of giving the child a "Time Out" be ruled a violation of the child's self-ownership?
Finally, since most people around the world are more supportive of larger governments with hefty safety nets, then allowing them the freedom to immigrate to the US means that over time elections will favor policies antithetical to libertarians. So, once again libertarian policies necessarily lead to anti-libertarian political and economic systems.
It seems that libertarianism is self-refuting and self-defeating.
Being from Slovak republic, I can say I am a libertarian as well. Here in Europe it's truly unbelievable how many people are government bootlickers. I wish that at least you won't end up like us, with a big government and even bigger bureaucratic colossus named the EU
Well I'm not necessarily arguing against limited liability, just pointing out that it's done with state intervention. Also limited liability IS enabled by the state, the state handles judicial matters, the fact that company and not the person in charge get's charged with something is something that's decided by the state.
So yes it IS enabled by states as are corporations.
@ajsaccount1991
At the local level, purely-voluntary socialism can and has worked. I believe it is actually the natural way humans have evolved to live and the reason the idea of socialism is so popular today. That being said, I do not think it would at anything beyond a small town level. But being a libertarian, one cannot ban voluntary socialism, only oppose forced socialism.
I think this the best explanation of what libertarianism is
Take telephone poles in the city for example.
The telephone poles are erected mostly by government contracts, and all types of wire and lines runs through it which the private business use to provide services such as electricity, phone, internet, etc.
If the government is too limited, then we will have private companies fighting and monopolizing the poles for business.
So the government in fact provides a strong foundation for businesses to thrive, anyone that deny it need to get a brain.
What happens to congress under a libertarian
I see myself as a Libertarian, in that I don't believe governments should be overly involved in the economy or in people's personal lives. So Free Markets - Yes; Very limited, restricted and devolved to autonomous regions, government powers - Absolutely
But free movement of people? Across international borders? NO, certainly not
Am I not really a Libertarian then?
@tomheppy Libertarianism is the absence of moral laws and you argue that that's moral theory? That's akin to the discussion of whether or not atheism is a religion.
Liberalism is not a religion, not a world view, not a special interests party. Liberalism is simply the lesson of the peaceful development of people in a free society. (Roland Baader)
Matching T-shirt is available here:
www.amazon.com/dp/B07KD719FL
What language is he speaking in?
Ah... I don't know anything really about libertarianism, so I'm confused about the abortion take. If you really believe in limited government and the idea it should have a smaller scope of influence on the lives of Americans, wouldn't it make the most sense (just based on principle) to oppose anti-abortion policies? I understand on an individual level one can be a libertarian and choose not to have an abortion (because following a specific moral code is a matter of personal choice), but in terms of policy it just seems to me regulations on abortion would be a very invasive law that would counteract the main point of being a libertarian. Can someone explain that to me so I can understand?
@takadi i certainly didn't say that... you haven't seen the "Libertopia" video on Somalia yet? And I certainly don't support bigotry, I was pointing out the error in the "we're for civil rights" position of the anarchists. In that context, yeah, it was a little funny.
Well, that's a nice, non-threatening way to put it, but I'm not sure it provides much guidance about libertarianism. I know not all libertarians go this way, but I rely on the non-aggression principle as the foundation of my libertarianism. It works well in considering the position to take on a lot of issues, but even with the NAP, issues like foreign policy or abortion are difficult to make clear.
And sure, libertarianism is primarily a political philosophy, but the NAP provides moral guidance personally as well socially. Although I would admit as a personal moral guide, there are limits to what it covers.
And really, most people are against crimes like murder, robbery, and rape, so the NAP should make sense to a lot of ordinary people. But of course, they get hung up on libertarian takes the other issues like prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography, etc. that they often don't agree with.
So while it's important to provide outsiders with a positive look at libertarianism, we still need to provide enough information for a deeper understanding of libertarianism and its view on different issues.
@JRudolph86 "Libertarian philosophy holds firm to the idea of non-aggression and pro-life" It's not necessarily an act of aggression. Even if we were to grant that the fetus/embryo were alive and, more pertinently, a person, the cessation of a woman and the fetus/embryo living inside of her is no different than a person denying the things needed to save another person's life which is a non-aggressive yet death-inducing act. Still stands accordingly with Libertarian philosophy.
oh that intro almost has me sold...
This sounds fine in principle until you realize that economic power always lends itself to aggressive coercion.
Regulation keeps kids out of mines.
so, a whole number of political positions can be hold, but nothing is defined..... sounds like chaos.
@takadi you're absolutely right, government IS force. So is your little DRO that enforces its will over any land claim or civil dispute. It is the Social Contract that provides us with really good options like "habeus corpus" and "innocent until proven guilty", not anarchy.
Anarchy actually works pretty nicely in practice, depending on the material conditions. In fact, no anarchic society has ever collapsed internally, only from external force... a reasonable outcome when most of the society isn't being violently coerced by the other part all the time.
@@cooldude6651 there's no such thing on earth as an anarchic society, unless you count monarchism. Lockean rights of life, liberty and property are secured in Law for all Citizens of a democratic republic; not necessarily so under petty tribal chiefs or a modern dictatorship.
In fact, the only difference between monarchism and anarchism is scale. You become the state. Your sword, your justice.
That goes for left-anarchism as well as anarcho-capitalism and that crap.
However, if you think we should have a nature preserve where people can go back and live in the Holocene- as if that's some higher moral state of being, I might support it. We'll call it Australia...no that's taken. How about New Liberia?
The definition of "libertarian" as the anarcho-capitalism of Rothbard, Rockewell and the Mises Institute is a terrible distortion. I am a progressive libertarian, believing that the function of government is to protect the people without violating our rights. This protection can be extended to social welfare. Taxation is not necessarily theft. Government is not evil, but only the corruption of government and/or any violations of human liberty.