The Test: What Kind of Libertarian Are You?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 дек 2021
- If you feel constrained by the Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative divide, you might be a Libertarian. And if that's the case, Learn Liberty's wide-ranging Philosophy 201 & 202 courses is for you.
In this introductory video, Peter Jaworski, Assistant Teaching Professor at Georgetown University, and Chris Freiman, Associate Professor at William and Mary University lay out a brief syllabus, defining Libertarianism as a political philosophy that regards individual liberty as the morally appropriate and legitimate priority for political institutions.
They also cover questions like:
Are you really a Libertarian, and if so, what kind? (Yes, there are many kinds - including Deontological Libertarians, Bleeding-heart Libertarians, Consequentialists, and Aristotelians.)
What are the history, economics, and philosophy of Libertarianism?
What approach does Libertarianism take toward private property, freedom of speech, and freedom of movement?
Above all, the course is designed to shed light on all aspects of Libertarian philosophy and provide a deeper understanding of the variety of Libertarian views.
For more insightful videos from experts on law, legislation, and liberty, visit SFL Academy:
www.learnliberty.org/philosop...
LEARN LIBERTY:
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free and prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at www.learnliberty.org/.
"Libertarianism is the unrestricted respect for each other's life project, based on the principle of non-aggression and respecting the rights of life, freedom and property" -Alberto Benegas Lynch Jr.
1. Property yes (what's mine isn't yours and what's yours isn't mine)
2. Nonaggression yes (not initiating violence against another person or their property)
Unrestricted respect of each other's life project? Lol no.
*Unrestricted respect of these two rules.* 👆👆FIFY
@@oelschlegel each other's life project as long as it respects non-aggression and those 3 main rights
Libertarianism is stupid for many reasons. Here are three:
1. Libertarianism is reactive - in order for the "free market" to determine winners and losers something bad must happen first that the market responds to. i.e. people must catch salmonella and die from eating at a restaurant that cut corners on proper food prep to increase profits before people can know that restaurant is not using proper cooking practices. Having a regulating body to catch such abuses ahead of time dramatically reduces such instances of placing profit over health.
2. Many issues involve synergistic effects and externalities - i.e. Cigarette smoke, Obesity, Viruses etc. effect those around you directly and indirectly! Obesity drives up costs for everyone! (a fat family of four uses more food, gas, clothing, healthcare, etc putting pressure on these markets driving up costs for everyone). Viruses spread through communities despite your so called "right" to not wear a mask - can directly be responsible for killing another person!
3. Libertarianism is naively idealistic - i.e Libertarians claim that the monopoly of telecommunications is because of regulation, but stop and think that through! If big tech is buying off politicians to create monopolies what is actually the catalyst here? It's the greed of the FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS! So what makes you think that removing the regulatory body that these same corporations who are willing to bribe is going to stop said corporations from continuing to collude by partitioning the nations telecommunications without the help of corrupt politicians?
The solution in such an instance is not to remove the regulatory body, it's to remove the corrupt politicians!
Bullshit look at America and the statue
@@MyplayLists4Y2Y You are about as naive and ignorant as they come. Do you think that "salmonella" stops because there's an army of gov't bureaucrats out there? John Stossell has done a number of videos on this topic. Industrial Health & Safety and "Clean environmental actions" were already improving before all the Gov't agencies. If a restaurant poisons people, the info gets out there and they close down. You don't need Bureaucrats. Free market solves it. The Gov't has spent TRILLIONS on the "War on Poverty". Has the poverty rate improved? Hell no. If anything, it's gone up a little.
If you look at who runs these government regulatory agencies, it's people from Big Pharma, Big Monsantos, the Big Banks, on & on. The same people that are poisoning the country with Monsantos chemicals ARE THE SAME PEOPLE YOU CORRUPT COMMIES PUT IN CHARGE OF THE REGULATORY AGENCIES.
As far as the big companies that collude with Big Gov't, I can't stand that either. That's not Capitalism, that's crony capitalism (same thing as socialism/fascism). There's ONLY ONE WAY to solve that, which is to make the gov't so small and with so limited of functions (see the Constitution) that they CAN'T collude with the Crony capitalists. As far as your "Greed" of corporate execs, you're not too bothered by Pelosi making 10s of millions from insider trading or Clinton, Biden, etc, etc making Billions by selling out USA and being paid off by Chi-coms and Russian uranium companies and so forth are you? How many politicians get stacks of money from China, Soros, many other countries that want to weaken America? So, a private CEO earning $$$ bothers you, but politicians destroying the US for millions- that doesn't bother you?
Libertarian: a person who consistently supports liberty.
Conversely, a person who consistently opposes violating the natural rights of others.
Those are my layer 1 definitions.
exactly why I just left the party [your second point]
@@georgewaters456 why would you be against a party that opposes violating natural rights?
ok
let's say the majority of voters create a country with a gov't that dos not use aggression
but they create a law that blocks a minority group of citizens from voting
now what?
@@robinsss exactly, sounds communist or fascist in my book lol
In Europe, “liberalism” has a very different meaning than the American meaning. While in the US, "liberalism" is regarded as a left-wing, progressive and socialist ideology, in Europe, "liberals" are very similar to what you call "libertarians". It's just that in Europe the word "libertarian" is rarely used, and when it is used, libertarians tend to be considered as more "radical" liberals, including minarchists and anarcho-capitalists.
That is true. However, they are often times not really what you would consider libertarian. There are Libertarians in those parties, and it’s similar, but those liberals often differ significantly. In Germany as an example, the Liberal Party "FDP" promised not to put into existence a vaccine mandate, however first thing they did in their coalition was pass a vaccine mandate. That’s not really even a liberal decision.
@@westshot7338 Well, that is true. In the US, most classical liberals are considered libertarians.
@@manuelviellieber4763 Sure. I was more talking about the complete perversion that the word "liberal" suffered in the US, to the extreme that socialists like Osario-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are now considered "liberals".
minarchists are not libertarians. they are just liberals 2.0
Libertarian = no state force.
Authoritarian = state force.
Boiled down. Hope that helps.
I am in the "everything should be voluntary" camp. If it isn't voluntary, it isn't libertarian.
@Down with Corporate Amerika no
some people would continue to try to violate the rights of others
real libertarians are aware of this
that's why thy want to keep the gov't
it is much easier to punish those that violate the rights of others when you have a gov't
than when you don't
Use better mics and turn down the music, please.
I wasn't really aware of a few of these specific terms. And didn't hear the ones i have used to describe myself- voluntaryist, ancap, anarchist, and aspiring agorist.
Looking forward to these videos.
I don’t think I heard Minarchist in the video either
Morality is not and never should be the purview of government because it is the fastest avenue of governmental overreach.
Legality due to infringement on individual rights is the only allowable argument that government should have any intervention in.
Morality should be controlled by the social pressure of one’s religion or chosen societal group.
Anything bad for you is a moral issue, anything restricting your individual freedom is a legal issue.
Assisted suicide is an example. It is the ultimate absolute expression of one’s individual freedom. Nothing else so effects the individual more permanently than choosing to end one’s life but by circumstances, be incapable of doing so. The government should have no say over this, because it is solely within the realm of two individuals’ rights; and should only be controlled by their morality.
This take on what government should and shouldn’t be doing is *itself* a moral view. Any political order or political philosophy (including libertarianism) is supported by a moral point of view (as Freiman and Jaworski explain). Best that we all come to terms with this fact and not pretend that we’re occupying some entirely morally neutral point of view when we argue about politics.
@@esizzle2005 I think @Domminigan isn't saying that an individual's view on politics shouldn't be influenced by morality, instead that a govt's purview should be limited in scope by some constitution or other document. Sure, any constitution set into writing will be framed in the moral context of the author, but they should try to define only basic principles that are absolute, and independent of individual morality.
@@garthmonday the bill of rights is based on the morality of a group of individuals : the founders ad the French revolutionists
there's no way around it
''''''Legality due to infringement on individual rights is the only allowable argument that government should have any intervention in.'''''
respect for individual rights is based on morality
the NAP says that committing aggression against someone who isn't harming or threatening to harm anyone is immoral
I am a Pro life libertarian. Voted for Ron Paul both 2008 2012
Videos on every type of libertarianism sounds awesome. You guys should get Dominic Frisby for Geo-libertarianism, Max Borders for Panarchism, the Crypto 6 for agorism/crypto-anarchism, Bryan Caplan for anarcho-capitalism, Tam Laird for Scottish Enlightenment Libertarianism, etc.
What kind is the dailywire?🤔
@@johnthehumanist2333 The Daily Wire crew are conservatives, not really libertarians at all. If I felt generous, maybe I would classify Ben Shapiro as a "libertarian conservative", but that's still a conservative with libertarian leanings in some areas, *not* a libertarian with culturally conservative views. Ben is also very hawkish on foreign policy while most libertarians tend to be very much foreign policy doves, but Ben is still probably the most "libertarian" over at the DW, at least as far as I can tell.
@@Danteztic So is a true libertarian right,left or unique? Are libertarians outside of horseshoe/dovetail culture as I am as a Humanist?
@@johnthehumanist2333 Well, I would say libertarians tend to be their own group and principled libertarianism is its own _sui generis_ philosophy, but in practice it doesn't always play out that way.
Personally, I tend to think of left and right not so much as a spectrum spanning the logical space of political positions (which is a nonsensical view in my opinion because politics are not unidimensional), but rather as two opposed tribal groupings or political coalitions that are *not* each united by a distinct coherent philosophy, but rather by their cultural milieus, social conformity and a few wedge issues.
While the hostility to free markets and liberal economics on the left usually means that libertarians tend to fit in better on the right, you also have large contingents of libertarians who identify more with the left or use left-wing rhetoric and arguments to justify libertarian conclusions, and obviously the New Right with its emphasis on economic nationalism and protectionism is pretty much impossible to reconcile with libertarian principles.
As a matter of fact libertarians tend to be all over the map. Some libertarians are even sympathetic to a limited social safety net or to conceptions of "social justice", while other libertarians are basically market-friendly social conservatives, but don't want the state to enforce what they see as "good morals", and many others don't fit into either of these categories.
I'm eager to watch the next episodes.
Here is the link to our courses: www.learnliberty.org/sfl-academy/academiccourses/
Seems to not work properly in Firefox
Solid content
Your editors were so preoccupied with whether they could mix in BGM, they didn't stop to think if they should.
Great Video
Chris Freiman is so fucking underrated in the libertarian community. I had the pleasure of meeting him at an IHS conference and he was thoughtful and intelligent.
All my life I thought of libertarianism as a far-right group. Nice ideal on the outside, but when the rubber meets the road..eh. Then last night I read an interview of Penn Jillette, who I have huge respect for, and he talked about his own libertarianism. It made sense.
I started thinking "I don't even trust the government to pave roads," and started digging around to see if there was a niche for me. I think there is.
Thanks for an informative video!
WHY did you think they were far right?🤔
Whose idea was it to have erratic music drown out the speakers' voices?
The music is fine but it's too high in the mix. A bit of sloppy editing.
The Rothbardian kind.
Are these courses going to be uploaded on this channel?
These courses will be available on Learn Liberty Courses next week! Keep posted, there will be some episodes released here :)
I have a hard time following your conversation through the music.
I signed up. One question. I want the liberty *not to wear a suit to make videos.* Is that OK?
looks like an interesting video, but unfortunately, I couldn't hear what you were saying over the music!!
so... where is the course?
Here is the link to our courses: www.learnliberty.org/sfl-academy/academiccourses/
It sounds like some people see themselves as Libertarians because they are interested in certain rights, where I believe in all rights except those that do harm to others.
Harm to others can be loosely interpreted which is why the welfare and interstate commerce clauses are so abused.
I fairly recently started calling myself a reactionary libertarian. That is more in line with cultural conservative leanings as can be found with Hans Hoppe and Frank van Dun. How would you label that?
What the hell is a reactionary libertarian??
Paleolibertarian in my eyes.
@@grantm6933
Well, basically you long for an economically (near) anarcho-capitalist society with moral guidance from a culturally reactionary elite, an aristocracy, but then in a modernized form. In a sense winking at the deeply decentralized but culturally uniform Europe after the Roman Empire fell and before the state-building process began as a result of the Reformation.
@@J10044 what... the... hell...
Why would you want such a horrible society?
@@grantm6933 What's horrible about that? Especially since the result of a free society is going to be an aristocracy. We are not equal. Some are going to be more successful than others. Some are going to be a lot more succesful than others.
The one that lets me cast fireball and chain lightning a couple of times per day.
I knew I was a Hoppean as soon as I learned about it a couple years ago.
I guess I'm a deontological libertarian or a "Penn Jillette" libertarian. I ask myself whether or not it is appropriate to use violence to achieve some goal and then I draw my conclusions about the appropriate role for government.
Penn Jillette explained libertarian philosophy quite well:
"In every problem you come up with, I would like one of the first questions to be 'is it possible that we can solve this with more freedom instead of less?' Is that possible? Sometimes the answer is gonna be 'no', but at least consider the possibility of going for more freedom."
Government has a legitimate role in society (primarily to protect people from violence, theft, fraud and coercion), but there has to be HARD limits placed on the extent of said role. In a free society, people have the right to live however they please as long as they don't violate the equal rights of others.
Libertarianism is ideology based on non-aggression principle. Regardless of your polices, if you don't accept non-aggression principle, you are not a Libertarian. Funny that they didn't mention that.
Yeah i was about to write basically the same comment, however, they mentioned bear the end this would be a series so /shrug. Decided best to let sleeping dogs lay.
I do look forward to how they explain left libertarians. I still haven't seen or heard a satisfactory explanation of how that can be gelled. My experience is they are near always fellow travelers to authoritarian leftists.
I would classify myself as a Constitutional Libertarian. Constitutional, in that all rights apply to all peoples regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, and ideology, and libertarian in that I support the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) in guiding my beliefs on where the Constitution may have gaps.
I sincerely believe that you can't be a libertarian and support abortion because it violates NAP. I would love to have a respectful discussion of dissenting opinions on this if you're willing.
I am nominally pro-choice only because I don't want government having any power over our medical decisions whatsoever. The government has such a bad track record of respecting people's autonomy, and kills people regularly to maintain its power. I don't see any reason to give them an ounce of power when they would invariably abuse it. Social enforcement works better anyways. If it is societially wrong to kill an unborn baby, it will happen rarely regardless of the legality. Unfortunately, the left leaning statists who control our media and entertainment industries in the US are also pro-death, so they have a strong influence on culture, thus societal enforcement against abortion isn't really viable at the moment.
@@joshfritz5345 Yeah, I 100% agree with you that the govt inevitably screws up when given power. But, it's interesting that you noted that governments will kill people to retain power. Being pro-life actually forces the govt to not kill innocent civilians. And, the govt has an inherent obligation to protect the rights of its citizens. What better way to protect the right of life than to give that baby a voice since he/she has none in the womb?
I would argue that your medical decision autonomy ends when it affects someone else. In the case of an abortion, it's not just your body that you're talking about: it's also another human being. Please note here that my decision on community vaccination is still based on an individual's choice. No one should be forced to vaccinate because that's entirely your own choice. If you don't vaccinate and die, that was ultimately your choice. And, if others don't vaccinate and get sick, then that too is there choice. There's now a ton of evidence that suggests that getting vaccinated from covid doesn't do anything to stop the spread of the virus, despite what we were told just a year ago.
@@musclee-mac8768 I respect your perspective, but I can't live with the idea of giving the government an ounce more power than they already have. Besides, given the current political landscape, the idea of trying to stop abortions is academic anyways. Millions of unborn children will be murdered for the foreseeable future, and no one in a position of power is willing to do anything about it, and frankly, I wouldn't trust them to do so even if they would.
When I say small government, I mean zero income tax, private roads, no building permits, and no vehicle registration. Not only should it be legal for citizens to own machine guns and tanks, but the government should have neither the authority nor the enforcement capability to try to infringe on the right to bear ANY type of arms. I'm less against self governing communities, but they should be minimalistic in nature, kept in check by the local citizens, and most of all, free of influence from the federal government.
@@joshfritz5345 Regarding giving the govt more power, I would argue, though, that the govt has an inherent responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, regardless of how old those people are.
Ideally, the free market has the answer to the abortion question if technology can get good enough where you can extract the fetus from the womb and place the baby in some sort of device to feed him or her nutrients to grow and develop until the 9 month mark. We're many years away from that.
Abortions in general shouldn't have to happen anyways, especially if we deregulated the orphanage and adoption system. If the mother and father don't want the child, they can always give it to the orphanage to have someone adopt them.
I agree with you on the small govt comment. Would allowing any citizen to own any type of arms include nuclear bombs? I'm just curious to see where you think the rights should end, if at all. Not trying to attack the belief because I believe something very similar, but would like your thoughts on that.
In general, what should be the role of the federal govt in your opinion?
@@musclee-mac8768 I don't trust the government any more than I trust a private citizen. I don't trust them with the responsibility of protecting life because they have zero incentive to do so, and every incentive to abuse the power we grant them for the purposes of protecting life.
I don't like the idea of privately owned nukes, but I don't like government owned nukes either. That being said, I'm all for private citizens being allowed to own machine guns, howitzers, RPGs and tanks. Frankly, an honest interpretation of the 2nd amendment would allow such things, as it declares that the right to keep and bear "arms" shall not be infringed. Not rifles, not handguns, but "arms."
And if you're worried about terrorist attacks and such, it's already quite easy and cheap to make homemade napalm and explosive devices, regardless of legality. Besides, the US government has a long history of funding and committing acts of terror. The US government has funded terrorist groups in the middle east, as well as various domestic terror groups broadly labeled as "Antifa." Additionally, there are numerous war crimes, bombings and massacres committed by the US government against it's own people. These include the Chicago MOVE bombing, the Ruby Ridge siege, and the Waco massacre. At waco in particular, an estimated 75 American citizens were killed through a combination of gunfire and incendiary bombing. Governments are capable and willing to commit atrocities on a scale greater than any private citizen ever could, and I don't forsee legalizing most types of weaponry to change that.
I never knew this a Libertarian channel.
Always was
@Vishal Singh algorythm
Anything that promotes liberty is basically libertarian.
Poe's Law out the ass here...
Fucked up world :
Libertarians : HEY... YOU ARENT SELFISH ENOUGH!
I'm not a libertarian but will watch this regardless.
Nobody's a libertarian until they realize that deep down, they are one.
@@MrFerparedes Bold of you to assume I'm a closeted libertarian. 😄
Finally, we can get past the toy guns in Harlem debacle.
Libertarianism as Americans define it doesn’t work for most , if not all, East and SE Asian societies. We value collectivism more than individual freedoms. It’s not that individual freedoms don’t exist or can’t be exercised. Rather, collectivism always trumps individualism and individual freedom. We cherish, promote and I still our collective freedoms that is the bedrock of our Asian societies, be it China, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia or Singapore, etc etc. By and large, most Asians in Asia abhor America’s radical views on personal freedom and individual rights. It is viewed as one of the main reasons for the social dysfunction and ills in American society.
I don't have a guage of all people who call themselves libertarian. My version is that you should be able to do what you want as long as you don't harm others. All freedom comes with risk to others and that is where government should come in to protect people's lives and property. If there is a claim of harm because of some person's or group's free actions, the injured party must prove the injury was caused by the accused.
I don't believe there are such things as natural rights because an individual must be protected by government and the government has to agree to it - otherwise you really don't have that right from a pragmatic point of view. I believe you get your rights by agreement or contract with society. The US constitution is a contract between the federal government and the states. The bill of rights applies to citizens and these are the only real rights they have. The problem is that the contract can be broken and it is up to the injured parties to prove that and to band together with other affected citizens to enforce it.
To me, the most important right is the "equal protection" clause. When government can discriminate in favor of some at the expense of others, that is valuable to those who would benefit and provides the incentive for corruption by the government. Politicians, lobbyists, extortionists and bribers would benefit from laws or regulations that would favor them over others. The only legitimate laws are those that protect citizen's lives and property - anything else should be struck down in honest courts. The courts, however, are subject to the same corruption so citizens must fight against government discrimination. Sometimes discrimination in government has good motives but is usually not well thought out because they almost always harm someone - either immediately or in the future.
It's good to help your neighbor but we should only do it voluntarily - coercion almost always has unintended consequences. If government fails to do it's primary job - protecting citizen's lives and property - they have no business making laws for other purposes. True libertarians should fight for equality under the law and reject well meaning (or corrupt) discrimination because laws represent force and citizens have no recourse except violence. Discriminatory laws tend to increase because they don't get challenged due to concentrated benefits and dispersed cost.
If I had my way (which I don't) I would require all laws to have a single topic, be passed with a 2/3 majority and be repealed with a 1/3 minority. This would insure that the citizens really want them and could easily get rid of them if they don't benefit most citizens. I would also require that the courts overturn discriminatory laws - i.e. the constitutional (contractual) requirement to enforce equal protection.
I am going to reread and analyze my own beliefs based on your post. Thank you for a comprehensive description of your libertarianism, it has given me a good source to compare my thoughts.
I agree with you with the exception of your view on natural rights. Rights are inherent to the individual and are not granted by a social contract, rather the social contract is about the limitations we accept on our rights.
Look at Locke’s idea of inalienable rights (life, liberty and property). To say that a person only has the right to live because a social contract says they do puts an inordinate amount of control over the individual by the group and is very different from a societally agreed upon set of limitations that would allow another individual to to take the life of another or in extreme cases the state to take the life of another.
Your concept of rights forces the individual to fight to gain rights and autonomy while the concept of natural rights allows for individuals to voluntarily form societies of like minded people.
@@glenndodd383 I wish what you are saying was true but I see no force of nature that will protect your "natural" rights. If someone violates one of those rights, it is only society that will protect you, not nature. These so called natural rights are violated routinely in many countries but nature (or God as some say) does not come to the rescue. No, we must depend on the government's oath of office and the honor of those who swear to it to protect those rights. Nature's only goal is survival of the fittest and it can be very cruel in achieving it. If we want human rights, it is up to humans to defend them.
I think 🤔 I've Always been a tradition Libertarian. It's just Taken a while to Realize it 🤓!
You might have worthwhile things to say but playing music while talking is distracting and objectionable to me so I didn't listen much.
Can anyone commenting on this topic point to a single instance where a Libertarian government has been successfully tried ?
I'm a Libertarian, but it's in context of our current form of government and in this current time. I think Libertarian representation in important within the Representative Democracy framework. Even as a Libertarian I don't want Libertarian rule...but I think that it's important to have a Libertarian wing in this current form.
To answer your question, no I don't think a pure Libertarian system would work nor do I want to live in one.
The Republic of Cospaia lasted for almost 400 years.
it doesn't matter
just because it hasn't existed in the past doesn't mean it can't exist in the future
The editing and Music is way too much.
I do not understand how a libertarian can deny the existence of natural rights. This is the idea that your rights preexist government. It means that even those in North Korea have natural rights, the difference is that they are government does not respect and protect those natural rights. No one can argue that even the United States doesn’t do that, which currently is the case. Yet when you were born you have the right to live. No one can come and just kill you, that is a violation of natural rights, in the most basic sense. Do you have the right to your stuff, no one can come and steal your stuff, neither criminals nor the government. How can one argue with this? If you argue with this necessarily means that your rights from government not from your humanity.
Libertarians don't deny natural rights. We believe that each person has fundamental rights, and no one can violate them, even the government.
What Libertarian are you?
Every libertarian: The right one
Yall must be hearing libertarians because I'm only 30 and was having to concentrate on what was said because the backtrack was so loud. My lord 😂
The older I get, the more Libertarian I become.
That's great!
What evidence do you have for Libertarianism?
Now or in the past, can you recall one country that was a successful nation that practiced libertarianism?
@@jameswarrren2545 acadia or cospaia
@@jameswarrren2545 it doesn't matter
just because it hasn't existed in the past doesn't mean it can't exist in the future
I’m a helicopter policy libertarian
Libertarianism is all about the sovereignty of the individual’s mind and body. The earth is big enough for every individual to pursue their own path, so long as interactions remain consensual.
Any groupism (religion, ethnic, fans of a particular singer or sports team, etc.) by definition reduces the individualism of its members. This is true regardless of whether the grouping is voluntary or compulsory, real or mythical.
So, don’t be a groupie 😂
Well here I am a Black woman who has always defined myself as "a responsible anarchist" disenfranchised by the Progressive movement and my husband was like "I think we're libertarians."
The primary fundamental flaws with “libertarianism” is it sees the ills of society as only political in nature and that individual liberty is the end, not a means to an end.
Both propositions are absurd and self defeating.
The ills in society do not originate in political constructs (although ills are often magnified through it and government can be abused to inflict greater harm to populations), rather ills in society originate within individuals who abused both their liberty and political establishments. A society which allows too much freedom is as unjust and evil as a society that unjustly restricts freedom.
In its proper context, the goal of liberty is to have the unhindered ability to do what is right, not what you want. To prove this, there’s ubiquitous, no, almost endless examples of unchecked individual liberty ruining lives, sometimes themselves sometimes others, while pursuing individual choices. The individual alone is not the arbiter of what actions are acceptable or moral, that is the definition of irresponsibility.
However, there are positive aspects to some strains of libertarianism, like the stark opposition to genuine infringement of true freedoms, and a dedication to eliminate the corruptions of centralization, debauching of money and cronyism.
Libertarianism is political philosophy. It doesn't say whether eating too much pizza or not sending Christmas cards to your family is right or wrong.
It's foundational premise is only that people (including agents of gov't) should not infringe on the natural rights of others.
You will be disappointed in something if you have expectations of a thing (or idea) that are not consistent with what the thing (or idea) actually is.
why am I not surprised that no one mentioned the socialist routs of libertarianism. libertarian socialism was first then the right coopted the term.
I’m a right libertarian and Hoppean reactionary
Can anyone explain to me how deregulating the modern economy wouldn't end in feudalism? As I understand the economy, with supply chain bottlenecks like DTCC, ASML, TSMC, BlueCross, ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Koch Industries, General Dynamics and Police Unions, and a lack of free land (free land, a value this country was founded on and practicing until 1960) as well as monied interests like BNY Mellon, BlackRock, Vanguard and others, can the economy truly be free? It seems as though the logistical necessities of maintaining sovereignty require some level of intervention in the consumer market, to maintain the voluntary interaction.
Cartels and monopolies form as a result of government intervention. Without that intervention, they can't be sustained. You can see it pretty clearly in your examples. Special interests use the government to tailor regulations to their own benefit at the expense of the general interest which is too diffuse to effectively oppose them.
@@Nanofuture87 dtcc doesn't need the government, neither do defense contractors. Most of those companies don't need the government, but DTCC and BNY Mellon have more than enough money to do what they like with mercenaries and defense equipment, whether they have a badge or not. You don't even know what DTCC is, and it's the backbone of stonk trading. And AMSL has a global horizontal monopoly on essential infrastructure. What's your free market solution to that? Another lithography manufacturer? No one in the entire world is interested in entering that market, so try again. Your entire system requires a lot of market corrections before it's functional, and then requires a lot of presuppositions on human behavior and logistical realities of the 21st century that aren't true.
@@Nanofuture87 cartels exist because of the government, yes, but if there was no government they would have no true opposition, and would run roughshod over the southern USA.
@@Pistolita221 You don't think defense contractors are affected by government policies? I guess you've never heard of the military industrial complex. Those companies absolutely are impacted by government policies and utilize them to their own benefit. To say that no one in the entire world is interested in entering a market under free market conditions is to say that the monopoly provider is offering the best service at the best price, which is beneficial to the consumer and not a problem. Once a company like that offers poor quality or tries to raise prices, it creates an incentive for entry into the market. It's certainly true that a transition to a free market would involve a lot of market corrections, but that's what the market does. The only presupposition on human behavior is that humans act purposely to try to meet subjectively desired ends. People opposed to the free market invariably are fundamentally wrong about economics.
@@Pistolita221 That's totally contradictory. If cartels exist because of the government, then clearly they can't "run roughshod" if there was no government as they wouldn't exist.
No one has the right over my life!
I'm not sure if I would fall within your framework of libertarainism or not. In terms of my general stance on things, I fall into an awkward middle ground between the U.S. Libertarian Party and the U.S. Green Party, but really I feel I lie in an area outside of U.S. politics entirely. I'm also sympathetic to and willing to work with people whom I view as libertarians but most here probably wouldn't - i.e. anti-state leftists such as libertarian socialists and anarcho-communists.
Libertarian socialists are not really libertarians by most definitions because they are essentially statist. That may seem counter-intuitive, but they are only really anarchist because they hate capitalistic government. Socialism is almost completely incompatible with the modern understanding of libertarianism, as socialism applied on the scale of a nation invariably leads to an overbearing state. Essentially, libertarian socialists are communists who hold the deluded belief that they are anti-state. I find the same is generally true of most left wing anarchists.
One example of how socialism is incompatible with libertarianism is the abolition of private property. This necessitates the use of force to confiscate property, thus violating the core libertarian principle of volentarism, and will nearly always lead to the creation of a state enforcement mechanism. Pretty much every anarcho-communist I've ever met is happy to use violence to impose their will on anyone who doesn't agree with them. They are the Antifa types who beat people in the streets for opposing government medical mandates, essentially acting as violent pro-state actors.
@@joshfritz5345 You're not the first person to tell me this, and I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say. Truth be told, I would imagine most libertarian socialists would not see themselves as libertarians as defined today, either. The 'libertarian' in libertarian socialism is an adjective, not a noun, and it refers to their implementation of socialism from the bottom up rather than the top down, which to be fair, would certainly be closer to a libertarian society than its statist counterpart simply because a smaller, more local government is easier to manage and less prone to corruption. Nonetheless, their ideology is not built upon the axiom of non-aggression, and does not preclude the use of force in order to achieve their goals.
That being said, libertarian socialism and left wing anarchism are as vast and diverse of ideologies as libertarianism, and the acceptable praxis can vary greatly amongst individual practitioners. Some may believe that violence is necessary to overthrow the oppressive systems of the state and the corporate conglomerates that control it, others believe that using force to accomplish their goals would harm the very people they seek to help. Some are willing to take factories and other means of production by force (this, by the way, is what they mean by 'private property', not personal belongings), others seek to decrease the need for capitalist employment through the creation of workers coops/syndicates and mutual aid networks. Some want to eradicate capitalism (or, more specifically, what they call capitalism) across the globe - others, only within their commune. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how common the latter group is amongst the LibLeft community, and I have I feeling that they are in the minority overall, but I do know that they exist, and I feel that I have more common ground with them than I do with many of the more adamant right wing libertarians.
@@gemini6620 I've talked with a wide variety of people from all along the political spectrum, and I consistently find that leftist socialists are radical, and openly authoritarian. I've heard plenty explain, exactly as you have, about how it's supposed to be a grassroots movement from the bottom up, but they are consistently willing to use social pressure, coercion, force and violence to accomplish their goals. I can tolerate anyone of any alignment who won't use force to bend others to their will, but socialists are inherently authoritarian and aggressive. Most are open about this, others try to pretend otherwise, but will eventually show their true colors. No self described socialist will ever be content to let others keep their property.
I don't distinguish between different types of property. Someone has the right to keep anything they please (except another human being) as their property, provided they either built, traded for, or otherwise earned it. And no, consensual employment is not the same as slavery. I'm quite sick of socialists claiming that employers are evil for turning a profit.
I’m a Ron Paul kind of libertarian, what kind of libertarian is that? Lol
@2:53 How to make people loss respect for you....just saying
You know. It’s too bad that we never actually had a libertarian president.
It makes no sense the different types of libertarian. The philosophy is clear.
I’m not a “real” libertarian according to neocons.
3:59 - Hobbes is now considered a libertarian? Now I've seen it all.
he just said there are libertarians who share ideas with him, listen again
The Libertarian party is a debate club and not much more.
There are three types of Libertarians:
1. The naive
2. The stupid
3. The naive and stupid
Fundamental flaws:
1. Thinking that people will take 'good' actions when they have the liberty to do so, but any people in government in intrinsically take 'bad' actions.
2. Thinking that a free market exists.
3. Thinking the parameters of Libertarianism can exist without a social contract, and therefore a government. Top on this list is personal property rights. All rights, in reality, exist only in the context of the social contract. In 'the jungle', the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is meaningless.
4. Requiring property rights, while having the "initial condition" be property which was essentially taken by force and then passed down through inheritance, either individually or through past government actions.
I am a social libertarian, I used to be libertarian socialist, but I dislike the anarchy mechanism.
Paleolibertarianism
The best kind of libertarian?... A former libertarian.
Surprised the non aggression principle isn't even mentioned in the introduction.
I hate to down vote but that intro was a pointless waste of time. Just dive into the content please!
It all sounds good, until it doesn't.
This gives way to new generations that have no respect for institutions outside of what they can personally achieve from it in the moment. Sometimes people need to be told no.
As long as you respect the non aggression principle why should a government institution have the moral authority to dictate how you should live your life?
Sometimes it's the government who needs to be told no.
@@charlesparent-spioneck9928 if you don't hold the community of people to moral standards they themselves must keep themselves as well, there is no drive in that community of people in turn seeking to keep a government morally in check.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 outside of the non aggression principle morality is extremely subjective.
Academics are hilarious. So basically these to highly educated individuals are telling us it doesn't matter what morals or beliefs you hold you are a liberal because we have added libertarian to the end of every word in the dictionary.
*two
First off slow down because you’re talking too fast. Next leave the graphics up so we can read them.
Stop trying to allow liberals to justify themselves as libertarians. Classical Liberals are not liberals.
I still think Ayn Rand wasn’t really a libertarian. She professed Objectivism.
1:35 r.i.p. libertarian socialists
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian
Ayn Rand had lots in common with libertarianism.
@@LearnLiberty yes, but are u in favor of ab0rtion??
I believe abortion should be legal.
@@LearnLiberty lmao u are not a libertarian. Where is The non agresion principle?. If a fetus is not a human being then what is it??..
U are all fraud. All of u are utilitarians. Thanks for letting me know to not follow your shitty content.
Libertarians - Conservatives that want drug use and no war
Libertarians and conservators have the same thoughts on the economic part but don't agree on the political side. There are a lot of conservators who disagree with the legalization or discrimination of drugs, while libertarians support it.
Please try harder
Here you can find the course about this issue: www.learnliberty.org/philosophy-course-201/
I am slightly more left and libertarian than Gandi on the political compass.
Both parties are hypocrites
Libertarians act like they are an exclusive club. They don't work with people who don't have their extreme and purely theoretical version of Libertarianism.
Golden, the problem with Libertarians is that there aren't two of them that agree with each other so they either call each other "socialists" or come up with a 20th modifier word in front of the word, Libertarian. The phenomenon of 100 different types of Libertarian has unfortunately worsened exponentially in recent years, so the term really has no meaning anymore. I mostly relate to the originals like Rothbard and Mises, but very few moderns besides Tom Woods- I like him.
I am so glad I am no longer a libertarian. Worst mistake I ever made. Libertarianism hates communism, but is just as bad. If you are a libertarian, I really hope you will find a way out of this hellhole of an ideology. Especially if you consider yourself to be a "conservative" or "reactionary" libertarian.
Looks like you never learned how to make an argument. No reason. No evidence. No comparatives.
@@ThePholosopher I wish you all the best and I hope you can eventually open your eyes and escape this ideology.
The kind that understands Libertarianism is for you and your family. Spread any further it is 100% freeloader and no getting around it.
At best libertarianism is nonsensical, at worst, actively destructive and horrific.
A libertarian is someone who is willfully naive about the world of politics and contents themselves with theory to try and avoid being disappointed. The more down to earth libertarians eventually end up as reactionaries.
Willfully naive about the world? If we’re right we don’t care what everyone else thinks. To me, it sounds like you were one who just gave up on their convictions and went to reactionary side.
Maybe a little 4Chan /pol/ for you? 😂😂😂
@@Emistotle he might be too high on 4Chan or some shit like that
: citation needed :
@@Emistotle Any person so sure they have it all figured out is just dumb and thoughtless.
@@finerbiner I know for sure that murder, rape, and other things are wrong categorically. I have that figured out 100%, do you?
Im a mutualist