What It Means to Be A Libertarian
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 фев 2011
- What does it mean to be a libertarian? Dr. Jeffrey Miron at Harvard offers one answer. According to Miron, libertarians have enormous respect for individual decisions. While other ideologies attempt to use government force to advance their ideas of how people should act or behave, libertarians think that individuals should be able to live their own lives as they see fit.
Advance liberty: lrnlbty.co/zkD90J
I thought I'm a liberal my whole life. Now I know I'm libertarian instead. I feel like a new born. I got the power right know.
You want an unregulated free market capitalist economy?
You sound like so many "reborn" Christians...it's annoying...stop it!
@@Will-cj2zv Why not? Explain please.
I am a libertarian and it feels so good.
@@adriant.6096 that’s my new favorite sentence “Like let a niggah be gay and pray to allah”. It makes no sense. I love it
I agree what this man says but I'm still not sure if I'm libertarian. I like the part when he said it's about the people choose for themselves
Sadly, he seems to be the *only* openly libertarian professor at an Ivy League school. Still, I'm impressed that here's even *one* on this politically god-forsaken planet.
we need to end the two party system. NOW.
Vote for Libertarian Party.
Oh, absolutely.
How's that going for you
Holy F...his words are like a revelation
That’s… Odd. All my life I’ve grown up thinking I am mostly conservative on pretty much everything… Now I know that I am a mix of conservative and libertarian. Interesting…
I'm an "independant" voter, but im definetly putting this in my favorites for reference.
I just want to be left alone for the most part. As long as I'm not PHYSICALLY bothering someone, I think that my choices should be left alone by others. Especially government.
A libertarian professor at Harvard. I LOVE it! :-)
@-ᴀʟᴀᴋᴏʀᴀᴅɢᴏᴅ-
Hello! To put it simply, they are not the same thing.
Liberals advocate for personal freedom (excluding gun rights) and economic control.
Libertarians advocate for personal freedom and economic freedom.
this is freaking awesome and this was the first youtube ad i ever clicked on it. thats pretty cool
I think i finally understood it. Thank you!
Proud young libertarian here! Thanks, doc!
FANTASTIC explanation!!!
It very well can be. The last words any libertarian ever wants to hear are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
It made me super happy to be watching a video on youtube and have in interrupted by this advertisement. Go liberty!
I just found my new favorite channel
Great explanation!
Ramon, glad it was helpful!
A good post. I especially liked the discussion of why libertarians are socially tolerant. The discussion of why libertarians are economically conservative could have been better; its not just that government solutions interfere with individual choice, it is that they also tend to be inefficient, impede economic growth, and often exacerbate, rather than solve, the problems they're intended to address.
Love the video
We need to get going!
yes, it is very interesting. Thanks.
Just registered for San Juan County NM. I hope Libertarianism builds like a snowball rolling downhill in our country.
great video
@atmcfall - I think you're spot on.
I personally would lean towards the safe side and assume life begins at conception (yes, it's not "viable" but then again, neither is a person on life support).
But at the same time that's entirely different from saying we should try and prevent people from doing something they will end up doing anyway. Especially if it's our tax dollars "at work."
@SpookeyR
lol, what's wrong with profit? The issue is incentives. If the way to make profit is by lobbying government to get special privileges(like to pollute or whatever else), then it will make those companies less responsive to customers. If the way to make profit is by satisfying customers, then you get an efficient outcome.
Jeff Miron for the win.
@HammerOvThor That was not what I was disputing.
This man just described me
@henleythecat Libertarians propose a free market, corporations are a result of corporatist market system.
Corporations are businesses but not all businesses are corporations.
In a fraud is deincentivized by third-party regulators who have actual incentive to properly regulate, unlike state regulators who get revenue regardless of actual competence. Also the fact there's no artificial barriers to entry ensures that there's always the risk of competition emerging.
@Mortonc3 Yes, scientific terminology, and mathematical and logical structures do not change over time. Language however *does*, especially in common usage! Propaganda can be for altruistic goals, but the word has a negative connotation. Also the term "hacker" was originally defined as "one who found inventive solutions to problems" (or similar definition). Now it's used in the common discourse as synonymous to "one who circumvents a computer's security and either copies or damages private data"
I said that I was HAPPY about seeing this ad. Why would I block them?
@Herimia
Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean survive in terms of getting fed or taken care of. What I meant to say is that if the baby can stay alive without the mom's womb, then he/she is a person. For example, if you take out the baby/fetus at 4 or 5 months there is no way it could survive. However, at some later stage like 8 months, it might. Although this is not a black and white concept.
You are assuming that I said the government grants those rights when what I said is the contract grants those rights (the two people signing it). The government interest should be in enforcing the marriage contract when there is a dispute like any other contract.
@JackBlair2 I am a Libertarian and I fully place myself equally apart from both parties. I find equal amounts of common ground and complete disagreement with both sides. There are Libertarians who came from the left and still lean left, and there are those who came from the right and still lean right. Then there are those like myself who are the MOST Libertarian and were independents their whole lives and hate both sides with equal amounts of enmity :).
very true.
@Reu360 I'm sorry, but how did you determine that something without a mind or the capacity to perceive and learn, which has never exerted those capabilities, to be an individual?
@beeeefcurtains 2/2
Of course we can't wish it away, but using coercion to fix it will simply add to the problem. Once the company is no longer forced to judge people by the color of their skins, the companies who judge people by their skill will do better AND have better public relations, while the one judging by color will do worse and have a bad relation. This is the best possible solution!
And also, please confirm with me that you do understand the "1/2" thing.
Represent!
@donfolstar Clear, but not well thought out. Marriage is essentially a contractual arrangement. The freedom to enter into contracts as one pleases is a personal freedom, and an economic freedom... Precisely the point I tried to make in the first place. Now, even if it wasn't an economic freedom, that does nothing to counter the claim that many other of our personal freedoms are economic freedoms (liberty to buy the products we please, enter the professions we like, etc.).
@donfolstar Economic freedom, that is, the ability to make economic decisions free from coercion, is a personal freedom.
@Bolgernow Who's this directed at?
So for an ideal Libertarian society, we would have to have equal opportunity among all citizens? So in theory, working towards this goal (which would have to be defined so as not to be vague) would be the first step on the road towards a society where an individual truly has the freedom to make choices about their lives.
@donfolstar
I've seen many arguments by Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman to increase personal freedom from an economic standpoint. I think just because someone talks about libertarian economics doesn't mean they don't support personal freedom or there aren't videos out there for personal freedom.
Because there are many other cars and people on the road with you, and safety measures have to be applied. People are free to do whatever they want on their property.
@Mortonc3 I agree with the sentiment that words would serve us better if we'd set one definition and a specific connotation for a word and be done with it. It would certainly clear up a lot of "if-by-whiskey" style of arguments (and a heck of a lot of confusion!). Unfortunately it's easier said than done this, again, is apparent in the push a while back (though not a large one) to get "hacker" used in the proper sense in the media ... or at least one that doesn't presuppose criminal activity.
@beeeefcurtains 2/3
For the most part, yes. Of course the opposite has been growing in the name of fairness. For example, affirmative action (once again, coercion through government) requires that we hire people and judge them not on who can do the job better, but based on the color of their skin. This not only teaches people that blacks are different from whites, but also breed resentment against blacks by people who earned their position.
On the question of marriage. Marriages are contracts between two individuals. Because it is the government's job to enforce contracts it has some role in seeing to it that both parties hold to their end deal, bringing people to court if it comes to that. In this way government has a legitimate interest in marriage. As far as regulation of marriage, what do you mean by this? I'm serious, I just don't know how the government regulates marriage.
jowb63 marriage can not exist without government or a church.
Really? So you literally have never heard of the ways in which government dictates how marriages are dissolved (divorce) in terms of alimony, child support, custody, visitation rights, appointing large percentages of someone's personal property to an ex-spouse, etcetera etcetera?
You actually don't think this is "regulation" that is tied to marriage and the dissolution of marriage?And as far as enforcing marriage "contracts" by government is concerned, do you care to enlighten us as to where in said contract it is determined what the alimony, custody, visitation rights, appointing large percentages of someone's personal property to an ex-spouse (etc etc) shall be in the case of a "breach of contract"?
So are governments the same as churches?
If not, how do you know that one OR the other is required, and not a third possibility, since apparently they don't need to be similar in nature at all?
To understand why there are so many Christian denominations you have to look deeply into its history. Christianity began to divide itself almost as soon as Jesus ascended into Heaven.
If a group of people look at a diamond, each person is going to see a different facet and believe what they see is the most important one. Attempts to bring it back to one viewpoint inevitably leads to strife and at worst bloodshed. We have to learn to get along despite our differences.
Well put comment
@Mortonc3 They didn't remove it. They just voted it down so much that it's hidden by default; you can still see it if you click "show". The problem is, as @kingcherub points out , that the Progressive movement co-opted the term "liberal" so that "proper" liberals (in the classic, original sense) had to invent a term to separate them from the Progressive "liberals" ideology. It would have helped if he explicitly framed the discussion in the sphere of "American Politics" but it wasn't necessary.
Live Life DIY and Self reliant ☮️
@donfolstar contd.
The point of contention is how the funds are gathered, if it's through, coercion i.e. taxation, libertarians tend to have a problem with that, if it's on a consensual basis, there's no problem. It has nothing to do with with what frequency you pay someone.
@NOLAMarathon2010 Your comment made me chuckle when I read it. :)
@Bolgernow Admitting the existence of A does not deny the existence of B. I'm not ignoring those, but I think the bigger issue is racism within the law. The only things I have removed are when I wanted to add to what I had previously said. I don't think I have removed that.
Of course equal rights are not immoral. But this isn't a matter of equal rights. All people, black and white, can choose who they want to interact with and do business with, and it IS immoral to break that right.
exactly what I say!!
@atmcfall I agree with what you are saying about abortions. Do you think it is a good idea to have judges that think about and determine how best to protect the rights of the mother and child?
@shackupyourstruly This seems to be the consensus but what do you do when big business has already become big?
Interesting point. I'm not sure tbh. I know we have blood-alcohol limits to distinguish between those who can drive and those who can't, but I'm not sure how effective that it. I'm also not sure how much the law actually deters people from drink-driving, cause alcohol does increase risk-taking behaviour. What's your opinion?
@donfolstar I think you got it!
@beeeefcurtains 1/3
I think I might have forgotten to post the first part in my previous reply :/
At least I don't see it in the comments. I'll repost it now. Sorry for the confusion. I'll just redo the whole thing so that you can now see that part in context as well.
Wow, I thought Liberals and Libertarians were the same... but now I KNOW the truth of the matter. I'm so glad great videos like this are on RUclips. I'm going to change my political leanings from Liberal to Libertarian right away, because that's what I really am. :D
That's how I am.
@Reu360 I CONCUR!!!!
@henleythecat Providers, retailers, consumers. It's obviously something people demand, otherwise it would never be provided, state or no state.
Underwriter Laboratories, is a private regulator in the electronic industry.
Even if there were no examples of private regulatory firms, that doesn't prove anything.
By this logic no inventions or new ideas are valid since they've never been employed before.
@Navywxman contd.
, indeed the explicitely say the opposite, it's not dependent on the idea that competition will only come about if businesses want it. The only thing it's dependent on is the fact that people are profit seeking, they seek to increase their wealth. The most effective way to do that in a free market is to serve the demands of people, i.e. entering the market.
@soldatna Because the most common issues people have with big business are caused by government. They enable them to incorporate, subsidize them, erect artificial barriers to entry and bail them out when they're failing.
@darksungames
Though someone already responded to you, I'd like to reinforce it. Read the preamble of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Constitution is very Libertarian.
Just because you have small government does not always lend itself to more choices.
@donfolstar Privatization in no way precludes the type of payment I describe, not that I'm arguing for privatization, I'm arguing for free markets. Privatization implies the state letting selected business take over a function, a free market bars no one from entering the market.
contd.
I’m a bit perplexed about this gentleman’s definition of a Libertarian. Though I do recognize how both Republican and Democratic parties behave authoritative and manipulative with their policies, the Libertarian perspective still comes off a bit fuzzy to me. Perhaps this gentleman is giving the very short and sweet version. However I need to know Libertarian views on some specific issues that are prevalent in our nation.
Such as…
• Abortion
• Gay Marriage
• Civil Rights
• Reparations (Black-Americans)
• Taxation
• marijuana commercialization
• Immigration
• Honoring land grants and treaties
• Business development assistance
• Educational development
• Policies towards communist nations (Russia, China, Cuba)
• Global Warming
• The space race
• Consumer protection
• Government subsidies (Industries vs Communities)
• Government regulations policies towards Wall St.
This is a great summary of what libertarians believe.
I think that would be better than what we have now, but there needs to be an exception for when the mother's health is at risk.
@deathsagent1 you can be libertarian and support another conservative party member. the point of libertarians is that no one is telling you what to think, feel, or how to live your life.
Can someone tell me the difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, and is Neo-classical Liberalism the same as modern liberalism? Thank You.
There are stats that show most people who drink and drive get home fine. Very few get into accidents or hurt anyone.
I think a person should be able to do anything they want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.
yep
@JRudolph86 The exact same argument can be made to anyone that has nukes, states included. Yes accidents can happen but unless you can wipe out the knowledge on how to make a nuke, there will always be the threat of nukes. So as a deterrent for nuclear war, people should have equal firepower so there's the threat of mutually assured destruction.
@Reu360 ...cont. Pregnancy is an active process in that it requires the mother's body. To say that it is simply passive in the sense that the woman doesn't have to input any mental effort is to miss the point. It involves and requires active input from her body, so she should have a choice in the matter. It doesn't matter that in some primitive state women had no active choice in the matter, now they do, and I think they should, at the least up to the point of viability.
I'm glad you agree with me on the gay marriage part, because that means you understand the concept of keeping government out of our lives. The problem is, basically everything government does, affects our lives (they control the damn money supply for fucks sake), because government itself is force and coercion.
@beeeefcurtains It's a perfect analogy. I assume you agree then that I do have the right to discriminate against who comes to my house, right? What if I feed the people I bring to my house? What if I give them food in exchange for some other good or service? Businesses, like houses, are all private property, and the ability of the owner to discriminate for who gets to come in go is inherent in his rights. Now to run a good business I should let all/most people come, but that's their choice.
@crazypants88
Let me put it another way. IMHO, govt regulators should have three goals
1. create a open and level playing field
2. promote competition.
3. reduce the cost of compliance whenever possible (almost never done).
The corporate sponsors of this channel have a economic incentive to convince you that all govt regulations are bad, but that does not mean it is in our economic best interest.
"institute" & professors are only used for marketing their message.
If marriage is a contract between two people granting certain rights the government should be "interested."
The focus of the abortion debate on whether or not the government has to protect human life, or human beings. I think all of us should agree on three things 1.no taxpayer funded abortions for non-medical reasons 2.support laws to outlaw late term abortions because the fetus has a nervous system and can feel pain. Only acception is when the health of the mother is at stake bacause it's a form of self-defence. 3. believe in parental consent before teens get abortions.
@Navywxman Yes there was a free market, in the western territories of the US that were stateless had a free market, the US itself has seen the majority of it's history as a mostly free market. And even if there were no prior examples that wouldn't be an argument either way..
What do you mean by "capital itself will ensure thre is no free market"?
I think that was put rather clearly and is very helpful. I never quite looked at republicans that way, I suppose because I WAS ONE. Too often Libertarians get the rap of wanting anarchy, I never believed that about Libertarians. Well I'm done with the R & D and I believe that if I need to be some label it would be Libertarian. Of course there are degrees there as well, and right and left.
I’ve recently discovered libertarianism and I don’t think I’m ever going back.
@beeeefcurtains 2/4
All men are created equal in respects to their rights as a human being. One man may be stronger than someone else, but they are both still equally human, and share the same rights as such, and are both entitled to what they earn. Understand?
Exactly, so these big corporations simply buy up these small start up companies for so many millions of dollars or whatever, as they have the capital to do so. So all the time these new businesses start up, get bought out, and the mega machine of big business gets larger and larger (even if it is sub-divided into tons of smaller parts)
Libertarians are split on abortion. Libertarianism not a monolithic block of people who all believe the same thing. It's a spectrum of beliefs. More anarachic, socially liberal libertarians are likely to respect a woman's right to choose. The more conservative-constitutionalist-minarchist libertarians believe in the right to life. Both views were represented in the 2012 election - Gary Johnson (choice) & Ron Paul (life).
In a truly Libertarian society each individual would be their own police because the core principle of Libertarianism (which he failed to mention) is sole-proprietorship; the belief that we own ourselves completely and thus have fundamental, inalienable rights to life, liberty and property.
Not only does Libertarian ideology believe in abolishing taxes, which would make a police force impossible, but arresting someone for a law "imposed" on them from a government is a violation of self-liberty.
@StateExempt you didn't address my post, just side stepped it ignoring the content
@rictorn social mobility is possible for those that work hard
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES Unions- No one should be forced to join and/or pay union dues, but if people want to start and belong to a union then they can, it is up to the employees and employers to find what works best for both in a free market. It is none of the government's business and both need to find a deal that both can agree upon.
The poor- In a free market more business is done, allowing for more jobs and therefore less poor. It is also the responsibility of friends, family, community to help
The thing about corporations is that they'd actually have a lot less power without all the government interference in the economy. Corporations are bulky, slow-moving, and don't innovate very well, but they're the only ones with the money to comply with a bazillion regulations. If you removed all the red tape, small businesses and startups would flourish and naturally keep corporations from getting so overgrown.
So I "liked" this video not because I agreed with it but because if offered a definition of Libertarian that I could process. I see our liberties at times overlapping other people's liberties, so I pause before I'm ready to accept what appears to be Libertarian philosophy. When do my freedoms impact others and whose takes priority? I am free to smoke but when does my smoke impact the freedom of others to not breathe smoke? The questions are endless. Does government have to be authoritarian?
@ValeriyaAviva Exactly my point. People i.e. Republicans want to tout Libertarian ideas only when it serves their Republican agenda e.g. abolishing taxes, reducing the size of federal government. But when it comes to laws banning drug use and homosexual marriage, suddenly those same people lose their Libertarian slant.
It comes down to this: you either believe in the core principle of sole-proprietorship or not. We're either completely free individuals or we belong at least partially to society
@beeeefcurtains If you'll notice at the top, that was broken into 4 parts. Should I wait for you to reply to those, or are you just going to ignore them?
I'm aware. I'm just saying we want to keep it legal, which some people disagree with
@Bolgernow It's not a blindspot! Have I ever denied it's existence? I'm simply offering a different solution to it that doesn't require a violation of anyone's property rights.
Essentially human flourishing