😂Liz trying to trash the mises caucus because “you cant take them seriously” while defending the previous regime that told you to wear a mask. Hilarious
mises are unserious edgelords they say but prefer the communist with a boot on his head who now runs as a democrat...he always was and some moron who said its not enough to be not racist, we must be anti racist aka racist against white people and then got bit by a bat...ok, very serious.
Liz "I don't think it's fair to vilify all of Reason because of a few tweets or a single editorial." Also Liz (in the same discussion): "The Mises Caucus is really giving libertarianism a bad name with some of these tweets."
@@middle-brain No, we ran on not staying silent when totalitarianism is being pushed because people "want to stay in our lane". Don't confuse New Hampshire with the entire MC.
To be a libertarian (small "L", not necessarily a party member) is to believe in the NAP, -- the Non-Aggression Principle -- which holds that no person or group of people should initiate force, fraud or threat of force against other people. But there is little or no agreement on who or what should be authorized to enforce elements of that principle. So, in the real world, the true function is as a guideline for individual behavior that always avoids transgressing upon the rights of other people. As a code of ethics, it tells me how to behave, but offers no formula to make others behave in the same manner. That's because there's is not and cannot ever be such a formula. But people who really believe in the NAP and try to live by it can live very well with other people who believe the same. In short, its a very good and workable system for small groups of like-minded people, but the larger the group the more it breaks down, just like every other political system.
"Libertarians don't look to the government to fix what ails them." Uh, almost right....Libertarians recognized the government as what ails them. Liz is a bit insufferable in this. Its exhausting.
Uh, sort of. Government isn’t what ails us, it’s the lies and violence and anger and evil that does. And libertarians disagree widely on what ultimately ails us. I think it’s lack of recognition of the rightful rule and reign of Jesus. But Government is a manifestation of the inner evil to violating the NAP. Government is not the only problem in the world that ails us.
Does this include the era before 1945 when the state took the side of the super wealthy in pretty much all affairs leading to British working class people in the 19th century, for example, earning four times less, having much less leisure time and consuming less calories than their forbears under feudalism? Normal people recognise that the government may ail them, they also recognise that it may help them Libertarians by contrast never explain why their ideology only emerged once the State started to be put to pro-social uses after WW2 and even when confronted now by epic corporate and financial malpractice including the gutting of whole swathes of the West somehow it's the still solely the government's fault
Liz should keep interrupting and talking over the guests, and Zach should for sure take another edible before episode two. Kudos to Reason for willing to bring in someone who’s sharper and more serious about their libertarian convictions than the hosts as a first guest.
The chick’s insistence on making it all about petty internecine rivalries really makes the title of the video a misnomer. We have no hope of spreading the ideas if we choose shrill harpies as our messengers.
I WANT to like Liz, but i cant help but feel like shes disingenuous. She wants the LP to be bold yet she simps for the LP of old, which was anything but. Dave and the Mises Caucus are just on another level, theyre actually restructuring the party. Liz is just sitting on the sidelines complaining about mean tweets and growing pains.
Very fair and genuine analysis. She just needs to let the ego die a bit and follow the truth where it leads. None of us have the same view on politics as we did five years ago, gotta be willing to grow
I'm completely behind the Mises Caucus version of the LP. The previous (modern) version is/ was a complete joke. As far as Liz wanting the more Leftist garbage, that would be completely consistent with Reason magazine in general which is a complete joke as well.
Reason is to Libertarianism what Milli Vanilli is to music. Dave Smith is so good at exposing people for what they truly are. Thank you Dave. Reason continues to sink into the embarrassing statist abyss.
The first 20 minutes was good. Went off the rails when it turned into a weird "gotcha" style interview. Zach and Liz did not want to participate in a conversation and reverted to a spaghetti interrogation: throw anything against the wall and see what sticks. Not looking forward to future episodes if this is the style.
It's funny to watch dave clearly explain his positions on issues and then watch these two do mental gymnastics. Hope you guys can keep getting great guests like dave.
Libertarianism of all factions requires epic amounts of mental gymnastics starting with Dave's passion for the American revolutionary war which was fought, in part, to allow American colonists to start ethnically cleansing the Native Americans from what land they had left
@@LPNBKeith The indigenous peoples of America. You know very well, you private property liberty lovers are living on their land Re the treaties with the British: do your own research - google is your friend
With a title like "What is a libertarian?" I was excited to have a really good communicator like Dave talking about the NAP, self-ownership, separation between political vs social tolerance, *MAYBE* talking about thick vs thin libertarianism, and explaining the foundational precepts of what libertarianism is and what it is not. I was really looking forward to having something I could share with non-libertarians to give them a good intro to the philosophy with more meat on the bones than a 10 minute surface intro. But then it devolves into almost an hour of inner-party drama and arguing over political messaging. I can't share this with anyone outside of the party. Well done Reason - excellent waste of a great opportunity to create a good resource.
Just because you don't have friends, doesn't mean you should project it onto others. RUclips can be a great source for creating libertarians.@@charismatic9467
This was great. Thank you for having Dave Smith on to show Reason staff what principled libertarianism actually is. It’s obvious that some of them are totally oblivious.
It’s by no means perfect, but it’s so much better than the old leadership. And the old leadership caused immense damage by trying to present libertarians as some sort of moderates.
For those who may not remember, it was Reason who dropped a bomb on Ron Paul's 2008 campaign by digging up those ancient newsletters from the early 1990s. Reason has been trying to take down Mises/Austrian libertarians for a long time.
Because they're closer to paleo conservatives than libertarians. They'd feel more at home in the Constitution Party. For me a Libertarian is a secular Capitalist in the mold of Ayn Rand.
Whether someone is for old LP, or more for the Mises Caucus, its great to see libertarians get together. that being said, Dave drove me to watch this 😅
Liz talks about some unrelated tweets for 10 minutes to create a strawman then explains that she doesn't want Dave to respond about the tweets she has been fixated on and call out her illogical practices.
If you put the most effort into defending government and wars, you're not a libertarian, you're a Wolfe in libertarian clothing. PS - Taking cheap shots at Dave and the LPMC is the opposite of good-faith dialog.
LIz really seems all over the place, being obviously annoyed by some comments and wanting to pursue them, and then trying to get back to the main subject after she's veered so far off.
@@2regarded Well, i would agree she knows what she's doing with those pants she's wearing. But I don't think this episode does a very good job of explaining what a libertarian is.
Liz completely ignores the option of Netanyahu not propping up any Palestinian political organization. She's trying to pretend Israel NEEDED to play puppet master, and the 2 options were Hamas and Isis. For a libertarian, it's amazing she doesn't seem to grasp that sometimes not doing anything is an answer.
Regime libertarians, of which she's obviously one even in Queens, don't understand that the best solution is generally found outside the regime. She spent this entire interview with that truism on full display, not just on Israel.
@Tukeen Why would Israel's conscription inform us about whether the pursuit of the destruction of Hamas is justified? It seems plausible to both see some military actions as justified, while opposing conscription.
Liz is painful to watch and listen to. Interrupting guests, talking over their answers, inserting obvious points....ugh, she's about as DC libertarian as they come. All fluff. No substance.
Dave should really be commended for how competent he is in these spaces. Consider that the guy is part of a podcast where if one loses a bet, they have a gun shoved in their butt - dabbing and drinking and doing comedy. For him to be able to do so well in this context and in that context is a hell of an achievement, and requires a lot of genuine talent. He is authentic in both spaces. Hard to do.
He's the voice of reason, he's better judgement, he represents the audience perspective, one foot on the outside looking in, reacting to and cracking jokes, making fun of ridiculous Jay and Luis are. He plays a good role on the show, and when he's not there you def miss the "reasonable" perspective on the show. @@brianomoli4
Agreed. Very hostile. I can’t tell if it’s just because the guest is Dave or if this is a personality defect. I’m not familiar enough with her. She does need to chill out. Ideas won’t automatically win if they are delivered by an
@@Justin_Beaver564 I had to educate myself on paleo conservatism. Does he really oppose multiculturalism and focus on Christianity? From all the Dave I’ve seen on his podcast and Legion of Skanks, I don’t think that’s a good description.
I’ve been a part of the libertarian movement since 1991. I read Reason for many years after that. I came to the conclusion that the magazines purpose was to “make government work,” make it more efficient, but not to eliminate it. I invited a representative from Reason to speak at our Supper Club when I was the Chair of our region in the mid 90s. I’m sorry, I can’t remember who came, but in the middle of his presentation, he seemed confused at the pushback he was getting, and did an informal poll, “how many of the libertarians present considered themselves selves to be anarchists?” He was amazed to find every single person in the room with their hand up. I still have my Reason magazine collection from the 90s, there was a lot of interesting information, but I quickly found that I was outgrowing their train of thought as I started exploring the more radical schools, starting with Spooner, then Rothbard, etc. By the time Harry Browne came along with Government Doesn’t Work I dropped the entire pretense of the legitimacy of government, and spun myself out of electoral politics, and into pursuing my own freedom over trying to sway the masses. It didn’t hurt that Sam Konkin was an integral part of our circle that drove me and others to that conclusion. I’ve not looked back. We are not going to vote ourselves into freedom. But I do enjoy that these youngsters still hold hope that you can😂.
I am significantly younger than you and I respect your perspective on how the libertarian movement has evolved. But yes, I want to impress upon libertarian-minded people this fundamental truth: we cannot vote ourselves into freedom, which is effectively the same as saying we cannot vote ourselves out of slavery. Government is inherently evil, and even if I can contend that some government systems are obviously less corrupt and tyrannical than others, that doesn't change the fact that government is intrinsically criminal. I never want to support anyone who will justify killing me or anyone else for resisting their monopoly on violence.
I made that same journey, however, I think I accidentally jumped in the fast lane straight away. Maybe it's modern tech and the fact that I can consume more of these discussions and readings in a shorter time frame than the 90s. So, with that, I made it to anarchy in likely less than a year. I think you're both also correct in that, yeah, we're not voting our way out of these problems. However, I don't think it's foregone conclusion that we'll have to shoot our way out either. If enough people eventually agree with, "ok, we're not doing this anymore," I do believe violence is still avoidable.
@@danarchism-dissident I was responding to the the main comment in which they stated that at a LP forum they were all anarchist. And you respond with a sarcastic insult. Socrates or Aristotle would have been better than Copernicus
Where is Liz's party? Where's her super successful political movement? Damn, she's insane to say that she would vote for anyone but the folks running the LP because they're poor. What a snob.
I think it would have been revealing to see which tweets she objected to. Also she seemed to have implying that prior to the mises takeover , that the libertarian Party was taken seriously which is ridiculous.
in terms of popular support, id have to agree with her saying that the lp was taken more seriously. this is coming from a guy who loves the mises caucus btw.
@@rothnirtull4254maybe you could say it's taken even less seriously than before but even then I'd say it's irrelevant. Also it's kinda worth pointing out that candidate who *are* "taken seriously" are creatures like Nicky Haley and Chuck Schumer...
Yeah, I think the debate is over what the LPs use is. IMO, the LP has never been taken seriously, but at least now a real libertarian message can be espoused by the party. Also, looking at what happened in Argentina, it's possible that the mises message needs the right environment to be considered. The thing is, if the LP is willing to be more respectable to mainstream views, why have the party at all?
There's also an external factor in the loss of seriousness. The MAGA movement has had some success in reforming the Republican party to better represent its constituents, or at least it has given the plausible appearance of reform. This kills some of the appeal of a 3rd party for formerly dissatisfied Conservatives.
REASON used to be libertarian. I subscribed to their magazine in the 80s.They don’t even seem to understand the concept any longer. Dave Smith is more libertarian than a so called libertarian think tank. Isn’t this the same clown show that attacked RFKjr recently?
Really had high hopes for this discussion. So much time spent asking Dave to answer for social media campaigns he has zero control over. You had the time, space, and audience to have a meaningful conversation and blew it.
@@kirkpierce2260that would have happened with or without a state. Ones will to be a bad person doesn’t rely on there being a state. You’re just arguing for the biggest gang to have the most power. If those people are murdering each other why would you give some of them power to murder everyone else
@@kirkpierce2260 Libya was destroyed by america for being successful and not abiding the empire so they killed him and made sure it cant recover. That happen bc of imperialism. they were the most successful country in africa till obama and hildog. after them there are open air slave market and brutal sanctions. The power vacuum exists bc america makes it exist.
A Libertarian is someone who knows more than the average person about politics, enough so they refuse to participate in politics. "Part of the problem" is the perfect name for a podcast.
@@rothnirtull4254 My point is Libertarians are generally non-participants in politics yet know more than the average person and/or have strong opinions on political matters. They don't move the needle.
@@JD-os2kr Yes, the people who actually matter. Compared to the egotists who sit on the sidelines criticizing everything and doing nothing of value and contributing nothing of practical worth.
Dave Smith is Amazing. He has that ability to verbally win without being disagreeable. He got interrupted constantly by Liz, and he answered and took her to school quite nicely. He did the same to Laura Loomer too during their debate. The like on this video is for Dave Smith.
I hate to like a ReeeCNN video, but the like is for Dave😂 Liz might be the most annoying person. Her crying about LP National tweets is hilarious. The messaging is way better now than 2020.
I used to be an avid reader of Reason from when I graduated highschool in 2013 up to and through COVID in 2020 and 2021. I stopped after what I considered to be absolute cowardice on behalf of Reason as well as other beltway libertarians when it came to the COVID regime. This podcast helped remind me that I was right to stop.
Looking at the comments it’s easy to see that ReasonTv didn’t connect with their audience and that Dave Smith did connect. Hopefully they’ll take the constructive criticism from their audience and learn.
Old guard libertarians were just people who were anti war pro weed and that’s it. The Mises caucus breathed new life into the LP with an actual nuanced positions
@@erikjlee1What do you think the LP should be then? Democrat light? Because that's what Reason has turned into. Should I respect some guy who's in their 50's still wearing a leather jacket telling me to mask up and stay home? Is that what you would like the LP to be? Or should we just sit around while Liz tells us how we should get our ideas across? This woman is a statist. And she's getting paid by reason to tell us how we should Express ourselves. Its embarrassing.
@@erikjlee1 “If the Libertarian Party is going to exist, it should exclusively run libertarian candidates. This whole exercise is a waste of effort if they’re going to run candidates that are essentially “democrats that like guns” or “republicans that like weed.”
For the sake of the argument, Russia gave a red line, NATO crossed that red line. Is that not aggression against Russia? Therefore, is Russia truly the aggressors? Dave made the point that if you are fighting a war and you see an opposing soldier, that you don't need to wait for the other solider to shoot at you before you shoot at them. Zach and Liz seem to agree with that. Could that example also be used for Russia invading Ukraine instead of waiting for NATO/Ukraine "shooting" at them first? Personally, I hate the thought of imagebearers slaying other imagebearers. Hopefully there can be peace soon. Good show.
Ukraine was willing to sit down with Putin early on but Boris Johnson was sent to Ukraine and ended it. Ukraine is not a country advocating freedom. Nazi's that live there are no different than Russian Communists. The outcome is the same.
It's murky. I can make any unreasonable demand and claim it's my red line. I don't think Russia's demand is unreasonable. It's understandable that weapons systems on their border would make them uncomfortable, and a geopolitical strategist who was actually acting in good faith would recognize that and adjust their behavior accordingly, but it's not obvious that they have an enforceable right to what they demanded. Their jurisdiction is over their borders. And even if they did have an enforceable right - like if you wanted to analogize those weapons systems to pulling out a gun and pointing at someone, it's also murky whether they have a right to trample on Ukraine in response to US provocation.
@@troll_kin9456 I appreciate your well thought out response. I agree with the concept of borders. What complicates that is, when a rival has weapons that can be fired at you from hundreds of miles away and can create the amount of destruction that those weaponry can create. It definitely complicates the meaning of non-aggression/aggression. I agree with you, that, if Putin's goal is to take back some or all of Ukraine back for Russia; he has a duty to not annihilate innocent Ukrainian citizens. But, above that, Putin's duty to protect his Russian citizens over Ukrainian civilians. It is complicated.
I’m very distracted by the fact that I keep hallucinating another knee coming forth from Liz’s knee dripping clear slime and hissing at Sigourney Weaver
Sorry, I love Dave, but I can't stand Reason guys... This constant simping to the establishment pov is too freaking annoying. I can't think of anything other than Rothbard's "Do You Hate the State" when I listen to these guys.
34:10 Lysander Spooner "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Don’t interrupt your guest so much because you disagree. Dave Smith is doing a great job getting the message to the common man. I sense hostility or some personality flaw that makes this frustrating to watch. Ask questions or debate?
In case anyone was wondering why Reason has nearly 900k subs but can barely crack 10k views on any of their episodes; this episode should shine some decent light on that.
There were interesting exchanges here and I hope this show finds success. I respectfully share that I found the discussion about the LP to be off topic and off-putting. Political party infighting/donation trends, tweets/social media drama... these things are at best besides the point. The strength of libertarianism is that these ideas can lead us to make better choices and live better lives without needing to get permission or popularity or power - this is something that individuals can implement. My idea of a successful version of this series is one where the focus is primarily on exploring and cultivating the ideas of libertarianism, rather than the efforts to implement it as a political system.
I see now that the description gives this context, but it wasn't made clear from the way he was introduced in the video. I didn't know anything about him going into this, and he was introduced simply as a libertarian with slightly different views from the hosts. It became apparent from his answers, of course, that he was involved in politics, but by then my opinion must have been formed that "this feels really out of place" for a discussion about "what is a libertarian?".
If your title is "What is libertarianism?" then I too would have enjoyed a discussion more focused on the philosophy of libertarianism and selling the idea to people. Explain what self-ownership and the NAP are. Talk about thick vs thin. How that applies to currebt events and issues. Something we could share with the mildly political. This has so much inside baseball - they are limiting their potential audience. At least, I'm certainly not comfortable sharing it with anyone not already a libertarian.
'''''My idea of a successful version of this series is one where the focus is primarily on exploring and cultivating the ideas of libertarianism, rather than the efforts to implement it as a political system'''' that's impossible libertarianism is inherently a political. Philosophy and. Proposal for a governmental. System
Personally, I feel that extreme skepticism of state power is the defining definition of a Libertarian, and what actually separates us from other liberty-lovers such as classical liberals.
I agree, libertarianism evolved from classical liberalism, it's simar as a child is similar to it's parent, but it's more jaded, skeptical of government and for good reason. Libertarianism has roughly a 100 year history if you count Mises most early works and it just got more radical from there, and much more precise. Consistency became key to defining libertarianism as it went trough rigorous work of taking what classical liberals had come up with and honing it into an even sharper blade. Classical liberalism was good, but it was also somewhat slopy and left many unanswered questions, libertarianism does not.
Just asking questions and then arguing when the much more well informed guest doesn’t give the answer you want: presented by the joke of a publication known as Reason magazine.
@@acem82 what does reasonable mean? Every point either of the hosts made were easily refuted by their guest. They had typical doubts or questions any normie might have that hasn’t grappled with the severity of the rot in our current government/corporate/media apparatus. Thats literally the entire problem we’re facing tho. Virtually no one wants to address the elephant in the room because they’re still comfortable and thats scary to think about.
@@troypisano5409 IDK about every point. On most things, they agreed. On the things they actually disagreed about, they seemed to have reasonable objections, even if they weren't ultimately correct. I'm not a big fan of Reason, but these 2 had a good showing here. And yes, I think all 3 here agreed about the rot in the Uniparty institutions. When I was thinking about why the worst people were on top right now, I immediately thought of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" chapter 10 of why the worst end up on top, which was then referenced shortly afterward.
I refused to give the LP any money until the Mises Caucus became prominent. I'm completely on the opposite side of Liz. It's hard to believe a libertarian would rather vote for Bill Weld than a mises guy. What a joke
This is the best summary for Libertarian governance that I've seen. I shake my head when I hear Libertarians describe their ideal situation of neighborhoods hiring private security, private roads, etc. It all sounds ridiculous. Makes MUCH more sense as you describe.
Libertarian (n): A person who does not believe in using violence or threats of violence to coerce others for the "greater good." As a result, they are destined for a life of ignominy, poverty, and frustration. Also, a person who judges the morality of government policies by their real-world consequences, rather than their alleged intentions. As a result, they are destined to be described as ignorant and arrogant. Archaic: a person who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the principles thereof. Model sentence: I shot a libertarian; the cold, callous SOB wouldn't give me money for a nose job, so I had no choice - who wants to live with someone who places so little value on human life and health? Doesn't he know that experts tell us that people will die if they can't get free cosmetic surgery?
Thank you, Reason and Dave Smith! I hope this gets substantial traction and views. I love the long-form, in-depth discussion, and the respectful, reasonable exchange of differing views. Keep up the excellent work!
22:28 I love how Dave Smith destroyed her argument when she's defending Israel on propping up Hamas to deny Palestinians their rights. And at the end, she changes the topic when defeated.
I'm sure Reason thought they would benefit from views from Dave's audience, but this just put a lot of eyes on just whh Mises absolutely dominated the joke that was the beltway libertarian party.
What Constitutional protections? Name one of the Bill of Rights that has not been routinely violated without recourse when the government chooses to do so. One. Yeah, sometimes they let one poor SOB or another look like they've won in court--for the same reason casinos have to occasionally let someone win a jackpot--you have to keep the suckers playing if you want to fleece them.
@@Membwayne Yes, even that one. Wasn't specifically soldiers, but there have been incidents of the "Quartering" of government employees against the will of the owners.
Dave Smith gives a great definition right out of the starting gate. And Liz does help to clarify. I don't know how many people hear about the non-agression principle and mistakenly assume that you can't use any force, not even defensive force. But then you guys start to get bogged down on the Russia/Ukraine war and Israel/Palestine situation. And while these definitely need discussion, it's just adding to the confusion and not really helping with the definition of a libertarian. Focus on the subject! And save the messy international conflicts discussion for a separate episode. But I'm only 10 minutes in so far! ;-) Okay 40 minutes in. They kind of got back on the subject, but then veered away again on the Libertarian Party and strategy instead of defining a libertarian. Again this should probably be a different episode. Or maybe they can edit this epsiode into several shorter clips with different focuses (focii?). But if you really want to talk strategy, the Libertarian Party has had minimal effect on American politics. Maybe the Mises caucus isn't the way to make inroads, but I'd like to hear any other strategy that would actually be effective. I've pretty much given up on political activity as anything more than a temporary stopgap. What's really going to lead us to a libertarian society is some kind of social and cultural breakthrough, or more likely, multiple breakthroughs. Then the politicians will follow suit with their "Me, too" statements.
@@johnlind5563 Perhaps it would be, but I don't think that's as rigorous or as useful as the non-aggression principle, which can be used to extrapolate not only a basic morality, but can also be used to distinguish between just and unjust actions and help define crimes and justified laws against crimes. The non-aggression principle is a simple statement with broad implications. Or did you mean that as a strategy, not a definition?
After listening to this whole podcast I can't wait to continue listening to Dave. I have absolutely no interest interest into listening to the other 2 guys discuss anything
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/At8v_Yc044Y/mqdefault.jpg)
This feels like a libertarian talking to two people who like libertarian ideas
Facts
😂Liz trying to trash the mises caucus because “you cant take them seriously” while defending the previous regime that told you to wear a mask. Hilarious
mises are unserious edgelords they say but prefer the communist with a boot on his head who now runs as a democrat...he always was and some moron who said its not enough to be not racist, we must be anti racist aka racist against white people and then got bit by a bat...ok, very serious.
Absolute delusion these Reason folks are under. They're like pro state but they want a couple extra things legal.
wearing a mask. is voluntary so. What's Hilarious?
@@robinsss you can quit trying, Bill Gates is not going to fuck you.
@@robinsssit was not voluntary 😂
Liz "I don't think it's fair to vilify all of Reason because of a few tweets or a single editorial."
Also Liz (in the same discussion): "The Mises Caucus is really giving libertarianism a bad name with some of these tweets."
She's young and restless leg syndrome
Why is she ignorant?
mises caucus literally campaigned on being assholes
@@middle-brain Her response to that should NOT be “oh you think THEY’RE stupid and out of touch? Well hold my beer”
@@middle-brain No, we ran on not staying silent when totalitarianism is being pushed because people "want to stay in our lane".
Don't confuse New Hampshire with the entire MC.
They asked Dave to come on their show because they themselves are not gonna pull an audience.
Zach and Liz made my teeth itch. They haven't a clue
It just felt like they were trying to figure out what Libertarianism is and what they believe that might be considered such. Very underwhelming.
To be a libertarian (small "L", not necessarily a party member) is to believe in the NAP, -- the Non-Aggression Principle -- which holds that no person or group of people should initiate force, fraud or threat of force against other people. But there is little or no agreement on who or what should be authorized to enforce elements of that principle. So, in the real world, the true function is as a guideline for individual behavior that always avoids transgressing upon the rights of other people. As a code of ethics, it tells me how to behave, but offers no formula to make others behave in the same manner. That's because there's is not and cannot ever be such a formula. But people who really believe in the NAP and try to live by it can live very well with other people who believe the same. In short, its a very good and workable system for small groups of like-minded people, but the larger the group the more it breaks down, just like every other political system.
Tldr thanks for your essay though@@lsjohn
Exactly.
Reason needs a Mises takeover
"Libertarians don't look to the government to fix what ails them." Uh, almost right....Libertarians recognized the government as what ails them. Liz is a bit insufferable in this. Its exhausting.
she's always like this unfortunately.
so you can't fix. The. Aspects of. Gov't. That. Aren't working?
Uh, sort of. Government isn’t what ails us, it’s the lies and violence and anger and evil that does. And libertarians disagree widely on what ultimately ails us. I think it’s lack of recognition of the rightful rule and reign of Jesus. But Government is a manifestation of the inner evil to violating the NAP. Government is not the only problem in the world that ails us.
@@bradvincent2586 was the gov't of Wyoming. Evil when it allowed. Women to. Vote. In 1870. . Before income taxes. Or. The war on drugs?
Does this include the era before 1945 when the state took the side of the super wealthy in pretty much all affairs leading to British working class people in the 19th century, for example, earning four times less, having much less leisure time and consuming less calories than their forbears under feudalism?
Normal people recognise that the government may ail them, they also recognise that it may help them
Libertarians by contrast never explain why their ideology only emerged once the State started to be put to pro-social uses after WW2 and even when confronted now by epic corporate and financial malpractice including the gutting of whole swathes of the West somehow it's the still solely the government's fault
Liz should keep interrupting and talking over the guests, and Zach should for sure take another edible before episode two.
Kudos to Reason for willing to bring in someone who’s sharper and more serious about their libertarian convictions than the hosts as a first guest.
This guy gets it.
Exactly!!!
The chick’s insistence on making it all about petty internecine rivalries really makes the title of the video a misnomer. We have no hope of spreading the ideas if we choose shrill harpies as our messengers.
😂😂😂 exactly!!
Liz Wolfe is a total clown sell-out
I WANT to like Liz, but i cant help but feel like shes disingenuous.
She wants the LP to be bold yet she simps for the LP of old, which was anything but.
Dave and the Mises Caucus are just on another level, theyre actually restructuring the party.
Liz is just sitting on the sidelines complaining about mean tweets and growing pains.
Very fair and genuine analysis. She just needs to let the ego die a bit and follow the truth where it leads. None of us have the same view on politics as we did five years ago, gotta be willing to grow
She still wears cat-eye makeup like a teenager, she enjoys living in the past.
I will give Liz some credit that is due to her...
She is quite pretty.
I'm completely behind the Mises Caucus version of the LP. The previous (modern) version is/ was a complete joke. As far as Liz wanting the more Leftist garbage, that would be completely consistent with Reason magazine in general which is a complete joke as well.
Reason is to Libertarianism what Milli Vanilli is to music. Dave Smith is so good at exposing people for what they truly are. Thank you Dave. Reason continues to sink into the embarrassing statist abyss.
''''''''Reason is to Libertarianism what Milli Vanilli is to music'''
why do you say. That?
@@robinsssthat comment is followed with a reason for saying it 😂.
@@NJT1013 ''''''Reason continues to sink into the embarrassing statist abyss.v''''''
be specific
@@robinsss why do you type like this?
Girl you know it's true
I'm only 25 minutes in, and I already never want to hear these two interview anyone ever again.
33:31 Liz needs to hear Lysander Spooner
Either the constitution allowed it or it didn't prevent it
My immediate thought upon her comments.
The first 20 minutes was good. Went off the rails when it turned into a weird "gotcha" style interview. Zach and Liz did not want to participate in a conversation and reverted to a spaghetti interrogation: throw anything against the wall and see what sticks. Not looking forward to future episodes if this is the style.
Absolutely agree.
Agree
Typical slime and pettiness from reason
It's funny to watch dave clearly explain his positions on issues and then watch these two do mental gymnastics. Hope you guys can keep getting great guests like dave.
Libertarianism of all factions requires epic amounts of mental gymnastics starting with Dave's passion for the American revolutionary war which was fought, in part, to allow American colonists to start ethnically cleansing the Native Americans from what land they had left
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rpThe British were standing in their way?
@@LPNBKeith Clearly. They'd signed treaties with the Natives.
Tell us again about your respect for other people's property?
@@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp What treaties and what natives?
@@LPNBKeith The indigenous peoples of America. You know very well, you private property liberty lovers are living on their land
Re the treaties with the British: do your own research - google is your friend
With a title like "What is a libertarian?" I was excited to have a really good communicator like Dave talking about the NAP, self-ownership, separation between political vs social tolerance, *MAYBE* talking about thick vs thin libertarianism, and explaining the foundational precepts of what libertarianism is and what it is not. I was really looking forward to having something I could share with non-libertarians to give them a good intro to the philosophy with more meat on the bones than a 10 minute surface intro.
But then it devolves into almost an hour of inner-party drama and arguing over political messaging. I can't share this with anyone outside of the party.
Well done Reason - excellent waste of a great opportunity to create a good resource.
None of those people would have listened to it either way you're delusional.
Just because you don't have friends, doesn't mean you should project it onto others. RUclips can be a great source for creating libertarians.@@charismatic9467
Agreed. 100% Less Liz and more Dave.
@@charismatic9467 "Those people"? .... Racist
Perfectly said
I was turned off by Libertarians until the Mises caucus took over finally some serious libertarians are in charge.
same
This was great. Thank you for having Dave Smith on to show Reason staff what principled libertarianism actually is. It’s obvious that some of them are totally oblivious.
Mises Caucus is a good thing, why is Reason always shitting on them? Just move on and push the message of liberty 🗽
Mises was a Fascist
It’s by no means perfect, but it’s so much better than the old leadership. And the old leadership caused immense damage by trying to present libertarians as some sort of moderates.
Reason claims that the mises causus dropped/prevented a lot of members, however I'd wager that Reason has beaten that figure.
For those who may not remember, it was Reason who dropped a bomb on Ron Paul's 2008 campaign by digging up those ancient newsletters from the early 1990s. Reason has been trying to take down Mises/Austrian libertarians for a long time.
Because they're closer to paleo conservatives than libertarians. They'd feel more at home in the Constitution Party. For me a Libertarian is a secular Capitalist in the mold of Ayn Rand.
Whether someone is for old LP, or more for the Mises Caucus, its great to see libertarians get together. that being said, Dave drove me to watch this 😅
Dave is so eloquent, makes zach look like a stumbling toddler
If I did it know any better, I’d say Liz is still raw over Dave’s criticism of her piece on RFK Jr..
I have no idea who she is. But she comes across as pretty annoying and doesn't really seem to articulate good points.
Liz talks about some unrelated tweets for 10 minutes to create a strawman then explains that she doesn't want Dave to respond about the tweets she has been fixated on and call out her illogical practices.
Great podcast. Dave Smith is awesome.
really?
@@michaelweber5702 Absolutely.
He is usefull idiot in Lenins purist sense
100%
Dave - "Cato deserves the label [beltway libertarian] more than Reason"
Dave hasn't been following reason as closely as we have. They're the worst.
I can think of at least one issue that Cato is more principled and clear on. In all other aspects they are essentially equivalently terrible.
@@user-he8su9oq8l why do you. Say?
why do you. Say?
If you put the most effort into defending government and wars, you're not a libertarian, you're a Wolfe in libertarian clothing.
PS - Taking cheap shots at Dave and the LPMC is the opposite of good-faith dialog.
I don't trust that chick.
LIz really seems all over the place, being obviously annoyed by some comments and wanting to pursue them, and then trying to get back to the main subject after she's veered so far off.
@@macsnafuit's because she's a pressure release valve.... Some people are just ignorant. She knows what she's doing
@@2regarded Well, i would agree she knows what she's doing with those pants she's wearing. But I don't think this episode does a very good job of explaining what a libertarian is.
@@macsnafu for sure... Any new person would be very confused
Liz completely ignores the option of Netanyahu not propping up any Palestinian political organization. She's trying to pretend Israel NEEDED to play puppet master, and the 2 options were Hamas and Isis. For a libertarian, it's amazing she doesn't seem to grasp that sometimes not doing anything is an answer.
Regime libertarians, of which she's obviously one even in Queens, don't understand that the best solution is generally found outside the regime. She spent this entire interview with that truism on full display, not just on Israel.
Israel has conscription. Mandatory indentured servitude to a state. It is absurd to like Israel as a libertarian.
Who chose who took control in Gaza? Was it Israel?
@Tukeen Why would Israel's conscription inform us about whether the pursuit of the destruction of Hamas is justified? It seems plausible to both see some military actions as justified, while opposing conscription.
Liz is painful to watch and listen to. Interrupting guests, talking over their answers, inserting obvious points....ugh, she's about as DC libertarian as they come. All fluff. No substance.
If only this video was just asking questions to Dave Smith.
Dave should really be commended for how competent he is in these spaces. Consider that the guy is part of a podcast where if one loses a bet, they have a gun shoved in their butt - dabbing and drinking and doing comedy. For him to be able to do so well in this context and in that context is a hell of an achievement, and requires a lot of genuine talent. He is authentic in both spaces. Hard to do.
To be fair Dave doesn’t engage in that behavior. He’s lame.
@@brianomoli4 So lame that he doesn't need to shove a gun in his ass to be funny.
He's the voice of reason, he's better judgement, he represents the audience perspective, one foot on the outside looking in, reacting to and cracking jokes, making fun of ridiculous Jay and Luis are. He plays a good role on the show, and when he's not there you def miss the "reasonable" perspective on the show. @@brianomoli4
"Gun in the butt! Gun in the butt! Gun in the butt!" #CoreValues
Dave is fantastic. Bring him back more often!!!!!!!!
More often? Lol. He has been 100 percent of the guests so far!
Skip these two and just listen to Dave's Part of the Problem show
Why is Liz so visibly uncomfortable and hostile in the presence of an actual Libertarian? 🤔
Agreed. Very hostile. I can’t tell if it’s just because the guest is Dave or if this is a personality defect. I’m not familiar enough with her. She does need to chill out. Ideas won’t automatically win if they are delivered by an
@@paradigm_conjecture Because Liz is a Libertarian and Dave is a Paleo-Conservative.
@@Justin_Beaver564 I had to educate myself on paleo conservatism. Does he really oppose multiculturalism and focus on Christianity? From all the Dave I’ve seen on his podcast and Legion of Skanks, I don’t think that’s a good description.
@@paradigm_conjecture Maybe not perfectly no, but his ideology is much closer to a Pat Buchanan Paleoconservative than a David Nolan Libertarian.
@@johnlind5563 Most of Rothbard's ideas have been rejected by mainstream libertarians. They've certainly been rejected by CATO and Reason.
I’ve been a part of the libertarian movement since 1991. I read Reason for many years after that. I came to the conclusion that the magazines purpose was to “make government work,” make it more efficient, but not to eliminate it. I invited a representative from Reason to speak at our Supper Club when I was the Chair of our region in the mid 90s. I’m sorry, I can’t remember who came, but in the middle of his presentation, he seemed confused at the pushback he was getting, and did an informal poll, “how many of the libertarians present considered themselves selves to be anarchists?” He was amazed to find every single person in the room with their hand up. I still have my Reason magazine collection from the 90s, there was a lot of interesting information, but I quickly found that I was outgrowing their train of thought as I started exploring the more radical schools, starting with Spooner, then Rothbard, etc. By the time Harry Browne came along with Government Doesn’t Work I dropped the entire pretense of the legitimacy of government, and spun myself out of electoral politics, and into pursuing my own freedom over trying to sway the masses. It didn’t hurt that Sam Konkin was an integral part of our circle that drove me and others to that conclusion. I’ve not looked back. We are not going to vote ourselves into freedom. But I do enjoy that these youngsters still hold hope that you can😂.
I am significantly younger than you and I respect your perspective on how the libertarian movement has evolved. But yes, I want to impress upon libertarian-minded people this fundamental truth: we cannot vote ourselves into freedom, which is effectively the same as saying we cannot vote ourselves out of slavery.
Government is inherently evil, and even if I can contend that some government systems are obviously less corrupt and tyrannical than others, that doesn't change the fact that government is intrinsically criminal. I never want to support anyone who will justify killing me or anyone else for resisting their monopoly on violence.
I made that same journey, however, I think I accidentally jumped in the fast lane straight away. Maybe it's modern tech and the fact that I can consume more of these discussions and readings in a shorter time frame than the 90s. So, with that, I made it to anarchy in likely less than a year.
I think you're both also correct in that, yeah, we're not voting our way out of these problems.
However, I don't think it's foregone conclusion that we'll have to shoot our way out either. If enough people eventually agree with, "ok, we're not doing this anymore," I do believe violence is still avoidable.
Anarchism is not Libertarianism!
@@sarider6294 magnificent observation, Copernicus
@@danarchism-dissident I was responding to the the main comment in which they stated that at a LP forum they were all anarchist. And you respond with a sarcastic insult. Socrates or Aristotle would have been better than Copernicus
Dave is still one of our best, consistent voices of liberty in the info machine. I'm a decade older than him. Much respect.
Where is Liz's party? Where's her super successful political movement? Damn, she's insane to say that she would vote for anyone but the folks running the LP because they're poor. What a snob.
Is she a rich kid?
The only problem with these in-person interviews is we can see the host playing Candy Crush on their phone.
You should have Tom Woods on to discuss why some libertarians might not like Reason.
Send Malice, Tom is too kind
Send Tom first. He's the bouncer, he's nice. We can call the cooler in if things heat up later. There's no reason to start with Dalton.@@Cody---
@@grandarchon6969 Dalton? I heard he's the best.
It'll get worse before it gets better.@@EnwardSnowman
@@grandarchon6969 that's a different part. When someone says they heard that Dalton is the best, you say Wade Garrett is the best.
I think it would have been revealing to see which tweets she objected to.
Also she seemed to have implying that prior to the mises takeover , that the libertarian Party was taken seriously which is ridiculous.
in terms of popular support, id have to agree with her saying that the lp was taken more seriously. this is coming from a guy who loves the mises caucus btw.
@@rothnirtull4254maybe you could say it's taken even less seriously than before but even then I'd say it's irrelevant.
Also it's kinda worth pointing out that candidate who *are* "taken seriously" are creatures like Nicky Haley and Chuck Schumer...
I would have like to seen Liz hand over her cell phone to Dave, since she thinks her glib response was cute.
Yeah, I think the debate is over what the LPs use is. IMO, the LP has never been taken seriously, but at least now a real libertarian message can be espoused by the party. Also, looking at what happened in Argentina, it's possible that the mises message needs the right environment to be considered. The thing is, if the LP is willing to be more respectable to mainstream views, why have the party at all?
There's also an external factor in the loss of seriousness. The MAGA movement has had some success in reforming the Republican party to better represent its constituents, or at least it has given the plausible appearance of reform. This kills some of the appeal of a 3rd party for formerly dissatisfied Conservatives.
This was a great interview of Liz. Hope Dave and Zach have her on again
She's weak and annoying
☠️
bahahaha, she does love talking pro-war
Dave is one of the most well informed monks I’ve ever heard.
😂😂😂😂😂
☠️ 😂
REASON used to be libertarian. I subscribed to their magazine in the 80s.They don’t even seem to understand the concept any longer. Dave Smith is more libertarian than a so called libertarian think tank. Isn’t this the same clown show that attacked RFKjr recently?
This show will struggle for views any time Dave is not the guest.
Im just gonna keep looking at the view count dwindle as each episode goes on
Really had high hopes for this discussion. So much time spent asking Dave to answer for social media campaigns he has zero control over. You had the time, space, and audience to have a meaningful conversation and blew it.
Joined the LP and new paid member only because of the Mises Caucus here....
Same. I started volunteering because of them. They’re by no means perfect, but it’s a big step in the right direction.
I've never heard of anyone joining because of Liz, but I've heard of tons joining because of Dave
bro is in kindergarten with the tired "without a state it creates a power vacuum"
What do you think has went on in Libiya over the last 15 years? How did that happen?
@@kirkpierce2260that would have happened with or without a state. Ones will to be a bad person doesn’t rely on there being a state. You’re just arguing for the biggest gang to have the most power. If those people are murdering each other why would you give some of them power to murder everyone else
@@kirkpierce2260 Libya was destroyed by america for being successful and not abiding the empire so they killed him and made sure it cant recover. That happen bc of imperialism. they were the most successful country in africa till obama and hildog. after them there are open air slave market and brutal sanctions. The power vacuum exists bc america makes it exist.
A Libertarian is someone who knows more than the average person about politics, enough so they refuse to participate in politics.
"Part of the problem" is the perfect name for a podcast.
please elaborate, my first reaction was wtf.
@@rothnirtull4254 My point is Libertarians are generally non-participants in politics yet know more than the average person and/or have strong opinions on political matters. They don't move the needle.
@@fortusvictus8297 oh. thats fair i suppose
The needle? Oh you mean the mouth breathing normies who allow empires to grow fat? That needle.
@@JD-os2kr Yes, the people who actually matter. Compared to the egotists who sit on the sidelines criticizing everything and doing nothing of value and contributing nothing of practical worth.
Dave Smith is Amazing. He has that ability to verbally win without being disagreeable. He got interrupted constantly by Liz, and he answered and took her to school quite nicely. He did the same to Laura Loomer too during their debate. The like on this video is for Dave Smith.
Boy did that lady dominate the conversation. I hit play to hear Dave and his ideas. I feel like I was at the mall with a narcissistic teenager.
How about her soliloquy on the differences between Brooklyn surfer-bros and people in Queens? When I heard this I thought, "What exactly is this?"
@@JTS-u3l exactly
She seems like an affirmative action hire. She hasn’t said one intelligent thing.
Dave is great.
Hints of bad faith arguments - scoffs, eye rolls, language of emotionality, interrupting, parenthetical side statements
This was all just an exercise to see if liz could hide her hatred for dave.
Is this chick arguing just to argue?
💯
I hate to like a ReeeCNN video, but the like is for Dave😂
Liz might be the most annoying person. Her crying about LP National tweets is hilarious. The messaging is way better now than 2020.
What is a libertarian? Not really anyone at tReasonTV.
I used to be an avid reader of Reason from when I graduated highschool in 2013 up to and through COVID in 2020 and 2021. I stopped after what I considered to be absolute cowardice on behalf of Reason as well as other beltway libertarians when it came to the COVID regime. This podcast helped remind me that I was right to stop.
Can someone ask Liz to stop interrupting their guest with stupid jokes? She's not a comedian.
Looking at the comments it’s easy to see that ReasonTv didn’t connect with their audience and that Dave Smith did connect. Hopefully they’ll take the constructive criticism from their audience and learn.
Def not just asking questions lol
I'm a Dave Smith fan and I'm very excited for this interview.
Hope everyone does well
Old guard libertarians were just people who were anti war pro weed and that’s it.
The Mises caucus breathed new life into the LP with an actual nuanced positions
Says libertarians are constantly skeptical of government....then Google Reasons record on Covid.
Dave Smith is the Man!!!
who remembers thick vs thin?
Thanks for reminding Reason about libertarianism, Dave. These days, they're more NPR than libertarian.
That's comical. You purists are the reason the LP will never make any headway.
@@erikjlee1What do you think the LP should be then? Democrat light? Because that's what Reason has turned into. Should I respect some guy who's in their 50's still wearing a leather jacket telling me to mask up and stay home? Is that what you would like the LP to be? Or should we just sit around while Liz tells us how we should get our ideas across? This woman is a statist. And she's getting paid by reason to tell us how we should Express ourselves. Its embarrassing.
@@erikjlee1 “If the Libertarian Party is going to exist, it should exclusively run libertarian candidates. This whole exercise is a waste of effort if they’re going to run candidates that are essentially “democrats that like guns” or “republicans that like weed.”
For the sake of the argument, Russia gave a red line, NATO crossed that red line. Is that not aggression against Russia? Therefore, is Russia truly the aggressors? Dave made the point that if you are fighting a war and you see an opposing soldier, that you don't need to wait for the other solider to shoot at you before you shoot at them. Zach and Liz seem to agree with that. Could that example also be used for Russia invading Ukraine instead of waiting for NATO/Ukraine "shooting" at them first? Personally, I hate the thought of imagebearers slaying other imagebearers. Hopefully there can be peace soon.
Good show.
Ukraine was willing to sit down with Putin early on but Boris Johnson was sent to Ukraine and ended it. Ukraine is not a country advocating freedom. Nazi's that live there are no different than Russian Communists. The outcome is the same.
It's murky. I can make any unreasonable demand and claim it's my red line. I don't think Russia's demand is unreasonable. It's understandable that weapons systems on their border would make them uncomfortable, and a geopolitical strategist who was actually acting in good faith would recognize that and adjust their behavior accordingly, but it's not obvious that they have an enforceable right to what they demanded. Their jurisdiction is over their borders.
And even if they did have an enforceable right - like if you wanted to analogize those weapons systems to pulling out a gun and pointing at someone, it's also murky whether they have a right to trample on Ukraine in response to US provocation.
@@troll_kin9456 I appreciate your well thought out response. I agree with the concept of borders. What complicates that is, when a rival has weapons that can be fired at you from hundreds of miles away and can create the amount of destruction that those weaponry can create. It definitely complicates the meaning of non-aggression/aggression. I agree with you, that, if Putin's goal is to take back some or all of Ukraine back for Russia; he has a duty to not annihilate innocent Ukrainian citizens. But, above that, Putin's duty to protect his Russian citizens over Ukrainian civilians. It is complicated.
I don’t think the interviewers are libertarians.
Great conversation. My only suggestion would be to avoid interrupting your guest unless absolutely necessary.
How is Liz this consistently bad on every issue?
She's emotionally charged up and it clouds her ability to reason.
@@JD-os2kr woman moment
@@JD-os2kr The irony.
I’m very distracted by the fact that I keep hallucinating another knee coming forth from Liz’s knee dripping clear slime and hissing at Sigourney Weaver
Wtf man, go walk it off
"Get away from you bitch!" 😂
Sorry, I love Dave, but I can't stand Reason guys... This constant simping to the establishment pov is too freaking annoying. I can't think of anything other than Rothbard's "Do You Hate the State" when I listen to these guys.
34:10 Lysander Spooner "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Based Spooner enjoyer
Don’t interrupt your guest so much because you disagree. Dave Smith is doing a great job getting the message to the common man. I sense hostility or some personality flaw that makes this frustrating to watch. Ask questions or debate?
My "Repeal the 19th" instincts were re-activated thanks to this discussion.
A g4eat example of how Reason is barely libertarian.
The LP needs a Javier Milea/Ron Paul. There currently is none.
closest thing we have to a Ron Paul in congress is Thomas Massie, but I think he's smart enough to avoid anything like a Presidential campaign.
Ironically, the closest we have to that is Dave Smith.
No we need an Ayn Rand
There is still Ron Paul himself. Is 88 really too old?
@Justin_Beaver564 she was anti libertarian
In case anyone was wondering why Reason has nearly 900k subs but can barely crack 10k views on any of their episodes; this episode should shine some decent light on that.
The reason people are democrats, not libertarians. That’s why they get so much heat
There were interesting exchanges here and I hope this show finds success. I respectfully share that I found the discussion about the LP to be off topic and off-putting. Political party infighting/donation trends, tweets/social media drama... these things are at best besides the point. The strength of libertarianism is that these ideas can lead us to make better choices and live better lives without needing to get permission or popularity or power - this is something that individuals can implement. My idea of a successful version of this series is one where the focus is primarily on exploring and cultivating the ideas of libertarianism, rather than the efforts to implement it as a political system.
Dave is a supporter of the political implementation to achieve libertarian ends. Why wouldn't this be an appropriate topic?
I see now that the description gives this context, but it wasn't made clear from the way he was introduced in the video. I didn't know anything about him going into this, and he was introduced simply as a libertarian with slightly different views from the hosts. It became apparent from his answers, of course, that he was involved in politics, but by then my opinion must have been formed that "this feels really out of place" for a discussion about "what is a libertarian?".
If your title is "What is libertarianism?" then I too would have enjoyed a discussion more focused on the philosophy of libertarianism and selling the idea to people. Explain what self-ownership and the NAP are. Talk about thick vs thin. How that applies to currebt events and issues. Something we could share with the mildly political. This has so much inside baseball - they are limiting their potential audience. At least, I'm certainly not comfortable sharing it with anyone not already a libertarian.
@@veersstreams9065I did the same lol.
'''''My idea of a successful version of this series is one where the focus is primarily on exploring and cultivating the ideas of libertarianism, rather than the efforts to implement it as a political system''''
that's impossible
libertarianism is inherently a political. Philosophy and. Proposal for a governmental. System
Dave really gets around
I am a libertarian, and just converted my mum to one. We’re fed up with being left with no right.
No, you didn’t.
Personally, I feel that extreme skepticism of state power is the defining definition of a Libertarian, and what actually separates us from other liberty-lovers such as classical liberals.
I agree, libertarianism evolved from classical liberalism, it's simar as a child is similar to it's parent, but it's more jaded, skeptical of government and for good reason. Libertarianism has roughly a 100 year history if you count Mises most early works and it just got more radical from there, and much more precise. Consistency became key to defining libertarianism as it went trough rigorous work of taking what classical liberals had come up with and honing it into an even sharper blade.
Classical liberalism was good, but it was also somewhat slopy and left many unanswered questions, libertarianism does not.
Whether you love or hate the Mises Caucus, the LP is still the only party that believes in freedom.
I agree with that
I wouldn't say "still." At least until very recently, they didn't believe in it either.
OK, well it wasn't actually "Just Asking Questions", but it was still a really good discussion.
Just asking questions and then arguing when the much more well informed guest doesn’t give the answer you want: presented by the joke of a publication known as Reason magazine.
@@troypisano5409 Maybe, but at least their arguments were reasonable. They came off to me as having reasonable points and much better than a joke.
@@acem82 what does reasonable mean? Every point either of the hosts made were easily refuted by their guest. They had typical doubts or questions any normie might have that hasn’t grappled with the severity of the rot in our current government/corporate/media apparatus. Thats literally the entire problem we’re facing tho. Virtually no one wants to address the elephant in the room because they’re still comfortable and thats scary to think about.
@troypisano5409 careful you're mask is slipping
@@troypisano5409 IDK about every point. On most things, they agreed. On the things they actually disagreed about, they seemed to have reasonable objections, even if they weren't ultimately correct.
I'm not a big fan of Reason, but these 2 had a good showing here.
And yes, I think all 3 here agreed about the rot in the Uniparty institutions. When I was thinking about why the worst people were on top right now, I immediately thought of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" chapter 10 of why the worst end up on top, which was then referenced shortly afterward.
Dave is undefeated on foreign policy debates
right, but this was "just asking questions" ... totally not a debate
/s
Why do the female hosts on shows like this seem to believe it is their job to debate the guest?
There is no "we" here, Liz.
I refused to give the LP any money until the Mises Caucus became prominent. I'm completely on the opposite side of Liz. It's hard to believe a libertarian would rather vote for Bill Weld than a mises guy. What a joke
Government should always be as small and as local as possible.
This is the best summary for Libertarian governance that I've seen. I shake my head when I hear Libertarians describe their ideal situation of neighborhoods hiring private security, private roads, etc. It all sounds ridiculous. Makes MUCH more sense as you describe.
Libertarian (n): A person who does not believe in using violence or threats of violence to coerce others for the "greater good." As a result, they are destined for a life of ignominy, poverty, and frustration. Also, a person who judges the morality of government policies by their real-world consequences, rather than their alleged intentions. As a result, they are destined to be described as ignorant and arrogant. Archaic: a person who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the principles thereof.
Model sentence: I shot a libertarian; the cold, callous SOB wouldn't give me money for a nose job, so I had no choice - who wants to live with someone who places so little value on human life and health? Doesn't he know that experts tell us that people will die if they can't get free cosmetic surgery?
I’d buy that t-shirt
Thank you, Reason and Dave Smith! I hope this gets substantial traction and views. I love the long-form, in-depth discussion, and the respectful, reasonable exchange of differing views. Keep up the excellent work!
22:28 I love how Dave Smith destroyed her argument when she's defending Israel on propping up Hamas to deny Palestinians their rights. And at the end, she changes the topic when defeated.
Mises derangement syndrome
I'm sure Reason thought they would benefit from views from Dave's audience, but this just put a lot of eyes on just whh Mises absolutely dominated the joke that was the beltway libertarian party.
Thank you for having Dave on and not isolating from the direction of where libertarians are moving 🙏 I’ll leave the criticisms to the other comments.
What Constitutional protections?
Name one of the Bill of Rights that has not been routinely violated without recourse when the government chooses to do so.
One.
Yeah, sometimes they let one poor SOB or another look like they've won in court--for the same reason casinos have to occasionally let someone win a jackpot--you have to keep the suckers playing if you want to fleece them.
I think Reason exists to manufacture consent.
@@RebelGorilla7384 They do have that strong tendency to be "Beltway Libertarians."
The quartering of soldiers in people's homes? Otherwise, I'm stumped.
@@Membwayne Yes, even that one. Wasn't specifically soldiers, but there have been incidents of the "Quartering" of government employees against the will of the owners.
Dave Smith gives a great definition right out of the starting gate. And Liz does help to clarify. I don't know how many people hear about the non-agression principle and mistakenly assume that you can't use any force, not even defensive force. But then you guys start to get bogged down on the Russia/Ukraine war and Israel/Palestine situation. And while these definitely need discussion, it's just adding to the confusion and not really helping with the definition of a libertarian. Focus on the subject! And save the messy international conflicts discussion for a separate episode. But I'm only 10 minutes in so far! ;-)
Okay 40 minutes in. They kind of got back on the subject, but then veered away again on the Libertarian Party and strategy instead of defining a libertarian. Again this should probably be a different episode. Or maybe they can edit this epsiode into several shorter clips with different focuses (focii?). But if you really want to talk strategy, the Libertarian Party has had minimal effect on American politics. Maybe the Mises caucus isn't the way to make inroads, but I'd like to hear any other strategy that would actually be effective. I've pretty much given up on political activity as anything more than a temporary stopgap. What's really going to lead us to a libertarian society is some kind of social and cultural breakthrough, or more likely, multiple breakthroughs. Then the politicians will follow suit with their "Me, too" statements.
Great analysis
@@johnlind5563 Perhaps it would be, but I don't think that's as rigorous or as useful as the non-aggression principle, which can be used to extrapolate not only a basic morality, but can also be used to distinguish between just and unjust actions and help define crimes and justified laws against crimes. The non-aggression principle is a simple statement with broad implications.
Or did you mean that as a strategy, not a definition?
@@johnlind5563 Okay, well it's worth thinking about and trying out.
thank you to ReaCNN for having someone on to teach them about libertarianism
After listening to this whole podcast I can't wait to continue listening to Dave. I have absolutely no interest interest into listening to the other 2 guys discuss anything
34:20. Sorry, but you don’t look any younger than them. I wouldn’t think anything of it if you were older than them.
This interview had some serious Cathy Newman vibes at times. Dave, ya done good
Two of my favorite libertarians: Dave Smith and Zach Weissmuller - always a great interaction.
would have been a better interview without Liz there.
1:10:30 If Queens is known for anything, it's definitely their thriving surfing community. 🧐😂
Just asking questions.
Hosts don't learn a single thing.
Title literal.
GREAT LIVE CHAT Reason TV! Dave Smith is a great first guest!
Liz Wolfe is on the spectrum. Great discussion.