Libertarianism is pretty cool but it has a paradox at its core, as any society can only be libertarian as long as libertarians are in the majority and exercise their collective political power to keep things libertarian. A libertarian society that allows full political freedom for its constituents is doomed to fail as sooner or later the political majority will turn it into something else. (The notion that a libertarian society will be so good that everyone will see that it's the best setup possible is laughably misguided.) Libertarianism is also completely blind to the fact that community & culture are very important factors in people's lives and allowing those to be demolished if individuals don't care about them enough is a crime against humanity. It's quite weird to think that living in a cultureless mass of random people all doing their own things would be preferable to living in a unique and authentic culture. It's abhorrent to think that if for whatever reason you don't want to participate in a culture then that culture is worthless and should be dismantled. This is a recipe for a violent subculture to emerge above all others. Libertarianism should be considered an important factor in economic and law enforcement policies, but it should never be the guiding principle in a political or cultural sense.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I do think about this contradiction and I don't have a resolution for it myself. If there were 2 viruses and A was aggressive and killed virus B when it encountered it while B just lived passively then eventually Virus A would end Virus B. I see this as an issue that needs an answer from all political frameworks and I agree Libertarianism doesn't have a convincing answer... Neither do Christians for that matter. Side note: I'm not an open boarders libertarian as that is impossible with the current welfare state. Even still if the welfare state did not exist I think there are strong arguments against it based on private property rights. Anyways thanks for stopping by and dropping that solid point, you may see a video on it in the future mate. Cheers!
Calling someone a libertarian is a polite way of calling them an anarchist. I myself would be one if I didn’t have any religious or moral values. Because I have those, I’m automatically a protectionist conservative.
The radical end of the spectrum would be anarchism. Minarchism is the more moderate position. Am I understanding you correctly saying, that being religious or having morals precludes you (or someone else) from being libertarian (or anarchist)?
@@Philosonomics For anyone who has any semblance of morality rooted in religion(whether it be Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism), they cannot be Libertarians. To be a Libertarian in the simplest sense is to leave others alone and to let them do their own thing so long as they never mess with you and prevent you from doing your own thing. To be religious inherently requires you to go out of your way to make the rest of the world behave like you and your religion; whether by doing it nonviolently through discussion like Christianity, or through violent subjugation and warfare like Islam. It doesn’t matter what religion you are, so long as others out there in the world do something morally reprehensible under the doctrine you believe in, you are required to put a stop to it. That violates being a libertarian. The reason why I say libertarians are basically anarchists is because so long as anarchy isn’t happening to them (or even worse, they’re the ones perpetrating the violence) then they are ok with it happening in the world. There is no call to action to help out those in need because to do so would be to violate others ability to do as they want.
@Philosonomics exactly, it's humorous to see you explain your video. I don't know why you felt the need to defend yourself and explain your video. I just expressed it was propaganda after you supported a comment rating your propaganda. Obviously, you lack the ability to critically think Propaganda doesn't have to be paid for. It just has to be expressed lol. Obviously, you need to pick up a book and read the definition of propaganda Since you're one of the sensitive libertarians I guess you're not the podcaster for me. Maybe I'll find someone with an actual degree, educated people seem to not be as sensitive. Haha
Libertarianism is pretty cool but it has a paradox at its core, as any society can only be libertarian as long as libertarians are in the majority and exercise their collective political power to keep things libertarian. A libertarian society that allows full political freedom for its constituents is doomed to fail as sooner or later the political majority will turn it into something else. (The notion that a libertarian society will be so good that everyone will see that it's the best setup possible is laughably misguided.)
Libertarianism is also completely blind to the fact that community & culture are very important factors in people's lives and allowing those to be demolished if individuals don't care about them enough is a crime against humanity. It's quite weird to think that living in a cultureless mass of random people all doing their own things would be preferable to living in a unique and authentic culture. It's abhorrent to think that if for whatever reason you don't want to participate in a culture then that culture is worthless and should be dismantled. This is a recipe for a violent subculture to emerge above all others.
Libertarianism should be considered an important factor in economic and law enforcement policies, but it should never be the guiding principle in a political or cultural sense.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I do think about this contradiction and I don't have a resolution for it myself. If there were 2 viruses and A was aggressive and killed virus B when it encountered it while B just lived passively then eventually Virus A would end Virus B. I see this as an issue that needs an answer from all political frameworks and I agree Libertarianism doesn't have a convincing answer... Neither do Christians for that matter.
Side note: I'm not an open boarders libertarian as that is impossible with the current welfare state. Even still if the welfare state did not exist I think there are strong arguments against it based on private property rights.
Anyways thanks for stopping by and dropping that solid point, you may see a video on it in the future mate.
Cheers!
@@Philosonomics This reply made me subscribe.
Nice one mate, I appreciate it.
If you have any critiques or suggestions feel free to drop them on me otherwise, good to have you onboard.
Pretty dumb. All political philosophes only work if they maintain the majority. A national body only exist if it maintains majority buy in.
@clintdarquea3719
Force is nonlinear.
1 guys + 1 nuke vs 100,000 people
Calling someone a libertarian is a polite way of calling them an anarchist. I myself would be one if I didn’t have any religious or moral values. Because I have those, I’m automatically a protectionist conservative.
My friend is an self identifying anarchist and calls me a libertarian. I think your incorrect.
The radical end of the spectrum would be anarchism. Minarchism is the more moderate position.
Am I understanding you correctly saying, that being religious or having morals precludes you (or someone else) from being libertarian (or anarchist)?
@clintdarquea3719
Haha, I know the exact dynamic you're talking about.
What's the general tone that he uses when describing you as a libertarian ?
@@Philosonomics For anyone who has any semblance of morality rooted in religion(whether it be Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism), they cannot be Libertarians. To be a Libertarian in the simplest sense is to leave others alone and to let them do their own thing so long as they never mess with you and prevent you from doing your own thing. To be religious inherently requires you to go out of your way to make the rest of the world behave like you and your religion; whether by doing it nonviolently through discussion like Christianity, or through violent subjugation and warfare like Islam. It doesn’t matter what religion you are, so long as others out there in the world do something morally reprehensible under the doctrine you believe in, you are required to put a stop to it. That violates being a libertarian.
The reason why I say libertarians are basically anarchists is because so long as anarchy isn’t happening to them (or even worse, they’re the ones perpetrating the violence) then they are ok with it happening in the world. There is no call to action to help out those in need because to do so would be to violate others ability to do as they want.
8/10 propaganda 😊
Heh, I will continue to strive for the only acceptable score...An 11 out of 10 :)
It's definitely propaganda
@MoiriAKAFate
Propaganda for who, paid for by whom in your best guess?
It's literally a discussion about a fairly milquetoast libertarian book...
@Philosonomics exactly, it's humorous to see you explain your video.
I don't know why you felt the need to defend yourself and explain your video.
I just expressed it was propaganda after you supported a comment rating your propaganda.
Obviously, you lack the ability to critically think
Propaganda doesn't have to be paid for. It just has to be expressed lol.
Obviously, you need to pick up a book and read the definition of propaganda
Since you're one of the sensitive libertarians I guess you're not the podcaster for me.
Maybe I'll find someone with an actual degree, educated people seem to not be as sensitive. Haha