What do you think about Niemietz's analysis on libertarian philosophy? Would you class yourself as a libertarian? Or do you think the philosophy has key pitfalls in the modern age?
I agree with Niemietz. He's honest about the pitfalls of libertarianism and why it will never become a large political movement. If even the IEA won't call themselves libertarians then as a movement (if you can call it that) it is doomed to fail. What's missing is a sense of group identity and solidarity.
Maybe finding common bonds around the utilitarian aspect of liberalism would be a route to greater appeal and acceptance. In my experience, most people will respond positively to evidence-based ideas, even if they are quite iconoclastic...
Oh IEA, whose funding is not transparent. Who never has diversity in opinion. One view. The conservative view. Many trans critical conferences. Not one pro trans guest invited. It's so insulting to transpeople to treat them like s*** but we wouldn't expect anything else of a mysteriously funded intere
Having watched them I'm still happy to describe myself as a libertarian and don't feel the need to remove it from my Twitter profile. Bring on the Classical Liberal Party and I'll be in the queue to shore up its radical wing. I don't recall libertarians from the right ever trying to cancel, or involve the police, when those on the left expressed views with which those on the right disagreed. Yet now that those on the left have captured virtually every institution they use every tool at their disposal to silence their opponents. They were never true libertarians but always authoritarians.
I agree with your assessments. Libertarians used to define themselves based on the understandings of the right and left, but those two "sides" revealed that they were not founded in any sort of hard principle, and they have changed over time. What this has done is helped refine the definition of libertarianism as it's own sound philosophy. What it has made more clear to me is that there really isn't such a thing as "right" or "left" but simply two tribes that want to use government force in different fashions. Libertarians reject the initiation of force regardless of the area it is employed. From that perspective, Conservatives and Progressives are closer to one another than they pretend or that either is to libertarians. And as a libertarian, you can certainly have your various opinions on social issues, being more traditional or liberal, but as long as you don't support the initiation of violence to implement those ideas, you are libertarian.
Overall a good video on the subject. Obviously there is a lot more to discuss. I've been a libertarian since my early teens. That's how I live my life. That is, to see and treat everyone as an individual. Because of the Libertarian Party in the USA, I prefer to call myself a classic liberal who leans towards anarcho-capitalism. Being practical I'll leave it at; the less government the better. Thanks for the video. I hope it gets a boatload of views.
In the U.S., classical liberal is usually related to min-archism, meaning having the smallest state possible, while anarcho-capitalist means practically zero state interference. Too many confusing titles. I am a member of the U.S. Libertarian party, but I prefer to call myself a Voluntaryist, which I think more clearly defined as someone that rejects the idea of initiation of force or aggression, even from the state.
Thank you for explaining. I feel a bit more confused now with the old and new evolutions of all the political and economic leanings. Perhaps it's best practice to avoid claiming to be one the labels and instead merely discuss the details.
23:10 Socialists & Conservatives: I read a book that helped me "articulate" my beliefs. Libertarian: I read a book and it helped me "verbally reason" my beliefs.
The "anarchists" who fought in the Spanish Civil War were AnarchoSyndicalists. They wanted rule by the unions, or rather, the union bosses. We know how that would turn out.
Still trying to game theory this with my Dad who is a card carrying anarcho-syndicalist. He refuses to accept that innovation and scale are the two hills his entire ideology has to die on.
Very interesting video, thanks. When Niemietz says he wouldn't use the word libertarian to describe himself (but wouldn't object to it either) what would he prefer? Classical Liberal? English Liberal? Something else? Apologies if this is answered in another video! He states that the British English definition of liberalism hasn't really shifted (at least relative to the US) but I fear that it's definitely in the process of shifting in that same dreary direction. It's a shame.
I don't feel like anyone to the trad-woke-left of us is trying to appropriate the term 'liberal' in the UK. It's still, sadly pretty much a dirty word.
I like my anarchism more thanks. I am highly skeptical that an unregulated capitalist system as it has been portrayed in history will ever end the problems of our society. Just as pure socialism probably won’t work the way we’d hope, pure capitalism won’t either-humans are greedy; definitely when money is involved. I’ve heard of far too many stories of bosses abusing their power just because they could. Workers should own the companies they work at, they should be unionized in some way where democratic decisions can be made for the best of the workers and communities should be run similarly. People should work together for the better of themselves and each other. I agree with the libertarian ethic until we reach the whole Ayn Rand mentality and stuff idk.
I would call myself a social libertarian due to my mainly left-wing views and desire for personal freedom. My only problem with most libertarians, however, is that they seem to care little for democracy and national sovereignty. Some right-wing libertarians are also willing to sacrifice personal freedom if it better serves business, as we have seen with the assault on trade unions and the right to strike. True freedom is freedom from authoritarian bosses as well as authoritarian governments.
The "right to strike" is what I would call licence to breach a contract. I think most libertarians regard property and contractual rights as key underpinnings of their ideological framework. As such I reject this so called right. If you don't like the terms of your employment the correct response is to resign.
@@samuelturner1668 The union bosses do appear to have too much power. Whether that qualifies as "authoritarian", is a separate (and somewhat tricky) question. But what is quite clear to me: the rail unions' strikes are (1) too disruptive to society, and (2) the strikers' demands are too unreasonable: they are _already_ overpaid (for the kind of work they do), compared to their customers (most of whom are in considerably more precarious financial situation). These strikes are abusive (hence immoral), even if technically they are not illegal.
@@gintasvilkelis2544 who are you to say that rail workers are overpaid? They are key workers, essential to the every day running of society. Also, they haven't had a pay rise in two years, and now their pay is being further cut while the government threatens to replace them with agency workers.
What do you think about Niemietz's analysis on libertarian philosophy? Would you class yourself as a libertarian? Or do you think the philosophy has key pitfalls in the modern age?
I agree with Niemietz. He's honest about the pitfalls of libertarianism and why it will never become a large political movement. If even the IEA won't call themselves libertarians then as a movement (if you can call it that) it is doomed to fail. What's missing is a sense of group identity and solidarity.
Maybe finding common bonds around the utilitarian aspect of liberalism would be a route to greater appeal and acceptance. In my experience, most people will respond positively to evidence-based ideas, even if they are quite iconoclastic...
Oh IEA, whose funding is not transparent. Who never has diversity in opinion. One view. The conservative view.
Many trans critical conferences. Not one pro trans guest invited. It's so insulting to transpeople to treat them like s*** but we wouldn't expect anything else of a mysteriously funded intere
old fashioned liberal here with a dashing of libertarian (but not too much)
a lashing, even
Having watched them I'm still happy to describe myself as a libertarian and don't feel the need to remove it from my Twitter profile. Bring on the Classical Liberal Party and I'll be in the queue to shore up its radical wing.
I don't recall libertarians from the right ever trying to cancel, or involve the police, when those on the left expressed views with which those on the right disagreed. Yet now that those on the left have captured virtually every institution they use every tool at their disposal to silence their opponents. They were never true libertarians but always authoritarians.
I agree with your assessments. Libertarians used to define themselves based on the understandings of the right and left, but those two "sides" revealed that they were not founded in any sort of hard principle, and they have changed over time. What this has done is helped refine the definition of libertarianism as it's own sound philosophy. What it has made more clear to me is that there really isn't such a thing as "right" or "left" but simply two tribes that want to use government force in different fashions. Libertarians reject the initiation of force regardless of the area it is employed. From that perspective, Conservatives and Progressives are closer to one another than they pretend or that either is to libertarians. And as a libertarian, you can certainly have your various opinions on social issues, being more traditional or liberal, but as long as you don't support the initiation of violence to implement those ideas, you are libertarian.
Overall a good video on the subject. Obviously there is a lot more to discuss. I've been a libertarian since my early teens. That's how I live my life. That is, to see and treat everyone as an individual.
Because of the Libertarian Party in the USA, I prefer to call myself a classic liberal who leans towards anarcho-capitalism. Being practical I'll leave it at; the less government the better.
Thanks for the video. I hope it gets a boatload of views.
In the U.S., classical liberal is usually related to min-archism, meaning having the smallest state possible, while anarcho-capitalist means practically zero state interference. Too many confusing titles. I am a member of the U.S. Libertarian party, but I prefer to call myself a Voluntaryist, which I think more clearly defined as someone that rejects the idea of initiation of force or aggression, even from the state.
Thank you for explaining. I feel a bit more confused now with the old and new evolutions of all the political and economic leanings.
Perhaps it's best practice to avoid claiming to be one the labels and instead merely discuss the details.
brilliant, thank you!
23:10 Socialists & Conservatives: I read a book that helped me "articulate" my beliefs.
Libertarian: I read a book and it helped me "verbally reason" my beliefs.
Ideologies are like accents.
People don't think theirs is one.
Political libertarianism is simply the idea that government must be prohibited from initiating force.
16:20 - 16:24 i had a good chuckle
The "anarchists" who fought in the Spanish Civil War were AnarchoSyndicalists. They wanted rule by the unions, or rather, the union bosses. We know how that would turn out.
Still trying to game theory this with my Dad who is a card carrying anarcho-syndicalist. He refuses to accept that innovation and scale are the two hills his entire ideology has to die on.
Very interesting video, thanks. When Niemietz says he wouldn't use the word libertarian to describe himself (but wouldn't object to it either) what would he prefer? Classical Liberal? English Liberal? Something else? Apologies if this is answered in another video!
He states that the British English definition of liberalism hasn't really shifted (at least relative to the US) but I fear that it's definitely in the process of shifting in that same dreary direction. It's a shame.
I don't feel like anyone to the trad-woke-left of us is trying to appropriate the term 'liberal' in the UK. It's still, sadly pretty much a dirty word.
Thank You 🙌
I like my anarchism more thanks. I am highly skeptical that an unregulated capitalist system as it has been portrayed in history will ever end the problems of our society. Just as pure socialism probably won’t work the way we’d hope, pure capitalism won’t either-humans are greedy; definitely when money is involved. I’ve heard of far too many stories of bosses abusing their power just because they could. Workers should own the companies they work at, they should be unionized in some way where democratic decisions can be made for the best of the workers and communities should be run similarly. People should work together for the better of themselves and each other. I agree with the libertarian ethic until we reach the whole Ayn Rand mentality and stuff idk.
I would call myself a social libertarian due to my mainly left-wing views and desire for personal freedom. My only problem with most libertarians, however, is that they seem to care little for democracy and national sovereignty. Some right-wing libertarians are also willing to sacrifice personal freedom if it better serves business, as we have seen with the assault on trade unions and the right to strike. True freedom is freedom from authoritarian bosses as well as authoritarian governments.
The "right to strike" is what I would call licence to breach a contract. I think most libertarians regard property and contractual rights as key underpinnings of their ideological framework. As such I reject this so called right. If you don't like the terms of your employment the correct response is to resign.
Who else, other than the government, is able to restrain the authoritarianism of the union bosses?
@@gintasvilkelis2544 what's authoritarian about fighting for your rights?
@@samuelturner1668 The union bosses do appear to have too much power. Whether that qualifies as "authoritarian", is a separate (and somewhat tricky) question.
But what is quite clear to me: the rail unions' strikes are (1) too disruptive to society, and (2) the strikers' demands are too unreasonable: they are _already_ overpaid (for the kind of work they do), compared to their customers (most of whom are in considerably more precarious financial situation). These strikes are abusive (hence immoral), even if technically they are not illegal.
@@gintasvilkelis2544 who are you to say that rail workers are overpaid? They are key workers, essential to the every day running of society. Also, they haven't had a pay rise in two years, and now their pay is being further cut while the government threatens to replace them with agency workers.
..so I suppose Aleister Crowley was a LiberTarian then !
She's an uncivil libertarian.