Trust me bro, you’re too stupid to have authority over your consciousness. Hand the keys over to your loving government now, please. Chemicals bad ideologies good!
Literally what I heard the entire video. He has a couple good points, but as a traditionalist he has romanticised the past and reasons weirdly because of it. This was cringy to listen to.
You aren't free when you're subject to advertisements every waking second of your life. You aren't free because you bought a TV or some flat-pack furniture. Freedom means agency, and in liberal "free societies" people have no agency, what they like and where they shop is determined by advertisers and brand recognition, what they say determined by media, what they think determined by movies and the education system, liberal "free societies" remove agency from people and local communities and centralise power and decision making more than any form of authority on the planet, ever.
Freedom is not related to happiness or success. It enables the potential for those things, but it is up to the person to follow the direction that leads there.
@@diobrando7589 It's actually the opposite of the socialists. They are purely materialistic, Luke here is advocating that people stop falling to these materialistic impulses (which is what Christianity teaches)
Let's also remember that the only way to have happiness in freedom through control by another party is to be fortunate enough to have a good enough controller. Cuomo shoveled COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, killing thousands unnecessarily. Freedom from misery under a controller just shifts responsibility to someone you can't control instead of keeping it in your own hands where you can control it.
Pepe the frog *kisses the popes $650,000 ring while kneeling in his extravagant golden castle* all those mega pastors living in modesty really drive your point home!
@@diobrando7589 I know this philosophy very well. Luke's philosophy on Freedom was the one the Church had since ancient times. The Church separates true liberty from libertine. Liberty is the use of our Free Will to Freely worship God and try to live a life as sinless as possible while Libertine is too do w/e you want which includes forsaking God. The main reasoning here is that by partaking in vices without restrains you are walking away from God and God is the true source of Freedom therefore being a drug addict makes you less Free.
If the past year has taught us anything, it is goverment is not a benevolent entity whose raison d'etre to provide us with the philosophical "good life" whether ethically, morally, or spiritually.
I agree with you, but I think this is actually a failing of us as citizens of our state. We are too detached and have let people push ourselves out of our duty to engage in politics. A monarchy/tyrant wouldn't solve this either because even in those types of governments the citizens have a duty to contribute to their society. Our problem is that our hyper individualism contains this idea of retreating from society and living completely on our own, where St. Benedict brought a community with him when he retreated from society.
That is true but what Luke Smith says is facts anyway. Both can be true, a government can suck but banning drugs or being anti drugs can be a good thing too
@@TruthTVNZ03 The government sucks because it's full of petty tyrants with savior complexes like you. You think drugs are bad for people? Fine. Don't do them. Simple.
Freedom is the ability to choose your shackles and break free from them whenever you want. That requires a lot of mental and spiritual training. In a world controlled by duality, you can't free from a set of chains without adopting another one.
@@alankjohn9263 90% of people can't be trusted. The vast majority of people in the world are simply fundamentally incapable of acting on their own beyond base instinct. They need guidance in order to do anything constructive.
They may need guidance but that doesn't mean that you should impose your subjective guidance upon them, just like you shouldn't force "mentally unwell" people into medications, and the same reasons why you shouldn't impose vaccines upon people that don't want it. The government uses the literal same argument as you to do these things. You cannot coerce another person into being free, that's simply idiotic, if you have to coerce another person into freedom that means that it isn't really freedom.
@@user-dv3lz1vx3g Guidance that follows the laws set forth by Heaven isn't subjective. Government power isn't inherently bad; it's a matter of who wields it. And you missed the point of the video if you think that "it's not real freedom." Real freedom is freedom from base desires and vice, not freedom from authority.
Not to disrespect religion, but you cannot consider the laws of the heaven objective as long as you have different interpretations of it. Luke's point is totally valid in a moral system but not an ethical one. A valid ethical system should be universal, omnilateral, peremptory and atemporal. Even if the "laws set forth by heaven" were objective to the eyes of God he hasn't given us a maxim by which you can derive logically derive all other laws, and considering all of that the current laws of heaven cannot be peremptory nor atemporal. In fact, by this definition of ethics the government cannot by definition be ethical, but that's besides the point. (edit: attempt at making my ramblings more concise)
In my opinion, these two meanings of the word "freedom" do not contradict each other. And I believe that liberation from temptation should not come from the government, but from the person himself.
Missing the point of governmental restrictions; it has nothing to do with prevention. Have you forgotten humans are social animals? You downplay peer attachment as if one could easily forgo pervasive social reflections. If you live among a licentious crowd and they induce you to be just as licentious, you'll likely be just as licentious. Conscience (as opposed to the mind) is empirical and it seeks actualization in references; and part of the human experience is to accomodate social patterns and compare them to our own judgement. That's why the "live and let it be, bro!" approach never works.
Thank you! Even though I don't agree with your definition of freedom, this film was still a valuable lesson that gave me motivation to get over my temptations. It's mind-blowing how every one of your off-topic films has taught me something very important.
Luke, you need to do this more often. People need to have some reminder that they are not alone. Just like Coke, they keep advertising because they know that people forget all too soon.
4:19 What you say resonates a lot with what happened to me, I asked God to help me put masturbation and porn behind me, I repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as my savior. It was good for a few days and I fell back again. When I finished, something in my mind said "I am a slave" that thought came to me, I don't know if it was mine, I like to believe that it was the holy spirit because just then I realized that this was ruling my life as if I had no control over my own body. I haven't done it for a long time, I don't even have the need, I thank God. Freedom is submission to God
The laws of a state are no more external to yourself than the animal-like impulses of the body. You can only be free if your actions are derived from within yourself, from your internal self-reflective being, instead of an external cause such as the state or the impulses.
Why stop at chemicals? Ideas are dangerous too. To maximize freedom, the government needs to start censoring all speech that deviates from the Safe and Clean list of pre-approved ideas.
Vim addiction is a real issue, you can start by using another program with vim keybindings to distance yourself from it but the hardest part is going back to touching your mouse and clicking things.
in a society where drugs are illegal there are still drug addicts, do you really need a nanny state telling you whats good for you and whats not? maybe they should ban alcohol and cars too in case we get hurt
In polish we have "wolność and "swoboda" and I always felt that wolność is more of the American meaning of freedom from opressive systems, while swoboda means more the ability to choose what you want to do, a lack of worry about limited choices
Sure, if you change the definition of freedom to “success in society.” Which are completely different concepts of course, even though this video is trying to convince us otherwise.
Yeah sure from a moral standpoint i can agree with you but from a legislative perspective it's anachronic because we know today that just because you make something illegal doesn't translate to the reduced usage of the substance or the practice of x thing, the opposite happens actually due to reactance and makes things worse in general because if something is illegal even if an individual asks for help, they can't due to the fact that they risk criminal charges if they open up about it to a professional.
For me Freedom is a concept completely identical with, and basically a synonim of, Responsibility. My range of freedom (autonomous decision-making) exactly corresponds with my range of responsibilities (for what I do with my time, where I live, where I work, what I eat, etc.). Whenever I forfeit, forget or abandon some responsibility, I lose freedom of decision or action in that area. The naive myth of freedom being something separate from, or even the opposite of responsibility, is exactly the wrong concept. Now, what you are saying about socially enforced inpulse control, does make some sense; but it can also work completely counter-productively, since each time a decision is made by someone else and not yourself, you lose some opportunity or ability to make that same decision by your own volition, leading not to more, but to less impulse control over time, and a lot of suppressed and unprocessed sub-conscious matter. It could very well be, that the two men you showed in the beginning would be in the same exact situation given the same circumstances - but that makes them both equally unfree; both of them HAVEN'T taken the responsibility to process their own toxic impulses. However, the druggie there DOES HAVE an opportunity to overcome his addiction, by taking responsibility for his life, and were he to take it upon himself to do it (even if he's not completely succesful in the end), he would by definition become more free in this respect than the other man, whose prudent lifestyle was chosen and imposed upon him by society, and chances are, he's unconsciously finding other ways to act upon his bad impulses (maybe he's getting frustrated and doesn't put his best effort into his work; maybe he's acting passive-aggressively with his family; stuff like that happens all the time with people who are emotionally repressed).
Man I came here because I wanted to learn more about Linux and terminal stuff but you have ended up opening my mind about so many things, even just "What is """Freedom""" Anyway? " and "Resisting Temptation..." videos made me realize I was being a hypocrite when I say I want to stop pr0n but I can't, its like I wanted to stop it but at the same time I wanted to suck the last ounces of pleasure I felt after cooming no matter how hollow of a shell I felt like. I am not religious and am in fact an atheist but I completely agree with everything you say in this video.
Appreciate the thought provoking talk. Interesting to think about. I think freedom comes in more than one dimension. The one you're talking about I'd call spiritual freedom (moral vs immoral living). The other one is what I'll come objective freedom. The freedom to navigate the physical world as you see fit regardless of what government or popular opinion is. It's freedom to choose for yourself and accept the outcomes of your choices. With those two dimensions, you can get a continuum of social configurations. You can be moral and governed, immoral and governed, moral and not governed, or immoral and not governed.
What is the church at 9:52? It is absolutely stunning This is the first video I've come across by you, Luke and it's probably the best argument for why freedom from sin is true freedom. Thankyou
This video is so true! And that part about people seeing themselves as extensions of the things they consume, I've seen it so many times in school when I would give any criticisms people would get all hurt as though I'm personally attacking them. Even adults act the same way smh what has this world come to?
Number 1 has more negative liberty, negative liberty is freedom from interference by others, number 2 has more positive liberty, the possession of the power and resources to act in the context of the structural limitations of the broader society.
For me, freedom would be having the right to take drugs, but also having the support available to help me if I get addicted to them. That way if I want to I can take drugs, and if I end up dependent on them someone can help me break free.
@@technophobian2962 What about their freedom? If your addiction is dependent on them, then you are robbing them of their freedom. You think like a socialist, and this is why Socialism is slavery. Free people don't want to babysit junkies. We'd rather ostracize them and let them fend for themselves, and execute them for resorting to theft to feed their sinful habits.
@@namenameson9065 it's their choice to go down that career path. If they decide to do that, then of course they have to do their job. They aren't legally obligated to do it and they could change their career if they wanted to.
@@technophobian2962 freedom is the balance of having authority over your decisions and having responsibility for your actions, you cannot invoke freedom to smoke crack and jump on government welfare to dodge the consequences
@@TheGovernmentputcrackinmyblunt You can just price the welfare into the drugs. Then of course the problem becomes that black market dope is cheaper. That's where the iron fist comes into place (not by outlawing substances altogether).
I can find myself quite on the same page for most of the points of the video and the major take is basically this: to not let yourself be susceptible to vices or inate impulses that naturally reside in our very animal nature, with the difference that in this age is so much easy to excercize some of them ,mostly destructive and others unaccessible (as in many urbanite realities, healty comradery and human interaction) The final take tho is kinda silly as it implies that all people are gullible babies that can't control impulses, with no control of themselves and we need so desperately daddy or mommy government to tell us what to do or not. It's like "I'm restricting your rights ,freedom and possibly dignity but y'know, it's for your safety! Now go in the pod and eat crickets". This exaple is is kinda hand picked and memey but you get the point. This could lead on the long run to bad governement or societal practices and furthermore if you restrict something, there's always people that seek that same thing, could be deemed "immoral" or "bad" by someone else, and often talking about things that aren't a danger to the collective Develop discipline yourselves, most often than not you action will inspire others, leading to change
>The final take tho is kinda silly as it implies that all people are gullible babies that can't control impulses And the adroit, discerning adults are mostly all jacking to and hypnotized by n0rp. Sort of undermines your critic against governmental supervision, champ.
Is it not possible that the idea of "freedom" is a completely incoherent spook? To clarify my position, I don't support the theocracy that Luke Smith seems to advocate.
@@lostzephyr2191 Freedom, as all things are, is an abstraction. It's only as real as we agree on it's meaning. I believe a good definition for freedom is the ability to choose one's own course of action. Whatever freedom luke smith is talking about definitely isn't the same as mine.
Was missing this kind of content from you. The problem I see is that until the population sees and understands that being a slave to impulses is a bad thing they will keep on rejecting norms that prevent such subjugation. Maybe the first generations will remember but in time people will forget why certain norms exist and will deem them oppressive and antiquated. Then they will need to fall low enough as to be reminded of why (which is the step we have been for quite some time)
In my opinion, people have to figure out this stuff themselves... I don't think that governments should control everything we do. But I do think that society shouldn't encourage consumerism, vices, etc.
@@SketchyRaider The problem is, people rarely figure out stuff like this on their own. Like it or not, we are designed to be social, and our behavior and way of thinking is influenced by outside stimuli. We make fun of coomer consumers, but consider this - in absence of meaningful community, what are they left to be exposed to? If course, to media, and social media sites, because it takes mental effort to isolate yourself from this stuff and go read a book or something, and it's not even evident that doing so has benefits. So, people like Luke are important, because there has to be someone to at least introduce those ideas. Luke does it in a fun way that appeals to someone who is willing to consider those ideas, and I think it does more good that Luke realizes.
@@altEFG its funny, people like Luke preach Christianity, but the WHOLE basis of Christianity is free will, to a true Christian whatever happens in this world just be a traveling matter and a test for them to pass on to the after life with a "good behavior" record, for this evangelicals to want to impose their mortality on to other who arent or dont believe the same as they do, no matter how detrimental it would be for "society" since it would be basically against the teachings of Christianity, you dont like what America is go live in a muslim country see how happy you are with a forced religion upon you
As much as ability for the government to govern in that matter increases, as much such ability would be missised. The hottest current examples are the laws about banning and backdooring encryption, but this works in a similar manner in the majority of cases.
@@vilhelmmuller1588 Well if they vote by their impulses they could for example vote for a law that every citizen should pay for the alcohol of others? You wouldn't like that wouldn't you?
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 Nope. And I wouldn't like if they voted for a law that required me to pay for their resturant bills either. Or their new car, or their haircut ... Etc etc. What is your argument, Lol.
True freedom is to bring good to every individual in a society that should be self controlled by efforts of everyone , not just by the government or any other forces to keep the community in the good shape , in order as it's supposed to be ...
Since you were borned there is no freedom. Also thank you very much, Luke, for this video. It totally correlate with my own thoughts, but I couldn't get things together. Love you! So much appreciate that! Great work!
@@balmy659 Making drugs like weed illegal has never stopped anyone from doing them. If people have these impulses, they will do it, regardless of it being legal or not. The only difference is that people get put in jail longer than child molesters when weed is illegal. How does putting someone in jail give them freedom by any definition of the word?
@@5HT2A292 If the government wants to increase something, they subsidize it. If the government wants to decrease something, it bans it. The fact that people do drugs when it is banned does not mean it shouldn't be banned. I don't want it banned, but the reasoning used here (and used by many fellow libertarians) is just plain wrong. You need to show that the costs of a proposed solution outweigh its benefits, not that it is an imperfect solution.
Exactly. Making stuff illegal doesn't help anyone. If anything, it increases the rates of crime and violence that come along with the trading of illegal goods. An example of this is the solution that Portugal found for their drug problem. The government legalised drugs - this had several positive effects. The government was now able to help those addicted to drugs and support them in their lives, leading to a large decrease of people addicted to hard drugs. Violent crime also decreased by 50% because drugs were being sold legally and drug gangs lost business.
Freedom is the ability to choose your master. One that willingly follows someone/something is not a slave but a servant. If your master is bad for you and you can not leave him/her/is/they/them/xor/nand than you are not free. In other words I believe there is true freedom that is combination of both classical and modern ideas of freedom. A different translation per se. I believe that being a willing servant to "God"/"Set of moral values" is what real freedom is about. A servant not a slave.
I don't think, the real bad thing is following your temptations, but not having better alternatives. If you don't have hobbies, friends and other kinds positive relationships, a job you like, goals you want to reach, or a habit of doing physical exercise, preferably most of them, it's much harder not to follow any temptations.
Very true. I think freedom should only be hailed if you are responsible enough to actually pursue those hobbies and life accomplishments. Cus your average retard just usesw their freedom to be complete fucking degenerates. Maybe its good tho cus the more fucked up these people are, the better chances we have at exploiting that. I love jeff bezos cus he does a great job at exploiting these fucking retards. Same with Disneys CEO.
Спасибо за видео! Согласен с большей частью изложенных мыслей. Забавно получается, мы тысячи лет оптимизировали процессы, упрощали собственные жизни, создавали более простую версию натуральной природы естественного обитания, не предполагающей подвержение опасности наших организмов, и теперь мы отказываемся от удобств которые сами придумали, в пользу более натуральных (и зачастую менее удобных) процессов. Я согласен с 99% утверждений из видео, за исключением высказывания про музыку (не стал бы относить её к вредным привычкам - это источник вдохновения).
Скорее здесь имелось в виду, что люди характеризуют сами себя как набор ярлыков, врождённых или приобретённых под влиянием социума поверхностных потребностей (к примеру, "Я уникален, так как люблю слушать Тейлор Свифт и квашенную капусту"). При этом навыки и способности, жизненный опыт и мышление часто игнорируются.
Hi! I recently found your channel and I must say you are the light in my tunnel. You've literally enlightened me, you're a God's blessing for me. You are what I've been looking for. Thank you so very much.
I never would have thought about becoming Christian as a kid, but now, due to recent events and the more I learn, I'm warming up to it as something I have to do. Thanks Luke.
This is the same idea that was enforced by the Catholic Church and European government's during medieval times so it doesn't matter if it's fascist or not.
I’m a textbook, stereotypical libertarian, with a bone to pick with quite literally every conceivable institution of authority that isn’t directly God Himself (and for good reason too), but I do quite appreciate you going into this topic, and I ESPECIALLY like the point about sin being more arbitrary than moral laws; I’ve never really thought about it that way before. I don’t believe in empowering fallible rulers or angry mobs to forcibly interfere in peoples’ lives unless it’s an issue of consent/property rights, but people DO need to be taught that the morally relativistic, libertine definition of “freedom” is a lie and a conspiracy against their minds and souls, that true freedom is found only in Christ. I believe informed consent makes a person’s behavior their own business and not society’s, but it doesn’t necessarily make things “victimless”.
It's not just his viewpoint. Any philosopher, including the hedonists of antiquity, defined freedom this way. In fact, even the hedonists back then, that were made fun of for submitting to their urges, were much better than the modern average Westerner, because they cared about long term pleasure and not temporary gratification.
@@generalmichaelconstantine4598 - according to this definition, a person kept in an empty cage, hands tied behind their back and fed through an IV drip, is the free-est person possible, because they physically can't engage in any vice. Obviously this is wrong. Luke only tells half the story. To be truly free, you need both internal freedom (meaning self-control) AND external freedom (meaning not having someone else ruling over you). Luke's arguments are basically a justification of a "babysitter" government which tells people what they are allowed and not allowed to do "for their own good". I don't think I have to explain how that's a dangerous slippery slope.
@@Thematic2177 no, obviously not. Just because he can't submit to his vices does not mean he's not dependent on them, he will just face withdrawal because they're not available. In fact, an actual free person would have a much better time tied up compared to a vice-enslaved person.
@@generalmichaelconstantine4598 yes I agree, however looking at freedom purely through the lens of vices only tells half the story. Extrenal freedom (being allowed to do stuff without fear of repercussion) is also very important. Luke completely glosses over it in this video.
@@Thematic2177 But it isn't. There's no such concept as external freedom, it's an illusion. An easy way to see that is to test the boundaries of this "freedom". There will always be someone powerful enough that you'll have to comply with and be a subject of, whether it's the government, corporations, political groups or paramilitary organizations. If it's not an organized collective, then it's society. There will always be someone powerful that will rule over the people, that's how social creatures are, we follow a hierarchy. Just because the modern government grants you some abilities doesn't mean you're free in any way, they can just as easily take them away from you if you cross the boundaries they set.
The individual who's actions are determined more by the weight of their impulses and addictions, rather than their own decisions, is the slave. So to is the individual who's actions are determined more by the pressures of their society and the force of law rather than by their own decisions. The free one acts neither by coercion nor force, but by having access to reason and knowledge to conclude for themselves what is right. If you haven't read it already, I recommend Wilhelm Von Humboldt's "Sphere and Duties of Govt."
Most people aren’t rationale free thinkers, but products of the cathedral and the elites above them. Most don’t make rational planned out decisions, as shown with things like drug addiction, crime, and obesity. Would government force fix these things in 2021? Not necessarily, I don’t think so, just look at the drug war. A gradual subversion/infiltration of the higher power structures, and a revitalization of spirituality and heritage would greatly help, but these things would take a long time. The libertarian approach of legalizing everything, would be a disaster, look no further than California or Colorado. Addiction rates would skyrocket, it would destroy the already rotten fabric of Western society. Drug addiction and suicide rates have greatly increased in the last half century.
As a chinese, our party all said "we are doing this/ban u to doing this is for your benefit" what do u think about? I think what u said is good, is very good, but it should be a personal practice but not a way to rule people.
It seems that you miss the ultimate point when people talk about freedom. That ultimately, I would rather be a slave to my own principles than to the principles of someone else.
God bless you! I just found your channel and it is nothing more than spectacular. This world is so messed up and it's easy to get distracted from the only thing that matters, the Cross.
Freedom means you have the right to do what you like without intervention from the government. That does not mean that you are free from responsibility. Actually, the opposite, as you are now the only one responsible for your actions - not the government. Obviously there has to be some limits on this - the 'right' to murder is outweighed by other people's right to live, etc. The druggie is actually less free as he is protected by the government to some extent from the repercussions of his actions. Chances are he is on benefits, and receives perks from the taxpayer that are not given to productive citizens.
i thought about freedom as the representation of the individual in his group's common interests. otherwise it's no different than slavery since the product of his existence loses value in the long term
to be free is to be able to change at your own pace. to be able to want what you want humans are not good at this and need support. and need to at the same time be free from restraints
I would say that to the point of freedom with drugs, having the opportunity to do drugs, but not acting on that is an exercise of freedom. Having drugs (or anything) banned by the government is not freedom, it is totalitarianism. The idea of freedom that I have is that you can do whatever you want, but that you choose the right path. An example is of violent crime; I could do things that are violent, but I choose instead to be a peaceful person. If you're only doing things because that's what you're told, whether it be by societal pressure or government laws, it's not an exercise of freedom.
Really. "Totalitariansism?" Would you endorse legalizing violent crime since you compare resisting drug use and violent crime in your post? Why not legalize it and just "choose the right path?"
>A drug addict may be less free than a non-drug addict, but a society in which drugs are legal is more free than a society in which they are illegal. Making drugs illegal not only does not stop drug use, it increases riskier drug taking behavior (due to more impurities, mislabeling, and less promotion of safe use). Factually and demonstrably false. Narcotic dependency has not only increased with the legalization of marijuana in certain American states, collateral damage is also significant from congestion in hospitals and the government having to (legally) subsidize drug addicts as well. On declaring some drugs to be illegal, the government is preemptively exonerating itself from providing custody to those afflicted by those drugs and thereby saving adjacent institutions of the State from congestion and upkeep. It has nothing to do with minimizing drug dealing and clandestine comercialization; and besides, in the advent those drugs are legalized, it's not like a heavily taxed, overall expensive seller with trimmed/assuaged products would be able to compete with an out of radar, cheaper one with authentic items; so drug dealers would still pervade society even if the drugs were legalized. There's no rational justification to legalize drugs.
@@alternateperson6600 go to Singapore and tell "people still uses drugs even if it's illegal". the problem is western countries were never actually serious about banning drug use.
Again, all of this assumes that man is a rational actor when it's been proved in scientific studies time and time again it is not. It is mostly emotional. It has destructive tendencies. When these destructive tendencies compound, you get a failing society. The point of the restrictions is to limit these tendencies for the overall benefit of society. The very Enlightenment which gave birth to the idea that "people know best for themselves" dismantled this fundamental axiom 100 years later.
Hedonism and the unyielding pursuit of one's most carnal desires is a never-ending slavery to one's base instincts. True freedom comes through self-suffiency, temperance, and satisfying of the needs of the soul. (Sorry for coming off as kind of a weenie.)
Yeah started smoking a few months ago,just don't do it man,you ll be wasting your money and even by hedonistic standards you won't enjoy it after a while
“As human beings, we must be slaves to something. It is in our nature to serve-whether our master be God, other people, an idea, an object, an idol, nature, or ourselves, we must become a slave to something.” ~Kenny Ackerman
Luke, please could you do a video showing how your could use something like matrix to connect all of your social media messages into one terminal based application. It sucks having to keep switching between all of my social media account to check messages and I don't like how bloated they look.
What value is freedom from vice when it is compelled? Without an understanding of the danger of vice, virtue becomes ritualised behavior that inherent human curiosity will resist. Sometimes, to understand fire's awesome power, people need to feel the heat. The sort of society you talk about made fire a thing of amazing mystery.
I believe that for someone to be truly convinced on their freedom upon "sinful desires" they have to understand why they restrict themselves from their vices and such, not just get imposed these rules from society. I am not meaning to say that everything should be free will and no law, you should punish those who hurt others, but if you are giving a hard time to yourself then you are responsible to find a way to increase your freedom by your own convincement, otherwise it feels imposed to the human mind. But a consensus on good morals and virtues for self preservation and increased freedom is definitely required in a society that disguises debauchery as freedom.
That assumes that everyone is actually capable of governing themselves. Men are not created equal, and the vast majority of people simply cannot break free of the shackles of vice on their own; they need firm guidance from the 10% of people who are capable of doing that.
@@hapatraditionalist1478But then who decides what your guidance should be? Who has the authority to decide these 10% uncorrupted people that will guide us? How do we know they will always be reliable?
@@MrWatsa Guidance is decided by Heaven, and nobody decides who the 10% are. Those men were created superior to the rest of mankind, and in the far past, they were the rulers. In the future, they will once again make themselves the rulers, as they are the people who were meant to rule.
@@hapatraditionalist1478 But how will the 90% decide/distinguish who the 10% are? Even if it is decided by Heaven, how will the average person know and learn to consent to these rulers? I have to agree with wiston martin Bendana on this, imposing these rules will not lead us to virtue, but rather lead us to the vice of serfdom to unjust masters...
@@alvaro9141 Because the average person doesn't actually think for themselves. They'll be easily herded along by any shepard, good or bad. The key is that the good shepard deposes the bad shepard.
Y'all remember when in Back to the Future 2 when Biff got rich and took over the town and told everyone to "do whatever you want"? A good example of why law exists.
Ah yes,government,always good at looking at what rights i need today! that never went wrong ever! Today you can't speak out against the people i arrest for what they do in thier homes,the free-state of saudi arabia,super based and red-pilled!!!
Let me get the message through your thin, libertarian skull: governmental supervision is not about prevention, it's about dissuading and discouraging harmful behavior at large. In a society where n0rp is ubiquitously banned, people are not propped up by competent institutions if they become barely functional cumbrains and disavowal for deviant, afflicting behavior is reflexively reinforced by society as well. No one is striving for utopias or perfect scenarios; you libertarians are just that delusional to grasp something so simple.
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 i just like history and the bysantines have an interesting one. Also its pretty dumb to apply modern morals to a country around over 200 years ago,much less over 500,so i tend not to really care which kingdom in the 1200s was the most moral in a modern sense,cause its irrelevant.
I partly agree with this, but it seems to assume that most people are the lowest people who can't control or moderate their impulses. Some people, maybe even most, can have a drink/smoke/jerkkof/etc in moderation and not be slave to it. Should these people's freedoms be limited to make the weak more "free"? I don't think so.
His definition of freedom is "Having the ability to choose anything other than what I (god) consider good stripped away from you." If freedom exists at all, that's not freedom.
That's why I went full Hindu mode after being a cringey Atheist. Atheism is not a healthy way to live. A good life is a hard life, full of deeds. Reading Gita and upnishads and interpreting them is very satisfying.
I was very surprised to see a quote from Ignatius Brianchaninov. Greetings from the Orthodox! :) BTW I love your posts about stuff like that and Unix stuff. I even set up my computer environment based on LARBS. So thank you a lot!
Yea I don't know about you guys, but when I think of FREEDOM I imagine the government keeping a very tight control over what I can and can't do and closely monitoring me to make sure I don't engage in anything *TOO* pleasurable. For my own good.
Freedom of choice and freedom from sin. (I'm gonna get so much sh¡t for the next part.) There should be a one child policy based on population in some places.
it kinda goes against what luke preaches about he says he uses GNU+Linux to be more free and independent but then he says this bullshit it just shows that some people are just idiot's
I would agree that if you ask a lot of people nowadays "who are you?", they will tend to identify with their preferences. I've found that you can get people to realize that doing this doesn't make much sense (at least for acquired preferences) if you point out that they didn't always, or won't always, identify with these things. As an example, if you ask someone who they are and they respond that they are a software engineer, you can ask them if they were a software engineer when they were 5 years old, or what if something happens to them that means that they can't use a computer anymore? Point out that they were always themselves before they became a software engineer, so that really isn't their identity. Who they really are is a combination of the bits that are common throughout all the stages of their life.
Bunch of nonsense. A person tells you he is a software engineer, not because that is his only identity but because he wants you to know where he works and what his proffessional interests are. When people ask me who I am, I might say that I am student. Being a students isn't my sole identity, but it explain to the other person what I currently doing in life and allows for further conversation.
maybe you should've compared two drug addicts: the drug addict in the world where the drugs are illegal and frowned upon seems to be in a much worse situation. the chances that they will recover from this addiction are lower, because they are already marginalized and cast out by the society and the government.
James Slayson What a brain dead comment... you haven’t heard of the failed trillion dollar war on drugs in America? Maybe you should read about Portugal’s situation with drug decriminalization.
@James Slayson surely the question is not "eliminating druggies", we could do that by rounding them up and executing them which is not really a good solution now is it
Change the question! Who is more free? Person number one who is not addicted to drugs but lives in a society which allows for that sort of thing, or person number two who is not addicted to drugs and lives in a society which would scold him for drug use? Being coerced into doing the right thing makes you less free than thinking about life and then using that thought to do the right thing.
A good government way want to 'inform' or 'guide' people to be more mindful, but straight up locking people in jail for doing things that are bad for them or leave them with less self-control really does not make them more free.
True freedom is when you read something you disagree with on the internet and you feel absolutely nothing
The most based comment i've read so far.
Based and greenpilled.
Best thing I’ve ever read
@@fluffywolf6300 based matrix
I feel personally attacked and I'm triggered
Real freedom is when you do what I tell you to, trust me
Trust me bro, you’re too stupid to have authority over your consciousness. Hand the keys over to your loving government now, please. Chemicals bad ideologies good!
Literally what I heard the entire video. He has a couple good points, but as a traditionalist he has romanticised the past and reasons weirdly because of it. This was cringy to listen to.
You aren't free when you're subject to advertisements every waking second of your life. You aren't free because you bought a TV or some flat-pack furniture. Freedom means agency, and in liberal "free societies" people have no agency, what they like and where they shop is determined by advertisers and brand recognition, what they say determined by media, what they think determined by movies and the education system, liberal "free societies" remove agency from people and local communities and centralise power and decision making more than any form of authority on the planet, ever.
😅 help
t. didn't watch the video
Freedom is not related to happiness or success. It enables the potential for those things, but it is up to the person to follow the direction that leads there.
@@diobrando7589 It's actually the opposite of the socialists. They are purely materialistic, Luke here is advocating that people stop falling to these materialistic impulses (which is what Christianity teaches)
Let's also remember that the only way to have happiness in freedom through control by another party is to be fortunate enough to have a good enough controller. Cuomo shoveled COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, killing thousands unnecessarily. Freedom from misery under a controller just shifts responsibility to someone you can't control instead of keeping it in your own hands where you can control it.
Pepe the frog *kisses the popes $650,000 ring while kneeling in his extravagant golden castle* all those mega pastors living in modesty really drive your point home!
@@diobrando7589 I know this philosophy very well. Luke's philosophy on Freedom was the one the Church had since ancient times. The Church separates true liberty from libertine. Liberty is the use of our Free Will to Freely worship God and try to live a life as sinless as possible while Libertine is too do w/e you want which includes forsaking God. The main reasoning here is that by partaking in vices without restrains you are walking away from God and God is the true source of Freedom therefore being a drug addict makes you less Free.
OK. I don't want that. Put the wise men in charge and give me a floor.
The virgin "Liberty" vs The chad "If I don't like something it should be illegal"
Yes.
Not how it works
this really only works until you realize the people ruling you don't have your best interests in mind see: hate speech laws.
Unironically
exactly I don't like guns therefore they should be illegal
Need to watch this twice, second time with eyes closed.
I did the same, the first time I listen while watching the images and reading the dialogues, and the second one I just focused on what he was saying
Lmfao fax
We need Not-Related podcast back
Very much!
We need to consoom
@Andai it's been a while since I've seen this meme. Based!
yes
The question is, are you really free when you need Not-Related?
I am not free to listen to the sermon because I have to pause every 10 seconds to read the memes.
exactly
If the past year has taught us anything, it is goverment is not a benevolent entity whose raison d'etre to provide us with the philosophical "good life" whether ethically, morally, or spiritually.
I agree with you, but I think this is actually a failing of us as citizens of our state. We are too detached and have let people push ourselves out of our duty to engage in politics. A monarchy/tyrant wouldn't solve this either because even in those types of governments the citizens have a duty to contribute to their society. Our problem is that our hyper individualism contains this idea of retreating from society and living completely on our own, where St. Benedict brought a community with him when he retreated from society.
yeahyeahfrfr
Was never meant to, was only supposed to be there to facilitate the capability to do so. You can blame Jefferson for all of this
That is true but what Luke Smith says is facts anyway. Both can be true, a government can suck but banning drugs or being anti drugs can be a good thing too
@@TruthTVNZ03 The government sucks because it's full of petty tyrants with savior complexes like you. You think drugs are bad for people? Fine. Don't do them. Simple.
Freedom is the ability to choose your shackles and break free from them whenever you want. That requires a lot of mental and spiritual training. In a world controlled by duality, you can't free from a set of chains without adopting another one.
I am putting that first sentence in my "quotes.txt"
@@alankjohn9263 90% of people can't be trusted. The vast majority of people in the world are simply fundamentally incapable of acting on their own beyond base instinct. They need guidance in order to do anything constructive.
They may need guidance but that doesn't mean that you should impose your subjective guidance upon them, just like you shouldn't force "mentally unwell" people into medications, and the same reasons why you shouldn't impose vaccines upon people that don't want it. The government uses the literal same argument as you to do these things. You cannot coerce another person into being free, that's simply idiotic, if you have to coerce another person into freedom that means that it isn't really freedom.
@@user-dv3lz1vx3g Guidance that follows the laws set forth by Heaven isn't subjective. Government power isn't inherently bad; it's a matter of who wields it. And you missed the point of the video if you think that "it's not real freedom." Real freedom is freedom from base desires and vice, not freedom from authority.
Not to disrespect religion, but you cannot consider the laws of the heaven objective as long as you have different interpretations of it. Luke's point is totally valid in a moral system but not an ethical one. A valid ethical system should be universal, omnilateral, peremptory and atemporal. Even if the "laws set forth by heaven" were objective to the eyes of God he hasn't given us a maxim by which you can derive logically derive all other laws, and considering all of that the current laws of heaven cannot be peremptory nor atemporal. In fact, by this definition of ethics the government cannot by definition be ethical, but that's besides the point. (edit: attempt at making my ramblings more concise)
In my opinion, these two meanings of the word "freedom" do not contradict each other. And I believe that liberation from temptation should not come from the government, but from the person himself.
Missing the point of governmental restrictions; it has nothing to do with prevention. Have you forgotten humans are social animals? You downplay peer attachment as if one could easily forgo pervasive social reflections. If you live among a licentious crowd and they induce you to be just as licentious, you'll likely be just as licentious. Conscience (as opposed to the mind) is empirical and it seeks actualization in references; and part of the human experience is to accomodate social patterns and compare them to our own judgement. That's why the "live and let it be, bro!" approach never works.
@@alternateperson6600 Finally someone who gets it.
@@alternateperson6600 Well said. Freedom is the ability to choose the good, it has nothing to do with having more than one possible "outcome."
Thank you! Even though I don't agree with your definition of freedom, this film was still a valuable lesson that gave me motivation to get over my temptations. It's mind-blowing how every one of your off-topic films has taught me something very important.
Luke Smith morphs into a pastor by each passing upload
Luke, you need to do this more often. People need to have some reminder that they are not alone. Just like Coke, they keep advertising because they know that people forget all too soon.
I won’t forget WokeCola or WokeWars.
#”Get woke, go broke”
4:19 What you say resonates a lot with what happened to me, I asked God to help me put masturbation and porn behind me, I repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as my savior. It was good for a few days and I fell back again. When I finished, something in my mind said "I am a slave" that thought came to me, I don't know if it was mine, I like to believe that it was the holy spirit because just then I realized that this was ruling my life as if I had no control over my own body. I haven't done it for a long time, I don't even have the need, I thank God.
Freedom is submission to God
How are you doing now man?
The laws of a state are no more external to yourself than the animal-like impulses of the body. You can only be free if your actions are derived from within yourself, from your internal self-reflective being, instead of an external cause such as the state or the impulses.
@@Account-ez9px External to yourself. Pay attention to the definitions.
Why stop at chemicals? Ideas are dangerous too. To maximize freedom, the government needs to start censoring all speech that deviates from the Safe and Clean list of pre-approved ideas.
When you use Vim - you're not free anymore
Vim addiction is a real issue, you can start by using another program with vim keybindings to distance yourself from it but the hardest part is going back to touching your mouse and clicking things.
@@ms-fk6eb bruh
in a society where drugs are illegal there are still drug addicts, do you really need a nanny state telling you whats good for you and whats not? maybe they should ban alcohol and cars too in case we get hurt
Burn all those books with unsafe ideas while we’re at it
In a society where killing is illegal there are still murderers, so let's legalize killing?
oh wait, pro choice people are already at it
In many slavic languages the word for freedom is a derived from proto-slavic *svodboda. *svo (self) + *boda (aware or awake)
I didn't know that, that's actually pretty cool
In polish we have "wolność and "swoboda" and I always felt that wolność is more of the American meaning of freedom from opressive systems, while swoboda means more the ability to choose what you want to do, a lack of worry about limited choices
Scenario 2 is more free but I would prefer to live in a country where scenario 1 is possible.
You are weak. But I'm weak, too.
@@Quasindro I sense some projection here.
@@jorionedwards NOOOOO YOU CAN'T ANALYZE MY MESSAGE TO COME UP WITH SENSIBLE CONCLUSIONS
Sure, if you change the definition of freedom to “success in society.” Which are completely different concepts of course, even though this video is trying to convince us otherwise.
@@oxydreamer Not wrecking your life and being is about success in society?...
If you are not slave anyting then you are a slave to your desire
Yeah sure from a moral standpoint i can agree with you but from a legislative perspective it's anachronic because we know today that just because you make something illegal doesn't translate to the reduced usage of the substance or the practice of x thing, the opposite happens actually due to reactance and makes things worse in general because if something is illegal even if an individual asks for help, they can't due to the fact that they risk criminal charges if they open up about it to a professional.
I love this reflection, thank you so much for sharing it
For me Freedom is a concept completely identical with, and basically a synonim of, Responsibility. My range of freedom (autonomous decision-making) exactly corresponds with my range of responsibilities (for what I do with my time, where I live, where I work, what I eat, etc.). Whenever I forfeit, forget or abandon some responsibility, I lose freedom of decision or action in that area. The naive myth of freedom being something separate from, or even the opposite of responsibility, is exactly the wrong concept. Now, what you are saying about socially enforced inpulse control, does make some sense; but it can also work completely counter-productively, since each time a decision is made by someone else and not yourself, you lose some opportunity or ability to make that same decision by your own volition, leading not to more, but to less impulse control over time, and a lot of suppressed and unprocessed sub-conscious matter. It could very well be, that the two men you showed in the beginning would be in the same exact situation given the same circumstances - but that makes them both equally unfree; both of them HAVEN'T taken the responsibility to process their own toxic impulses. However, the druggie there DOES HAVE an opportunity to overcome his addiction, by taking responsibility for his life, and were he to take it upon himself to do it (even if he's not completely succesful in the end), he would by definition become more free in this respect than the other man, whose prudent lifestyle was chosen and imposed upon him by society, and chances are, he's unconsciously finding other ways to act upon his bad impulses (maybe he's getting frustrated and doesn't put his best effort into his work; maybe he's acting passive-aggressively with his family; stuff like that happens all the time with people who are emotionally repressed).
was waiting for this video since you hinted at it on stream.
I began watching this disagreeing with what you were saying, but slowly began to agree with you more and more. Well done.
You entered the Genjutsu, o maybe he took you out of another genjutsu? :O
Man I came here because I wanted to learn more about Linux and terminal stuff but you have ended up opening my mind about so many things, even just "What is """Freedom""" Anyway?
" and "Resisting Temptation..." videos made me realize I was being a hypocrite when I say I want to stop pr0n but I can't, its like I wanted to stop it but at the same time I wanted to suck the last ounces of pleasure I felt after cooming no matter how hollow of a shell I felt like. I am not religious and am in fact an atheist but I completely agree with everything you say in this video.
Appreciate the thought provoking talk. Interesting to think about.
I think freedom comes in more than one dimension. The one you're talking about I'd call spiritual freedom (moral vs immoral living). The other one is what I'll come objective freedom. The freedom to navigate the physical world as you see fit regardless of what government or popular opinion is. It's freedom to choose for yourself and accept the outcomes of your choices.
With those two dimensions, you can get a continuum of social configurations. You can be moral and governed, immoral and governed, moral and not governed, or immoral and not governed.
I completely agree with you. You gotta be free both ways.
What is the church at 9:52? It is absolutely stunning
This is the first video I've come across by you, Luke and it's probably the best argument for why freedom from sin is true freedom. Thankyou
a friend sent me the how to resist temptation video last week and i stopped everything thank you so much luke greeting from germany
This video is so true! And that part about people seeing themselves as extensions of the things they consume, I've seen it so many times in school when I would give any criticisms people would get all hurt as though I'm personally attacking them. Even adults act the same way smh what has this world come to?
You ask what it's come to? Consumerism, that's all. It'll pass, but it'll be painful.
Number 1 has more negative liberty, negative liberty is freedom from interference by others, number 2 has more positive liberty, the possession of the power and resources to act in the context of the structural limitations of the broader society.
Real ones already consOOMed this cOOntent earlier in their terminal RSS reader
Discipline is freedom! 👍
@@firstnamegklsodascb4277 no, Cole Robinson is
they are both non-free actually. just different conditions.
For me, freedom would be having the right to take drugs, but also having the support available to help me if I get addicted to them. That way if I want to I can take drugs, and if I end up dependent on them someone can help me break free.
@@technophobian2962 What about their freedom? If your addiction is dependent on them, then you are robbing them of their freedom. You think like a socialist, and this is why Socialism is slavery. Free people don't want to babysit junkies. We'd rather ostracize them and let them fend for themselves, and execute them for resorting to theft to feed their sinful habits.
@@namenameson9065 it's their choice to go down that career path. If they decide to do that, then of course they have to do their job. They aren't legally obligated to do it and they could change their career if they wanted to.
@@technophobian2962 freedom is the balance of having authority over your decisions and having responsibility for your actions, you cannot invoke freedom to smoke crack and jump on government welfare to dodge the consequences
@@TheGovernmentputcrackinmyblunt You can just price the welfare into the drugs. Then of course the problem becomes that black market dope is cheaper. That's where the iron fist comes into place (not by outlawing substances altogether).
I can find myself quite on the same page for most of the points of the video and the major take is basically this: to not let yourself be susceptible to vices or inate impulses that naturally reside in our very animal nature, with the difference that in this age is so much easy to excercize some of them ,mostly destructive and others unaccessible (as in many urbanite realities, healty comradery and human interaction) The final take tho is kinda silly as it implies that all people are gullible babies that can't control impulses, with no control of themselves and we need so desperately daddy or mommy government to tell us what to do or not.
It's like "I'm restricting your rights ,freedom and possibly dignity but y'know, it's for your safety! Now go in the pod and eat crickets". This exaple is is kinda hand picked and memey but you get the point. This could lead on the long run to bad governement or societal practices and furthermore if you restrict something, there's always people that seek that same thing, could be deemed "immoral" or "bad" by someone else, and often talking about things that aren't a danger to the collective
Develop discipline yourselves, most often than not you action will inspire others, leading to change
>The final take tho is kinda silly as it implies that all people are gullible babies that can't control impulses
And the adroit, discerning adults are mostly all jacking to and hypnotized by n0rp. Sort of undermines your critic against governmental supervision, champ.
I think Luke is implying a theocracy rather than any of the systems of government common in modern western society
@@akn3207 ok, maybe I wasn't completely fair with my evaluation. They also squander hours upon hours on neetclix and vidya.
@@sentjojo Well theocracy is bullshit.
I cannot be said to be choosing my shackles if the government puts them on me. Neither of the starting examples are truly free.
Is it not possible that the idea of "freedom" is a completely incoherent spook?
To clarify my position, I don't support the theocracy that Luke Smith seems to advocate.
@@lostzephyr2191 Freedom, as all things are, is an abstraction. It's only as real as we agree on it's meaning.
I believe a good definition for freedom is the ability to choose one's own course of action.
Whatever freedom luke smith is talking about definitely isn't the same as mine.
Based and Christ-pilled
the most based thing is for someone to admit that they have 0 knowledge about anything beyond the tangible world. to profess otherwise is foolish
careful, people will voice their opinions like they actually matter
Was missing this kind of content from you.
The problem I see is that until the population sees and understands that being a slave to impulses is a bad thing they will keep on rejecting norms that prevent such subjugation.
Maybe the first generations will remember but in time people will forget why certain norms exist and will deem them oppressive and antiquated. Then they will need to fall low enough as to be reminded of why (which is the step we have been for quite some time)
He had this exact thing as a text post on his website for at least a month.
thats why we need trad families that marry at 14 and have their own land and dont go to public school. theres nothing more natural.
In my opinion, people have to figure out this stuff themselves... I don't think that governments should control everything we do. But I do think that society shouldn't encourage consumerism, vices, etc.
@@SketchyRaider The problem is, people rarely figure out stuff like this on their own. Like it or not, we are designed to be social, and our behavior and way of thinking is influenced by outside stimuli. We make fun of coomer consumers, but consider this - in absence of meaningful community, what are they left to be exposed to? If course, to media, and social media sites, because it takes mental effort to isolate yourself from this stuff and go read a book or something, and it's not even evident that doing so has benefits.
So, people like Luke are important, because there has to be someone to at least introduce those ideas. Luke does it in a fun way that appeals to someone who is willing to consider those ideas, and I think it does more good that Luke realizes.
@@altEFG its funny, people like Luke preach Christianity, but the WHOLE basis of Christianity is free will, to a true Christian whatever happens in this world just be a traveling matter and a test for them to pass on to the after life with a "good behavior" record, for this evangelicals to want to impose their mortality on to other who arent or dont believe the same as they do, no matter how detrimental it would be for "society" since it would be basically against the teachings of Christianity, you dont like what America is go live in a muslim country see how happy you are with a forced religion upon you
As much as ability for the government to govern in that matter increases, as much such ability would be missised. The hottest current examples are the laws about banning and backdooring encryption, but this works in a similar manner in the majority of cases.
OK coomer
@@chelonianegghead274 OK slave.
@@G18395 no u
@@chelonianegghead274 damn kindergarden. Please don't be so unconstructive
@@G18395 ur face is unconstructive
Alcohol is legal in my contry. Some people become alcoholics. That does not mean it should be illegal.
What if most people become alcoholics and start voting by their impulses? Under democracy people controlled by their impulses don't vote rationally
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 Yeah, it would be bad if most people became alcoholics...? And?
@@vilhelmmuller1588 Well if they vote by their impulses they could for example vote for a law that every citizen should pay for the alcohol of others? You wouldn't like that wouldn't you?
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 Nope. And I wouldn't like if they voted for a law that required me to pay for their resturant bills either. Or their new car, or their haircut ... Etc etc. What is your argument, Lol.
Pepe the frog ?
True freedom is to bring good to every individual in a society that should be self controlled by efforts of everyone , not just by the government or any other forces to keep the community in the good shape , in order as it's supposed to be ...
Luke, i really want to thank you for making all of these videos and for being you.
Since you were borned there is no freedom. Also thank you very much, Luke, for this video. It totally correlate with my own thoughts, but I couldn't get things together. Love you! So much appreciate that! Great work!
Imagine thinking that making something illegal stops people from having impulses.
@@balmy659 Making drugs like weed illegal has never stopped anyone from doing them. If people have these impulses, they will do it, regardless of it being legal or not. The only difference is that people get put in jail longer than child molesters when weed is illegal. How does putting someone in jail give them freedom by any definition of the word?
@@5HT2A292 If the government wants to increase something, they subsidize it. If the government wants to decrease something, it bans it. The fact that people do drugs when it is banned does not mean it shouldn't be banned. I don't want it banned, but the reasoning used here (and used by many fellow libertarians) is just plain wrong. You need to show that the costs of a proposed solution outweigh its benefits, not that it is an imperfect solution.
Exactly. Making stuff illegal doesn't help anyone. If anything, it increases the rates of crime and violence that come along with the trading of illegal goods. An example of this is the solution that Portugal found for their drug problem. The government legalised drugs - this had several positive effects. The government was now able to help those addicted to drugs and support them in their lives, leading to a large decrease of people addicted to hard drugs. Violent crime also decreased by 50% because drugs were being sold legally and drug gangs lost business.
>making something illegal stops people from having implulses
Literally nobody says this.
@@5HT2A292 I found the pot smoker
Freedom is the ability to choose your master.
One that willingly follows someone/something is not a slave but a servant.
If your master is bad for you and you can not leave him/her/is/they/them/xor/nand than you are not free.
In other words I believe there is true freedom that is combination of both classical and modern ideas of freedom.
A different translation per se.
I believe that being a willing servant to "God"/"Set of moral values" is what real freedom is about.
A servant not a slave.
I don't think, the real bad thing is following your temptations, but not having better alternatives.
If you don't have hobbies, friends and other kinds positive relationships, a job you like, goals you want to reach, or a habit of doing physical exercise, preferably most of them, it's much harder not to follow any temptations.
Learn how to be bored. You don't need divertion all the time.
Very true.
I think freedom should only be hailed if you are responsible enough to actually pursue those hobbies and life accomplishments.
Cus your average retard just usesw their freedom to be complete fucking degenerates.
Maybe its good tho cus the more fucked up these people are, the better chances we have at exploiting that.
I love jeff bezos cus he does a great job at exploiting these fucking retards. Same with Disneys CEO.
Спасибо за видео!
Согласен с большей частью изложенных мыслей.
Забавно получается, мы тысячи лет оптимизировали процессы, упрощали собственные жизни, создавали более простую версию натуральной природы естественного обитания, не предполагающей подвержение опасности наших организмов, и теперь мы отказываемся от удобств которые сами придумали, в пользу более натуральных (и зачастую менее удобных) процессов.
Я согласен с 99% утверждений из видео, за исключением высказывания про музыку (не стал бы относить её к вредным привычкам - это источник вдохновения).
Скорее здесь имелось в виду, что люди характеризуют сами себя как набор ярлыков, врождённых или приобретённых под влиянием социума поверхностных потребностей (к примеру, "Я уникален, так как люблю слушать Тейлор Свифт и квашенную капусту"). При этом навыки и способности, жизненный опыт и мышление часто игнорируются.
this argument is essentially the ideology of anti-gun activism...
Hi! I recently found your channel and I must say you are the light in my tunnel. You've literally enlightened me, you're a God's blessing for me. You are what I've been looking for. Thank you so very much.
I never would have thought about becoming Christian as a kid, but now, due to recent events and the more I learn, I'm warming up to it as something I have to do. Thanks Luke.
Same
Everyone looks for freedom in the external world but the only freedom that really matters is freedom from yourself
Absolute fascist rhetoric.
@@ofsvnm If you enjoy governmental control.
This is the same idea that was enforced by the Catholic Church and European government's during medieval times so it doesn't matter if it's fascist or not.
Man is too wicked to be free
- Joseph De Maistre
Probably Luke's best video to date.
These are my favorite type of your videos, this is great.
This is a really important message to get across to people
eh not rlly is consistent tbh
I’m a textbook, stereotypical libertarian, with a bone to pick with quite literally every conceivable institution of authority that isn’t directly God Himself (and for good reason too), but I do quite appreciate you going into this topic, and I ESPECIALLY like the point about sin being more arbitrary than moral laws; I’ve never really thought about it that way before.
I don’t believe in empowering fallible rulers or angry mobs to forcibly interfere in peoples’ lives unless it’s an issue of consent/property rights, but people DO need to be taught that the morally relativistic, libertine definition of “freedom” is a lie and a conspiracy against their minds and souls, that true freedom is found only in Christ. I believe informed consent makes a person’s behavior their own business and not society’s, but it doesn’t necessarily make things “victimless”.
self aware libertarian
I love your point of view, and reasoning, Luke. Thanks
It's not just his viewpoint. Any philosopher, including the hedonists of antiquity, defined freedom this way. In fact, even the hedonists back then, that were made fun of for submitting to their urges, were much better than the modern average Westerner, because they cared about long term pleasure and not temporary gratification.
@@generalmichaelconstantine4598 - according to this definition, a person kept in an empty cage, hands tied behind their back and fed through an IV drip, is the free-est person possible, because they physically can't engage in any vice. Obviously this is wrong. Luke only tells half the story. To be truly free, you need both internal freedom (meaning self-control) AND external freedom (meaning not having someone else ruling over you). Luke's arguments are basically a justification of a "babysitter" government which tells people what they are allowed and not allowed to do "for their own good". I don't think I have to explain how that's a dangerous slippery slope.
@@Thematic2177 no, obviously not. Just because he can't submit to his vices does not mean he's not dependent on them, he will just face withdrawal because they're not available. In fact, an actual free person would have a much better time tied up compared to a vice-enslaved person.
@@generalmichaelconstantine4598 yes I agree, however looking at freedom purely through the lens of vices only tells half the story. Extrenal freedom (being allowed to do stuff without fear of repercussion) is also very important. Luke completely glosses over it in this video.
@@Thematic2177 But it isn't. There's no such concept as external freedom, it's an illusion. An easy way to see that is to test the boundaries of this "freedom". There will always be someone powerful enough that you'll have to comply with and be a subject of, whether it's the government, corporations, political groups or paramilitary organizations. If it's not an organized collective, then it's society. There will always be someone powerful that will rule over the people, that's how social creatures are, we follow a hierarchy. Just because the modern government grants you some abilities doesn't mean you're free in any way, they can just as easily take them away from you if you cross the boundaries they set.
There is absolutely nothing free about being a drug addict. Drug addiction is the most tight and painful shackle anyone can wear.
Thank you so much Luke. I much needed this.
The individual who's actions are determined more by the weight of their impulses and addictions, rather than their own decisions, is the slave. So to is the individual who's actions are determined more by the pressures of their society and the force of law rather than by their own decisions. The free one acts neither by coercion nor force, but by having access to reason and knowledge to conclude for themselves what is right.
If you haven't read it already, I recommend Wilhelm Von Humboldt's "Sphere and Duties of Govt."
Most people aren’t rationale free thinkers, but products of the cathedral and the elites above them. Most don’t make rational planned out decisions, as shown with things like drug addiction, crime, and obesity. Would government force fix these things in 2021? Not necessarily, I don’t think so, just look at the drug war. A gradual subversion/infiltration of the higher power structures, and a revitalization of spirituality and heritage would greatly help, but these things would take a long time.
The libertarian approach of legalizing everything, would be a disaster, look no further than California or Colorado. Addiction rates would skyrocket, it would destroy the already rotten fabric of Western society. Drug addiction and suicide rates have greatly increased in the last half century.
As a chinese, our party all said "we are doing this/ban u to doing this is for your benefit" what do u think about?
I think what u said is good, is very good, but it should be a personal practice but not a way to rule people.
That was informative!
Thanks!
The ideals conveyed here are seriously at odds with your whole "I dont want to gov spying on me" thing.
Or the "Everything I want to do is illegal" video.
Man you're such a breath of fresh air. Thanks for existing.
Yay, no I don't have to read - restart the podcast and start posting real CONTENT like GNU carpentry or how to increase chicken egg yields using vi
It seems that you miss the ultimate point when people talk about freedom. That ultimately, I would rather be a slave to my own principles than to the principles of someone else.
God bless you! I just found your channel and it is nothing more than spectacular. This world is so messed up and it's easy to get distracted from the only thing that matters, the Cross.
Freedom means you have the right to do what you like without intervention from the government. That does not mean that you are free from responsibility. Actually, the opposite, as you are now the only one responsible for your actions - not the government. Obviously there has to be some limits on this - the 'right' to murder is outweighed by other people's right to live, etc.
The druggie is actually less free as he is protected by the government to some extent from the repercussions of his actions. Chances are he is on benefits, and receives perks from the taxpayer that are not given to productive citizens.
i thought about freedom as the representation of the individual in his group's common interests. otherwise it's no different than slavery since the product of his existence loses value in the long term
to be free is to be able to change at your own pace. to be able to want what you want
humans are not good at this and need support. and need to at the same time be free from restraints
I would say that to the point of freedom with drugs, having the opportunity to do drugs, but not acting on that is an exercise of freedom. Having drugs (or anything) banned by the government is not freedom, it is totalitarianism. The idea of freedom that I have is that you can do whatever you want, but that you choose the right path. An example is of violent crime; I could do things that are violent, but I choose instead to be a peaceful person.
If you're only doing things because that's what you're told, whether it be by societal pressure or government laws, it's not an exercise of freedom.
Really. "Totalitariansism?" Would you endorse legalizing violent crime since you compare resisting drug use and violent crime in your post? Why not legalize it and just "choose the right path?"
>A drug addict may be less free than a non-drug addict, but a society in which drugs are legal is more free than a society in which they are illegal. Making drugs illegal not only does not stop drug use, it increases riskier drug taking behavior (due to more impurities, mislabeling, and less promotion of safe use).
Factually and demonstrably false. Narcotic dependency has not only increased with the legalization of marijuana in certain American states, collateral damage is also significant from congestion in hospitals and the government having to (legally) subsidize drug addicts as well. On declaring some drugs to be illegal, the government is preemptively exonerating itself from providing custody to those afflicted by those drugs and thereby saving adjacent institutions of the State from congestion and upkeep. It has nothing to do with minimizing drug dealing and clandestine comercialization; and besides, in the advent those drugs are legalized, it's not like a heavily taxed, overall expensive seller with trimmed/assuaged products would be able to compete with an out of radar, cheaper one with authentic items; so drug dealers would still pervade society even if the drugs were legalized. There's no rational justification to legalize drugs.
@@alternateperson6600 go to Singapore and tell "people still uses drugs even if it's illegal". the problem is western countries were never actually serious about banning drug use.
Again, all of this assumes that man is a rational actor when it's been proved in scientific studies time and time again it is not. It is mostly emotional. It has destructive tendencies. When these destructive tendencies compound, you get a failing society. The point of the restrictions is to limit these tendencies for the overall benefit of society. The very Enlightenment which gave birth to the idea that "people know best for themselves" dismantled this fundamental axiom 100 years later.
@@glokta1 and who is going to limit the limitors? Why do you assume that the people in charge will not succumb to such destructive tendencies?
Hey I just saw your thinkpad T420 review and now I see you make sweet philosophical videos. Subscribed.
Hedonism and the unyielding pursuit of one's most carnal desires is a never-ending slavery to one's base instincts. True freedom comes through self-suffiency, temperance, and satisfying of the needs of the soul. (Sorry for coming off as kind of a weenie.)
I read something similar on your website and I'm glad you did a full video on it.
My boy, telling me to stop smoking, something I want to do for a few months now
Stop smoking
What he said ^
Yeah started smoking a few months ago,just don't do it man,you ll be wasting your money and even by hedonistic standards you won't enjoy it after a while
A cigar won't get you addicted if you really want to start. Nicotine addiction is overblown.
read Allen Carr's Easy Way to Stop Smoking
“As human beings, we must be slaves to something. It is in our nature to serve-whether our master be God, other people, an idea, an object, an idol, nature, or ourselves, we must become a slave to something.”
~Kenny Ackerman
@adam smith Yes, I'm sorry it makes you poop your diapies and throw a fit.
real chads are those who have read this on his blog before it went on youtube
I've cringed then, and I cringe now.
The "I use windows because I value my time" starterpack in the end made me crackle
What if I rationally decide to Return to Monke?
A lot of good insights .
Thank you Brother 😁
Luke, please could you do a video showing how your could use something like matrix to connect all of your social media messages into one terminal based application. It sucks having to keep switching between all of my social media account to check messages and I don't like how bloated they look.
What value is freedom from vice when it is compelled? Without an understanding of the danger of vice, virtue becomes ritualised behavior that inherent human curiosity will resist. Sometimes, to understand fire's awesome power, people need to feel the heat. The sort of society you talk about made fire a thing of amazing mystery.
I believe that for someone to be truly convinced on their freedom upon "sinful desires" they have to understand why they restrict themselves from their vices and such, not just get imposed these rules from society. I am not meaning to say that everything should be free will and no law, you should punish those who hurt others, but if you are giving a hard time to yourself then you are responsible to find a way to increase your freedom by your own convincement, otherwise it feels imposed to the human mind. But a consensus on good morals and virtues for self preservation and increased freedom is definitely required in a society that disguises debauchery as freedom.
That assumes that everyone is actually capable of governing themselves. Men are not created equal, and the vast majority of people simply cannot break free of the shackles of vice on their own; they need firm guidance from the 10% of people who are capable of doing that.
@@hapatraditionalist1478But then who decides what your guidance should be? Who has the authority to decide these 10% uncorrupted people that will guide us? How do we know they will always be reliable?
@@MrWatsa Guidance is decided by Heaven, and nobody decides who the 10% are. Those men were created superior to the rest of mankind, and in the far past, they were the rulers. In the future, they will once again make themselves the rulers, as they are the people who were meant to rule.
@@hapatraditionalist1478 But how will the 90% decide/distinguish who the 10% are? Even if it is decided by Heaven, how will the average person know and learn to consent to these rulers? I have to agree with wiston martin Bendana on this, imposing these rules will not lead us to virtue, but rather lead us to the vice of serfdom to unjust masters...
@@alvaro9141 Because the average person doesn't actually think for themselves. They'll be easily herded along by any shepard, good or bad. The key is that the good shepard deposes the bad shepard.
Y'all remember when in Back to the Future 2 when Biff got rich and took over the town and told everyone to "do whatever you want"?
A good example of why law exists.
Ah yes,government,always good at looking at what rights i need today!
that never went wrong ever!
Today you can't speak out against the people i arrest for what they do in thier homes,the free-state of saudi arabia,super based and red-pilled!!!
Let me get the message through your thin, libertarian skull: governmental supervision is not about prevention, it's about dissuading and discouraging harmful behavior at large. In a society where n0rp is ubiquitously banned, people are not propped up by competent institutions if they become barely functional cumbrains and disavowal for deviant, afflicting behavior is reflexively reinforced by society as well. No one is striving for utopias or perfect scenarios; you libertarians are just that delusional to grasp something so simple.
@@alternateperson6600 i bet you feel really special writing all that
Bruh you have literally Byzantine flag as your pfp and youre shilling for libertarianism?
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 i just like history and the bysantines have an interesting one.
Also its pretty dumb to apply modern morals to a country around over 200 years ago,much less over 500,so i tend not to really care which kingdom in the 1200s was the most moral in a modern sense,cause its irrelevant.
I partly agree with this, but it seems to assume that most people are the lowest people who can't control or moderate their impulses. Some people, maybe even most, can have a drink/smoke/jerkkof/etc in moderation and not be slave to it. Should these people's freedoms be limited to make the weak more "free"? I don't think so.
So would a better definition for freedom rather be "self governing" as you are free from other third party influences, vices, governments, etc?
The definition of freedom is the ability to choose the Good.
His definition of freedom is "Having the ability to choose anything other than what I (god) consider good stripped away from you." If freedom exists at all, that's not freedom.
That's why I went full Hindu mode after being a cringey Atheist. Atheism is not a healthy way to live. A good life is a hard life, full of deeds. Reading Gita and upnishads and interpreting them is very satisfying.
Read Orthodoxy and The religion of future by fr. Seraphim Rose, it talks about Hinduism and it's problems
@Scorched Earth okay my bad
I was very surprised to see a quote from Ignatius Brianchaninov. Greetings from the Orthodox! :)
BTW I love your posts about stuff like that and Unix stuff. I even set up my computer environment based on LARBS. So thank you a lot!
Да, есть такое
Thank you for this, Luke.
Yea I don't know about you guys, but when I think of FREEDOM I imagine the government keeping a very tight control over what I can and can't do and closely monitoring me to make sure I don't engage in anything *TOO* pleasurable.
For my own good.
Freedom of choice and freedom from sin.
(I'm gonna get so much sh¡t for the next part.)
There should be a one child policy based on population in some places.
@@sumkindacheeto i agree there are way too many people in asia, africa and the amerika's
it kinda goes against what luke preaches about he says he uses GNU+Linux to be more free and independent but then he says this bullshit it just shows that some people are just idiot's
@@nuvyh9261 stop projecting.
Yeah, I've traveled to Cuba and some other places. This stuff is fun to say when you haven't grown up under an oppressive regime.
The most free person is the one who can enjoy the drugs responsibly.
Someone who's neither addicted to it, nor barred from it.
I would agree that if you ask a lot of people nowadays "who are you?", they will tend to identify with their preferences. I've found that you can get people to realize that doing this doesn't make much sense (at least for acquired preferences) if you point out that they didn't always, or won't always, identify with these things.
As an example, if you ask someone who they are and they respond that they are a software engineer, you can ask them if they were a software engineer when they were 5 years old, or what if something happens to them that means that they can't use a computer anymore? Point out that they were always themselves before they became a software engineer, so that really isn't their identity. Who they really are is a combination of the bits that are common throughout all the stages of their life.
Bunch of nonsense. A person tells you he is a software engineer, not because that is his only identity but because he wants you to know where he works and what his proffessional interests are. When people ask me who I am, I might say that I am student. Being a students isn't my sole identity, but it explain to the other person what I currently doing in life and allows for further conversation.
@@alexvitkov you misunderstood me, I agree with you, it was a response to the original commenter.
maybe you should've compared two drug addicts: the drug addict in the world where the drugs are illegal and frowned upon seems to be in a much worse situation. the chances that they will recover from this addiction are lower, because they are already marginalized and cast out by the society and the government.
James Slayson What a brain dead comment... you haven’t heard of the failed trillion dollar war on drugs in America? Maybe you should read about Portugal’s situation with drug decriminalization.
@James Slayson surely the question is not "eliminating druggies", we could do that by rounding them up and executing them which is not really a good solution now is it
@James Slayson yeah good for you big boy
Never really thought about it like that always just thought freedom meant you can do whatever you want but this really makes you think
Change the question! Who is more free? Person number one who is not addicted to drugs but lives in a society which allows for that sort of thing, or person number two who is not addicted to drugs and lives in a society which would scold him for drug use? Being coerced into doing the right thing makes you less free than thinking about life and then using that thought to do the right thing.
A good government way want to 'inform' or 'guide' people to be more mindful, but straight up locking people in jail for doing things that are bad for them or leave them with less self-control really does not make them more free.
listening to this rolling a joint lol
Halfway in and I subscribed, it usually takes me a few videos to do so. Good job. Came here from mental outlaw