Although I am not a libertarian or anarcho capitalist ( I am quite moderate and more close to Hayek and Friedman ) your videos are very good. Your series on Austrian Economics really helped me learn many things and I have also ordered Man Economy and State due to you. I will probably never become fully a libertarian but still you are a good youtuber.
Chris, thank you for those words. I was introduced to all of this by Friedman and Hayek so I'm happy to keep pointing you in the direction I went. And don't worry about not being an ancap, you will be one day 😉 Elias, libertarianism is the most 'populist' political theory out there. And if by populist you just mean right wing, we are that too and not ashamed.
Absolutely. Homesteading and title transfers are the way it should be done and, God willing, one day will be. But we need something else to do in the meantime that is just and will help us get there
Very interesting video. Just a thought, could it be argued that government workers have less of a claim on state property, as their sallery is dependant on taxpayers. Therefore, they cannot claim to be "taxpayers?"
I don't know if you said it or not, but surely it would be up to the "occupier" of the property, so the librarian, as if the state magically disappeared all at once, that is how state property would be divied up, so the librarian would be the actual owner of a state built library, and so said librarian would be the one to determine the use of the property
Just today I saw someone tweeting that we should stop "wasting time on this homeless debate and destigmatize sex work". This is why I'm not afraid of being labelled a Hoppean.
@@CeaddaOfMercia now "Hoppean" or "Paleolibertarian" are thrown around as insults by progressive/"bleeding heart" libertarians seeing it during this CATO/Reason vs Mises conflict that's happening at the moment I agree, don't be afraid of embracing the label at all my friend
@@CeaddaOfMercia why is that a bad thing? Sex workers are far more often to be victims, and the black market versions funds under age sex workers. Homelessness isn't a big issue in comparison.
@@CeaddaOfMercia it's hardly anything a libertarian should care for in a political sense whether there's a moral value judgment tied to it or not. That is for the individual to decide.
claiming Government property in that way is only possible if the state can't enforce its monopoly on violence. It's just possible if some Revolution happens.
So this is why I’m a Georgist. What if they have nowhere else to go? If literally all land was privatized and no one was willing to sell their land, then how could the homeless simultaneously exist and not violate property rights if nowhere welcomes them? I agree hypotheticals are valuable, so in this extreme what ought to be done?
im definitely sympathetic to georgism, so i think you make a good point here from a geoist perspective. non-equal ownership of land, especially in a situation like today where basically all land is claimed or owned, could very easily lead to situations where the homeless simply arent able to get out of homelessness due to exclusion from land.
In such a fully privatised world there would be no minimum wage. It's been very common throughout history for people to do low-skilled manual labour like sweeping the floors in the inn for no pay, but food and a roof over their heads. Austrian economics leads to full employment for all who wish to work. If someone doesn't wish to work, they have to accept the consequences. But coming a little out of the hypothetical, such a society as we push for would 1) have minimal poverty, and 2) have strong private charities and churches to provide relief to the few poor who need it.
@@CeaddaOfMercia the hypothetical I proposed has it where they aren’t accepted anywhere. In this scenario, their work can literally be free and all land owners still refuse them. There would be no welcoming charities or land owners. How can they even exist without violating the rights of others, if all the land was privatized? You said coming out of the hypothetical that a society you strive for would have minimal poverty and charities that would provide relief to the poor, does this mean if they wouldn’t that you would reject a fully privatized world?
@@DireAvenger001 They would simply have to leave. Following the gentleness principle, any time someone kicked them off their property they would have to use the most gentles means available, so unless they completely refused to leave & became subject to lethal retaliation, they'd get pushed around forever. And if this hypothetical became reality, no, I would not reject private property. It is a fact of human existence and cannot be abandoned just to make some people feel better
@@CeaddaOfMercia so the homeless in my hypothetical, through no fault of their own, would have a perpetual existence of being pushed around from one plot of land to another?
Good policy imitates private ownership. It really just comes down to good governance. As long as we have a mixed economy you ought to want the monopolies to work and that includes welfares (the replacement for charity), police (the replacement for security) and borders (the replacement for property rights.) It's not really a matter of prioritizes just understanding the philosophy (tragedy of the commons) and not being a blue piller.
There is entirely too much rivalrousness in regards to "public" (unowned) property. Neither the state nor individuals have a valid claim to the property. The only valid solution to this problem is privatization. Using agents of the state to use force on homeless people is, objectively speaking, not a valid solution.
My criticism against the Blockian argument (I hope I spelled correctly) is that somebody does own a state property and that is the taxpayers. If a state property is considered abandoned property and owned by noone, which means someone can homestead a state property, doesn't that mean that corrupt politicians only "homestead" stolen money, therefore they do not do anything wrong? However if a politician is corrupt, we can safely conclude that he steals money from the taxpayers, not from nobody.
Whatever side of this argument you agree with, I think it would be a mistake to justify it on any kind of semi libertarian grounds. "Some people have more say than others" can easily become a justification for state intervention in anything it claims to own. If the principle becomes accepted as part of libertarianism, it creates a lot of subjectivity regarding which areas the state should or should not intervene in. Instead anything short of pure libertarianism should be justified on moral grounds otherwise it will eventually be used against us. Remember we are making better arguments than the statists, don't think they won't cynically use them against us. There are plenty of moral justifications for policies that are not perfectly libertarian. Use those and let libertarianism remain pure so that no one can ever use our arguments to justify statism.
Also, a libertarian social order does not necessarily lead to libertarianism. It would likely be the result of libertarianism but not the cause. The most low time preference people (arguably successful entrepreneurs) are not much more libertarian than higher time preference people like drug users. And so a libertarian social order is irrelevant to the goal of achieving liberty. Better to focus on the victims of the state.
Error: A homeless person, who does not pay taxes, has a Right to shit on the library floor, but a Taxpayer has exchanged their Rights for liberties. Thus, by virtue of hypocrisy and duplicity, the Taxpayer is voluntarily bound to follow the library rules, and has no liberty to violate those rules. The Taxpayer is bound by Contract, but the vagrant is Free, albeit Oppressed & Neglected by the Taxpayer.
Is for the po': Study New York's Hassidim. They've got their own ambulance services. A hop, skip, and a jump, and PRESTO!, Private Po'. It's possible, right now, via The System of Biblical Judges. For 3500 years, it's been Written. There's nothing new, under the sun.
I do have a Discord but it's private, you have to get in through Subscribestar. And I got super-banned from IG and can't create another account. I'm sure I could with a VPN but I really can't be bothered anymore
Luke 9:58 “And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.’” This Jesus dude you like would have apparently had cops unleashed on him too. Being homeless and all.
He also wasn't some violent drug addict, and people invited Him into their homes. What the Bible is teaching here is to be charitable, not advocating monopolized welfare.
For me personally I agree with Eric July that assuming it's privately owned, it's of course the owner's decision on what they allow. But of course Big Tech are state subsidized corporations and are anything but private. So they should have zero say in what's allowed on those platforms, especially since our tax money helps fund them. So you could also use this video's argument for the American tax payers having a but of say in how it's run before it goes into fully private hands like hopefully with Elon Musk. Or just gets shut down entirely by cutting funding or enough people leaving.
Disagree you think a hard stance makes the libertarian useless. Live and practice by example. That's my life's moto. My goal is to convince more over time by my action. So hold firm to my beliefs and never wavering shows to others that the ideas I subscribe to are truly possible and practical. You don't have to take either sides of anything if both sides are wrong. You don't have to participate in any government institution or recognize its existence, and spread the libertarian ideas to more people.
A homeless person who pays $20 in sales taxes annually is simply no comparison to an income earner who pays tens of thousands in income taxes annually.
"Homeless"? That's a funny way to say FOOTBALL.
Bruh 💀
I think it's great that libertarians can have these internal debates instead of just bandwagoning whatever the current accepted opinion is.
Although I am not a libertarian or anarcho capitalist ( I am quite moderate and more close to Hayek and Friedman ) your videos are very good. Your series on Austrian Economics really helped me learn many things and I have also ordered Man Economy and State due to you. I will probably never become fully a libertarian but still you are a good youtuber.
This channel is pretty solid when it doesn’t suddenly turn to populism.
@@eliasstenman3710 It may happen from time to time but he is usually quite good.
Chris, thank you for those words. I was introduced to all of this by Friedman and Hayek so I'm happy to keep pointing you in the direction I went. And don't worry about not being an ancap, you will be one day 😉
Elias, libertarianism is the most 'populist' political theory out there. And if by populist you just mean right wing, we are that too and not ashamed.
So you'll never become based? Rather saddening to hear good sir, do you enjoy being wrong?
I think Hayek and Friedman could also be considered libertarians (moderate ones).
I have an idea to fix this problem, I say we vote harder!
This and allow the church to do the whole Private charity thing
Good arguments. I think the Hoppe side is right here, though the other argument has promise in the future when it is time to legalize stolen property.
Absolutely. Homesteading and title transfers are the way it should be done and, God willing, one day will be. But we need something else to do in the meantime that is just and will help us get there
Very interesting video. Just a thought, could it be argued that government workers have less of a claim on state property, as their sallery is dependant on taxpayers. Therefore, they cannot claim to be "taxpayers?"
On a side note, if gov't workers aren't taxpayers, doesn't that mean they shouldn't have the right to vote?
I don't know if you said it or not, but surely it would be up to the "occupier" of the property, so the librarian, as if the state magically disappeared all at once, that is how state property would be divied up, so the librarian would be the actual owner of a state built library, and so said librarian would be the one to determine the use of the property
What most people don't realise is that Homelessness is a business for government agencies
My favorite definition of "Libertarianism" is "the inability to prioritize".
Just today I saw someone tweeting that we should stop "wasting time on this homeless debate and destigmatize sex work". This is why I'm not afraid of being labelled a Hoppean.
@@CeaddaOfMercia now "Hoppean" or "Paleolibertarian" are thrown around as insults by progressive/"bleeding heart" libertarians
seeing it during this CATO/Reason vs Mises conflict that's happening at the moment
I agree, don't be afraid of embracing the label at all my friend
@@CeaddaOfMercia why is that a bad thing? Sex workers are far more often to be victims, and the black market versions funds under age sex workers. Homelessness isn't a big issue in comparison.
Decriminalise and destigmatise are different. It should not be a crime, but it should not be accepted as morally value-free, because it is not
@@CeaddaOfMercia it's hardly anything a libertarian should care for in a political sense whether there's a moral value judgment tied to it or not. That is for the individual to decide.
claiming Government property in that way is only possible if the state can't enforce its monopoly on violence. It's just possible if some Revolution happens.
So this is why I’m a Georgist. What if they have nowhere else to go? If literally all land was privatized and no one was willing to sell their land, then how could the homeless simultaneously exist and not violate property rights if nowhere welcomes them?
I agree hypotheticals are valuable, so in this extreme what ought to be done?
im definitely sympathetic to georgism, so i think you make a good point here from a geoist perspective. non-equal ownership of land, especially in a situation like today where basically all land is claimed or owned, could very easily lead to situations where the homeless simply arent able to get out of homelessness due to exclusion from land.
In such a fully privatised world there would be no minimum wage. It's been very common throughout history for people to do low-skilled manual labour like sweeping the floors in the inn for no pay, but food and a roof over their heads. Austrian economics leads to full employment for all who wish to work. If someone doesn't wish to work, they have to accept the consequences.
But coming a little out of the hypothetical, such a society as we push for would 1) have minimal poverty, and 2) have strong private charities and churches to provide relief to the few poor who need it.
@@CeaddaOfMercia the hypothetical I proposed has it where they aren’t accepted anywhere. In this scenario, their work can literally be free and all land owners still refuse them. There would be no welcoming charities or land owners. How can they even exist without violating the rights of others, if all the land was privatized?
You said coming out of the hypothetical that a society you strive for would have minimal poverty and charities that would provide relief to the poor, does this mean if they wouldn’t that you would reject a fully privatized world?
@@DireAvenger001 They would simply have to leave. Following the gentleness principle, any time someone kicked them off their property they would have to use the most gentles means available, so unless they completely refused to leave & became subject to lethal retaliation, they'd get pushed around forever.
And if this hypothetical became reality, no, I would not reject private property. It is a fact of human existence and cannot be abandoned just to make some people feel better
@@CeaddaOfMercia so the homeless in my hypothetical, through no fault of their own, would have a perpetual existence of being pushed around from one plot of land to another?
RUclips has just stopped giving me notifications for you
Another slam dunk video on how Libertarians should handle this issue
WOOOOOOO new anglo post
Good policy imitates private ownership. It really just comes down to good governance. As long as we have a mixed economy you ought to want the monopolies to work and that includes welfares (the replacement for charity), police (the replacement for security) and borders (the replacement for property rights.) It's not really a matter of prioritizes just understanding the philosophy (tragedy of the commons) and not being a blue piller.
I disagree with this vid but I can respect ur opinion
There is entirely too much rivalrousness in regards to "public" (unowned) property. Neither the state nor individuals have a valid claim to the property.
The only valid solution to this problem is privatization. Using agents of the state to use force on homeless people is, objectively speaking, not a valid solution.
My criticism against the Blockian argument (I hope I spelled correctly) is that somebody does own a state property and that is the taxpayers.
If a state property is considered abandoned property and owned by noone, which means someone can homestead a state property, doesn't that mean that corrupt politicians only "homestead" stolen money, therefore they do not do anything wrong? However if a politician is corrupt, we can safely conclude that he steals money from the taxpayers, not from nobody.
Whatever side of this argument you agree with, I think it would be a mistake to justify it on any kind of semi libertarian grounds. "Some people have more say than others" can easily become a justification for state intervention in anything it claims to own. If the principle becomes accepted as part of libertarianism, it creates a lot of subjectivity regarding which areas the state should or should not intervene in. Instead anything short of pure libertarianism should be justified on moral grounds otherwise it will eventually be used against us.
Remember we are making better arguments than the statists, don't think they won't cynically use them against us.
There are plenty of moral justifications for policies that are not perfectly libertarian. Use those and let libertarianism remain pure so that no one can ever use our arguments to justify statism.
Also, a libertarian social order does not necessarily lead to libertarianism. It would likely be the result of libertarianism but not the cause. The most low time preference people (arguably successful entrepreneurs) are not much more libertarian than higher time preference people like drug users. And so a libertarian social order is irrelevant to the goal of achieving liberty. Better to focus on the victims of the state.
Error:
A homeless person, who does not pay taxes, has a Right to shit on the library floor, but a Taxpayer has exchanged their Rights for liberties.
Thus, by virtue of hypocrisy and duplicity, the Taxpayer is voluntarily bound to follow the library rules, and has no liberty to violate those rules.
The Taxpayer is bound by Contract, but the vagrant is Free, albeit Oppressed & Neglected by the Taxpayer.
Is for the po':
Study New York's Hassidim.
They've got their own ambulance services.
A hop, skip, and a jump, and PRESTO!, Private Po'.
It's possible, right now, via The System of Biblical Judges.
For 3500 years, it's been Written.
There's nothing new, under the sun.
hey, im a big fan. U made me a ancap
Same
same
Do you have a discord server? I can could create one for you. And what is with your insta?
He already does
I do have a Discord but it's private, you have to get in through Subscribestar. And I got super-banned from IG and can't create another account. I'm sure I could with a VPN but I really can't be bothered anymore
@@CeaddaOfMercia ok thanks
Luke 9:58 “And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.’”
This Jesus dude you like would have apparently had cops unleashed on him too. Being homeless and all.
He also wasn't some violent drug addict, and people invited Him into their homes. What the Bible is teaching here is to be charitable, not advocating monopolized welfare.
hey anglo, you liking infinite?
I haven't had time to try it. After the 2042 launch disaster I'll be happy to play it when I get the chance
What is your position on implementing anti-censorship laws on social media platforms?
For me personally I agree with Eric July that assuming it's privately owned, it's of course the owner's decision on what they allow. But of course Big Tech are state subsidized corporations and are anything but private. So they should have zero say in what's allowed on those platforms, especially since our tax money helps fund them. So you could also use this video's argument for the American tax payers having a but of say in how it's run before it goes into fully private hands like hopefully with Elon Musk. Or just gets shut down entirely by cutting funding or enough people leaving.
Disagree you think a hard stance makes the libertarian useless. Live and practice by example. That's my life's moto. My goal is to convince more over time by my action. So hold firm to my beliefs and never wavering shows to others that the ideas I subscribe to are truly possible and practical.
You don't have to take either sides of anything if both sides are wrong. You don't have to participate in any government institution or recognize its existence, and spread the libertarian ideas to more people.
Based as usual
akshully, bof are bad
Amazing audio
I think you're limiting the idea of taxes to income taxes. Sales taxes exist and almost everyone living in society pay them
A homeless person who pays $20 in sales taxes annually is simply no comparison to an income earner who pays tens of thousands in income taxes annually.