'Aren't They The Crazy Anarchists?' - What Libertarians Really Stand For
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Patrick Bet-David Podcast Episode 156. In this short clip, Dave Smith, Larry Sharpe, Spike Cohen, and Jessica Vaugn discuss what the libertarian party really stands for.
Watch the full podcast: • Libertarian Round Tabl...
Subscribe for weekly videos: bit.ly/3IOBnQU
To reach the Valuetainment team you can email: booking@valuetainment.com
c
#PBDPodcast #ValuetainmentShortClips
*LEAVE. PEOPLE. ALONE.*
Is not a difficult concept
All of these people are light years ahead of Jorgensen… how did she ever become the nominee?
FBI recognized that the LP was going to cease removing smart people from the GOP if it didn't run someone who plausibly understood the concept. ...But...they also didn't want someone capable of running a serious campaign...
...problem solved!
@@JakeWitmer Sauce?
nooooo. we want to be free to live our lifes how we please as long as were not hurting our neighbors
TIL that im a Libertarian not a Democrat 🤷🏻♂️
Welcome to the other side, bro. 👍 Took me a while to realize too...
Which person’s explanation got across to you?
@@TheCruxy the second guys explanation. As long as you are not hurting others i dont believe you should legislate your values on other people. I lean left *most of the time. I dont agree with EVERYTHING on the Democratic platform but i agree with them more often than i do Republicans so i registered Democrat.
Welcome to the fun team!
Make your own decisions, I will make mine.
No I’ll make the decisions for you. Thanks.
@@justinsimpson355 Nah, I am good. Enjoy Russia or China.
Larry Sharpe could help make his point by learning the terms "voluntary" and "voluntarily." Smith's summary was the best made. Thank goodness someone had the sense to mention the Bill of Rights!
Larry is Scary, but he is effective at converting Statists.
@@bogkazealijamislim5998 Less so than my own rhetoric was, when I was involved. (Then again, Larry's smart enough to know that every political message has to be tailored to the listener, so he's probably better than he is on air when he's speaking one-on-one. This rule would not hold true if we lived in a society that hadn't lost its ability to properly educate its young, but it has.)
Smith's mention of the Bill of Rights was optimal, but none of these guys is really striking at the root of evil, except possibly the project being organized by Cohen. Larry perpetually annoys me by failing to comprehend jury independence, and also failing to understand how to simply explain it to interested parties. ("The most bang for the buck" approach.) ...This is an unnecessary slow-down on his effectiveness.
But hey, I'm nitpicking as if optimality were an option. ...All these guys are "a lot better than nothing" (i.e.: a lot better than if they'd stayed home), ...more power to 'em. I hope they improve and increase the pace at which they take market share from the D-flavored-totalitarians and R-flavored-totalitarians.
What's your elevator pitch for Libertarianism?
@@acctsys It's tailored to the specific type of indoctrination the profilee signals. It's always present, and one quickly sorts people into specific types of malware carriers. The malware has _always_ been picked up in the government youth propaganda camps. However, it's best to move from a very general statement/question ("Are you happy with your government?") get feedback, and _then_ move to a more specific profile.
You get people who love the government (say "OK, have a nice day" and turn toward someone who's not a hopeless case ...some people don't like being put into the hopeless case category, and will find some aspect of themselves that wants to be included in "America" in the most general good sense).
You get contrarians who will try to go in the opposite direction of whatever you appear to claim. Same as prior. Don't waste time with "I just oppose whatever you are," but, first, ask them directly if they approve of totalitarian policy X based on their unwitting signaling.
This model is very similar to the Cialdini "waiter" example from "Influence." ...And it's the only model that works.
This is why sales is done face-to-face, and why gov-indoctrinated idiots doing research on the internet doesn't lead to a free society.
Now, I could have given you an elevator pitch that works on 90% of well-intended people. ...But that would have been grossly misleading. The prior "big picture" is better, because it tells you the real truth: The people who are inclined to not be pathetic willing slaves are already libertarians.
Everyone else is intellectually lazy and stupid. They're waiting to be led, and they should be led to freedom, because that's also your and my only way of being free, short of bloodshed.
Make no mistake about it: "followers being led" is the paradigm that minimizes bloodshed, even in semi-free societies (like the one that abolished chattel slavery and alcohol prohibition). The prior two things might not seem like great accomplishments, but they were. For example, Germany went in the opposite direction in 1932 and Russia, in 1917, and China in 1949. (Rwanda and Cambodia, more recently...)
The only way to avoid extreme bloodshed (democide, totalitarianism, war) is to respect property rights. ...But the prior is a pitch that works on almost nobody...because almost nobody statistically, understands basic economics, history, law, etc.
Emotional manipulation that listens to signaling rules the day. It need not respect intellectual honesty that doesn't exist...but it must give the person being pitched the option of showing that they are intellectually honest. (Very, very, very few people are. However, the few who are will reveal themselves.)
If we don't want to end up in totalitarian collapse...the superficial appearance of order with underlying chaos and destruction... we have to stop taking steps toward that outcome, and take steps toward individual freedom (robust "due process" property rights protections via reinstatement of the corpus requirement, via jury independence activism).
Here's the alternative: hawaii.edu/powerkills
The prior shows several approaches, and implies about 30 more that "work almost every single time." I could get into the weeds spelling out when each ought be used. ...But that would even further "give away for free, that which ought command the highest payment possible in the free market."
However, cybernetics is above "economics." Central banks are not economic institutions. They are cybernetic institutions. Thus, cybernetics can neutralize or "command" or "control" or "eliminate variety within" the sub-system of "economics" and "institutions."
For this reason, we need to be as cybernetics sophisticated as our enemy, "the incumbent government" AKA "the bank and its IC(intelligence community)."
We can do it, if we try. There's still time.
Sorry ...not "an elevator pitch." ...But I have thousands of elevator pitches that work, face-to-face. ...Because nobody wants to be pitched...but everyone dishonestly claims to want the truth.
@@JakeWitmer So say, you're talking to a woke person. You won't engage at all?
_Being Libertarian is being the only sober passenger in a vehicle.... _*_and no one ever lets you drive!!?!_*
I would LOVE if the two party system was libertarians vs republicans instead.
Why? The country is more liberal now than it ever was before. Get used to it pal
@@stevewilson5880 Yea because millions of illegals pouring through the border and the worst inflation in 40 years are great accomplishments.
Lmaooo what an idiotic thing to say.
Murshal Hassan and Steve Wilson must be like: Ah! ah! Please USA, govern me more, daddy!! We're giving up our freedom and it feels so good to be controlled.
What two moronic things to say!
@@AcePitcher45 Millions of illegals? Where? Do you have any proof of that or is that just what you see on Fox News and Newsmax? Inflation is happening worldwide, not just in America. Coming out of the pandemic, inflation was only going to increase regardless of who was in power. Hell it started to get bad under Trump in 2020. Were you bashing him? Im guessing not. Hypocrite…
Small government
I’m an ex Democrat/Progressive because that party left me. Republicans have been more appealing lately but they are still highly corrupt and beholden to big corporations. Green Party have some things I like but are inept. Libertarians are becoming very appealing but don’t have any answers for healthcare. So I remain independent. Stuck in the middle. Getting money out of politics is a big concern for me. That alone will take care of most of the problems we have. Break up monopolies and encourage competition.
No matter what people say. The RESULTS are already there. The Republicans are the better ones.
@@yukihirasouma4691 The problem with Republicans is that people become apathetic cause they think "good team gonna fix it" or "It's not soo bad". When leftist looney toons are in control like now, people are motivated and they TAKE ACTIONS that improve freedom. IE: they prep, build homesteads, become self-sufficient, invent things like 3dPrintedGuns or crypto. When red team is in charge, people sit back and watch their slow boil.
The answer to healthcare is that NO ONE is responsible for your health but you. I'm from Canada where our healthcare is "free". What's the results of "free healthcare"? We pay more for worse service. ON top of that, you now have an entire society that thinks they're justified in making medical decisions for others. And I'm not even talking about vax or abortion... People have this mindset that "I'm paying for your healthcare so the government should force you to do {whatever I do that's good for health} IE: If they exercise, they'd be okay with mandating it for others. If they're vegan. If they _____" - WHATEVER I DO THAT'S HEALTHY... should be forced on everyone else.
@@yukihirasouma4691 Democrat and Republican are both cancer
@@yukihirasouma4691 by a spider's silk thread breadth ...and only because they have Paul and Massie. Two republicans does not a GOP make.
This is the kind of world 🌎 we've made for ourselves and our children, better have no enemies when the light goes out , due to the economic criss, wars and rate of unemployment I think now is the best time to invest and make more money for the future.
I Found Mr steve brooks portfolio online some weeks ago, It was very remarkable and I was so impressed with the reviews.I made up to 35k canadian dollar trading with him for some weeks now
good to see how you are busy, Came up here to show keen appreciation to Mr. Steve this is how I got a recommendation about Mr. Steve. At first, I was a bit scared.
@UCHv5TCTtWKna-46CA6bstzg 🙏Please how do I contact Mr steve brooks?
🙏
Please how do I contact Mr steve brooks?
@Shamal Bandara Thank you very much 🙏 I'll start trading with him
Good discussion.
Good interview
Yes!!! Libertarians back on the map again.
To be fair libertarian politicians have done themselves a disservice focusing on some topics that aren’t the most critical, also sadly I haven’t met many who are like myself who are more nationalist-libertarian… essentially libertarianism stopping at the border and with non-citizens.
How would you solve border crisis?
@@heldig5617 stopping free stuff, and no amnesty, prosecute employers of illegal immigrants plus the wall for good measure.
all libertarians are nationalists
libertarianism logically leads to open borders
Many Libertarians believe in open borders however that belief is generally dependent on the welfare system.
Just don’t get how a libertarian state would work, surely without regulation it would just again lead to cronyism and people getting absurd due to poor safety rules Ect
Try to shift the locus of responsibility from a higher power into yourself. Imagine everyone does this. Personal responsibility is a foundation of Libertarianism. Free speech is another. So are strong justice systems, police and military to keep the citizens free from internal and external threat.
In that environment, if you want to live in the woods, don't demand help from government if brush fire threatens to burn your home. You may politely ask for help from others. Hopefully, you will have formed bonds with the community. Living in the woods becomes a topic between you and your insurance company, you and your friends and family, you and businesses willing to serve people who choose the living in the woods lifestyle.
If you're still confused, even in the libertarian space, there's a divide between the classical liberals and the anarcho-capitalists. I see order in the classical liberal kind.
@@acctsys I’m on confused I’m saying it couldn’t work. And if it did , millions of people would die or get badly injured due to no regulation. For years and years until the businesses had been put off of business due to poor reputations. The invisible hand of the market is a lie. There’s no such thing. Peoples greatest rise in social mobility and standards of living have been due to government policies and spending not capitalism or free markets.
@@marcusmcg9083 The invisible hand is moved by free and innovative people. The proofs that comes to mind is Nokia and Apple, Blockbuster and Netflix. The best providers stay around. The incompetent dissolve.
On the contrary, regulations is what makes cronyism possible in the first place. Without the threat of government, competitors are free to out compete existing providers out of their own pockets. Government entrenches politically favored groups. It gets in the way of innovation. It's no different than the Yakuza keeping "noncompliant" entities out as long as you pay as asked. The word just changes to political contribution. Government destroys the price signal, aka the invisible hand.
Also, regulations are slaps on the wrist behind which offending companies hide. The alternative is holding officers and owners of businesses accountable for tort to the specific people they do harm upon and, if proven guilty, with punishment up to death penalty.
The controlling, lying, manipulative people we hate hide behind corporate veil, and politics.
Regarding safety, if the working conditions are not acceptable to the individual, is there anyone really forcing him to work there? As I see it, he can walk away. Or is it a case where someone else is taking offense for what happens upon another so much so that he'd rather that people who are willing to do certain work in certain conditions lose their jobs, or deny them said jobs from coming into existence in the first place--all of that with him not being at risk of losing his job, just virtue signalling. Competition happens not only with customers but also with suppliers. If the business, as a customer of labor, does a poor job of attracting and retaining talent, competition will scoop up the people who actually get stuff done.
@marcusmcg9083 the greatest standards are due to capitalism where do u think taxpayer money comes from, but I di agree we need a government
People in Cali and New York are living in poverty. We already have regulations and crony capitalism BECAUSE of the BIG government. All this done by
Your BIG government!
It’s the non aggression principle plain and simple
@@drock7333 NAP is based on natural laws and rights, which we all know is inalienable
no
lol where in american society am i allowed by law to be an aggressor? i see that dumb line trotted about by every libertarian
@@BOZ_11 simple. Most laws infringe on peoples rights. They use the threat of force (aggression) to make people comply
@@donh1572 laws don't initiate violence
I see some key similarities with libertarians and progressives, both are against the military industrial complex, would love to see more collaboration in politics with those 2 political parties
Nah, progressives force others both economic and social now.
It all started in the 70s when they stopped teaching physics in high school
In a civilized society Healthcare, Education and Justice should be as affordable as possible if not Free.
And you will never get that through government.
@@76063co2 your not getting threw private ownership right now
@@prescottmotley5225 agreed, because of all the protectionist obstacles set in the way. When corporations have the ability to just buy government favor to keep out their competition, it's not a free market, it's more of a monopoly, and that's why prices are so high.
Nothing is "free". Take that bs notion out of your mind. And why talk about "civil societies"? The society in the U.S.A. is not "civil".
@@prescottmotley5225 For health insurance? Yes, I actually CAN and DID pay for my own PRIVATE health insurance. Wtf are you talking about?
I am a small government leave me alone American
It should be called American Neo-Libertarianism.
Nah. Liberalism.
Last 🤬 💩
1st comment?!
woo hoo
Only reason I’m not liberation is the economic side because money is power and people use money to control others like coal towns of the early 1900s. Trading a government master for a corporate master are the same to me . Because greed will always destroy a libertarian society. When one person gets too many choice they control everything.
"Trading a government master for a corporate master are the same to me ." This is your mistake, to believe that you're putting forth a domain-exhaustive choice. There's a small amount of humanity in some corporations. Also, there's often an unwillingness to violently initiate coercion, especially when there's a real likelihood of blow-back. Thus, without government coercion, most corporations are "vastly less damaging than government."
The coal towns of the early 1900s were in a vastly different cultural situation. (Even so, what's written about that time period in John Ross's philosophical novel "Unintended Consequences" is well worth reading about...he addresses the power balance repeatedly, throughout the whole book.)
Your comment essentially ignores that some corporate heads believe in individual rights and power decentralization, and disbelieve in initiation of force (and may go even further than that, disbelieving in even retaliatory coercion).
Thus, your comment ignores the prospect of you choosing a benevolent corporation, or even a "less bad" corporation. That's vastly less expensive than choosing a less bad government, whereby you have to move to a foreign country whose customs and situation you do not know, whereby you will likely not be allowed to participate in changing the government, and likely not even allowed to defend yourself without severe risk of attack. Also, under the current totalitarian-trending government you'd have to renounce your U.S. citizenship in order to not be pursued internationally for the collection of taxation that wouldn't be constitutional even if you lived here.
I'll take America's worst, most government-connected corporation over that deal, any day of the week.
Now, what about the power vacuum argument? That's a valid argument, as put forth by Milgram, Dawkins, and Mises in "Bureaucracy" (and "Liberalism"). That's why Mises and Hayek were liberals (minarchist libertarians). Corporations ought believe that government will protect the right of impoverished strikers and strike organizers to speak publicly, and organize strikes if they can persuade workers to strike. (And, if they do so, the corporation ought be able to fire them unless they're contractually forbidden from doing so.)
All work is technically "at will" in the USA.
I've never had a corporation rob me at gunpoint, but I have had police and automated police states rob me at gunpoint.
If any corporation treated Americans the way the government treats Americans, it would have long ago been destroyed by Americans.
Americans don't destroy this government for three reasons:
1) They recognize they'd be caught and killed by the omnipresent nature of the surveillance state (they're cowed into submission)
2) They recognize that the government does some good things, and that there's some measure of democratic control that still remains to allow them to alter the evil majority of it (i.e. they're holding out hope for future change that would obviate the need for taking the death risk of #1)
3) They recognize that their government-indoctrinated "fellow man" would not come to their aid, unlike if, say, AT&T, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, Microsoft, or Verizon started issuing "tickets" and fines. (I could be wrong about this. After all, Palantir has tracked down innocent drug offenders with its pre-crime software. ...But, that said, it's really "Palantir+LA cops" that are the problem, not just Palantir alone. Without the harmful totalitarian powers of the government, Palantir would unlikely be such a threat.)
Libertarians favor separating the government from its current unconstitutional powers. To that end, you've got a point when you point out that many libertarians don't view _certain_ corporations are an immense problem and amplifier of government evil. And what causes such evil? The same government schools that cause evil among the dumbed-down electorate.
At least certain corporations would be "non-evil" in a "polycentric" or "decentralized" social order. The government creates "one-size-fits-all" systems. Not one of the enormous corporations I just mentioned is that size, and none of them directly use force.
For you to fear crass and exploitative corporations that want to use force (by dealing with the government, which has an incorrect perception of having legitimized the use of force) more than you fear a government that _does_ use force is, well, idiotic.
Facebook may want to lock up users who use drugs, but they don't. They wouldn't dare. They may call the police on people who use drugs...and they almost certainly do. ...But the police who come to arrest you won't be wearing Facebook uniforms. Facebook is not that bold, and, even if the US government were abolished, Facebook still wouldn't be that bold. (And, in any pro-gun state, "Facebook cops" would be killed upon attempting to make the arrest, and juries would acquit their killers.)
The worst corporations are all government-connected, and every last one of them seeks to point their fingers at government when people publicize their use of force. They all use the government as "plausible deniability." Here are many examples: web.archive.org/web/20170226224538/www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/304669/
Government currently keeps corporations in line, to some extent. They can't behave as badly as government itself. Thus, we should keep government in operation, but we should eliminate its totalitarian behavior by organizing the jury.
That's the viable, valid formulation of the libertarian offer. Sadly, there is no viable valid implementation of that viable, valid formulation.
Maybe you should read a bunch more books, and become that viable implementation. I hate to break it to you, but the LP is as non-existent as the Greens, but, in the case of the LP, the LP at least had a valid platform (1994). The Greens never did. Ten vague non-implementable utopian "wishes" are simply delusional. ...You saw the same thing with pre-WW2 Germany's minor parties, except for the fact that some of them gained traction. (Police have been infiltrating political parties and movements since France in the 1850s. Usually, they wind up in leadership positions, or exercising some sort of major influence in the groups they infiltrate, because ideological regimentation isn't something most political theorists are good at.)
The LP doesn't really exist. It's FBI-infiltrated and run. Individuals can change that, if they decide to pull their heads out of their asses. If they don't we'll probably get the same sort of similar "top two" that Germany got in 1932.
Even so, libertarianism(liberalism) is "as good as it gets" for human beings.
.......Corporations exist because of the big government.................If the government was SMALL, there would NOT be any corporations or monopolies. There would only be LOCAL businesses.
They're the crazies indeed, only complain and have no real position.
They have a solid position on every issue. Unlike other ideologies
@@donh1572 what's their position? Everybody should be morally and ideological perfect and government should be honest and altruistic?
@@sashielefreet1799 When have you ever heard a Libertarians say that? Clearly, you haven't been listening to any. You obviously have an idea about what Libertarians stand for that you got from someone who isn't one. You should watch the full episode.
@@JoeyJ1984 I watched it, and my position on libertarians hasn't changed since the last 20 years; all they offer is platitudes, wishes and utopian ideals; but not plans or means to get there. Prove me wrong, tell me what's their route realistically achievable.
@@JoeyJ1984 also the "not true Scottish man" fallacy from the full show; "Jo does not represent the party".