I always believed that human beings are animals, and like animals, they react a certain way based on the environment they're in. Humans react differently in a dictatorship, monarchy, democracy, capitalist system, and a socialist system. The way Americans are isn't because they're "just that way," but because they've are a product of and a reflection of the system they're living in.
Key Moments 00:00:00 Intro 00:05:00 Capitalist society 00:10:00 Market socialism might be a step in the right direction 00:15:00 Misconceptions about human nature 00:20:00 The neoliberal myth 00:25:00 Identity politics in the contemporary world and postcolonial theory 00:30:00 Individualism and personal freedom and Libertarianism pipe dreams
Authority is excercised by every state, the quality of life improving is what matters, not a liberal buzzword. Other than the view on actual socialist societies, great convo
Libertarians don't think that government is the ONLY cause of every government issue in society. You guys are painting an untrue characterization. I think modern libertarians would agree that this is NOT a free market that we exist in. But that's the problem.
**Lack of practical examples**: Critics have argued that if libertarianism was a good idea, at least one country would have tried it, but no country has fully actualized a society as advocated by right-libertarians - **Problems with human nature**: Some argue that libertarianism has too much faith in humanity and that it fails to account for the fact that people need rules and social groups to work together for safety - **Inability to solve disputes**: Libertarianism essentially wants to make a king of each man on his own property in his own domain, which raises questions about how disputes would be solved, how infrastructure would be funded, and how defense would be organized - **Inability to mitigate collective problems**: Libertarianism does not provide a clear solution for how to collectively store the resources necessary to mitigate a drought or crop failure - **Lack of balance between liberty and justice**: Critics argue that liberty is not the ultimate value and must be balanced with justice - **Lack of practicality**: Libertarianism is an ideology that has only ever truly existed on paper, and attempts to establish libertarian societies have often fallen apart or turned into dictatorship - **Inconsistency with racial equality**: Libertarianism relies on ideas of individual rights that seem inconsistent with racism, yet libertarian rhetoric has always had powerful attractions for those who wanted to resist racial equality
@@HomelessRomantic Wow, you took the time to write a dissertation in the RUclips comments, so I will feel honored and will respond. I will say, from reading your response, it doesn't sound like these "critics" have actually researched what they are critiquing, so I will try to break some misconceptions. -Examples: What qualifies as "trying" libertarianism? An anarchist state or for a government to declare "we are libertarian"? lol First, the state always seeks more power. Those that wield the monopoly on violence in society, on the whole NOT going to advocate surrendering their power over people. Libertarianism is anathema to the state, so of course government will not embrace that direction. Libertarianism is an extraction of initiation of force from society. The alternative to that threat of violence is voluntary cooperation...otherwise known as a market. It's an approach. There are examples of it all around you. And if you look throughout history around the globe, wherever there were freer markets, where people could interact voluntarily with less coercion on peaceful people, then people were more prosperous, and the standard of living elevated. This is just an incontrovertible, historical fact. -Human Nature: There is nothing in libertarianism that says there cannot be rules. Ever watch sports? There are always established rules that each individual has agreed to play by for the opportunity. I always find this contradiction funny, that some make this claim about how people cannot be trusted, and then advocate to grant a monopoly on violence over society...to people. And guess who is always drawn to that kind of power? It's certainly not benevolent people that crave power over others. That's the proper recognition of human behavior. -Disputes and Collective Problems: There are solutions to all of these things outside funding them by threat of violence. I don't have time to go through each, so you can pursue those rabbit holes. It's really a totalitarian mindset to automatically default to, "let's just point a gun at someone to achieve our ends". I'm very confused that the idea of cooperation was praised in the video, but the subject continually championed central planning...which is the opposite of cooperation. -Liberty vs Justice: This is an interesting one. I don't exactly understand why anyone would assume those are opposed? of note: I've found that a lot of people that struggle with libertarian concepts are often arrested by binary thinking. -Practicality: I addressed this earlier, but I'd really like to know where libertarian societies have been attempted, and a dictatorship arises? How can reducing the power of the state over peaceful people, result in an empowered dictatorship? This makes absolutely no sense, and sounds like re-written history. -Racial equality: I'm not even going to address this, other than say this is a dishonest talking point, that tells me this discussion isn't really going to be had in good faith.
@@HomelessRomantic He need to back up what he says. He doesn't bring examples from other country in the world where his model is successful, he doesn't explain how success will look like, he doesn't explain how the whole system is going to be effected by the changes he propose etc. Its all just theory and ideas. We are not Gini pigs I do agree with him about post colonial theory though.
How Vivek always articulates his thoughts so clearly and readily is quite a talent.
I always believed that human beings are animals, and like animals, they react a certain way based on the environment they're in. Humans react differently in a dictatorship, monarchy, democracy, capitalist system, and a socialist system. The way Americans are isn't because they're "just that way," but because they've are a product of and a reflection of the system they're living in.
You are absolutely correct in my opinion
Key Moments
00:00:00 Intro
00:05:00 Capitalist society
00:10:00 Market socialism might be a step in the right direction
00:15:00 Misconceptions about human nature
00:20:00 The neoliberal myth
00:25:00 Identity politics in the contemporary world and postcolonial theory
00:30:00 Individualism and personal freedom and Libertarianism pipe dreams
Authority is excercised by every state, the quality of life improving is what matters, not a liberal buzzword. Other than the view on actual socialist societies, great convo
Thanks
Nice.
Libertarians dont think other people have feelings
Because theyre all emotionally stunted teenagers
Libertarians don't think that government is the ONLY cause of every government issue in society. You guys are painting an untrue characterization.
I think modern libertarians would agree that this is NOT a free market that we exist in. But that's the problem.
**Lack of practical examples**: Critics have argued that if libertarianism was a good idea, at least one country would have tried it, but no country has fully actualized a society as advocated by right-libertarians
- **Problems with human nature**: Some argue that libertarianism has too much faith in humanity and that it fails to account for the fact that people need rules and social groups to work together for safety
- **Inability to solve disputes**: Libertarianism essentially wants to make a king of each man on his own property in his own domain, which raises questions about how disputes would be solved, how infrastructure would be funded, and how defense would be organized
- **Inability to mitigate collective problems**: Libertarianism does not provide a clear solution for how to collectively store the resources necessary to mitigate a drought or crop failure
- **Lack of balance between liberty and justice**: Critics argue that liberty is not the ultimate value and must be balanced with justice
- **Lack of practicality**: Libertarianism is an ideology that has only ever truly existed on paper, and attempts to establish libertarian societies have often fallen apart or turned into dictatorship
- **Inconsistency with racial equality**: Libertarianism relies on ideas of individual rights that seem inconsistent with racism, yet libertarian rhetoric has always had powerful attractions for those who wanted to resist racial equality
@@HomelessRomantic Wow, you took the time to write a dissertation in the RUclips comments, so I will feel honored and will respond. I will say, from reading your response, it doesn't sound like these "critics" have actually researched what they are critiquing, so I will try to break some misconceptions.
-Examples: What qualifies as "trying" libertarianism? An anarchist state or for a government to declare "we are libertarian"? lol
First, the state always seeks more power. Those that wield the monopoly on violence in society, on the whole NOT going to advocate surrendering their power over people. Libertarianism is anathema to the state, so of course government will not embrace that direction.
Libertarianism is an extraction of initiation of force from society. The alternative to that threat of violence is voluntary cooperation...otherwise known as a market. It's an approach. There are examples of it all around you. And if you look throughout history around the globe, wherever there were freer markets, where people could interact voluntarily with less coercion on peaceful people, then people were more prosperous, and the standard of living elevated. This is just an incontrovertible, historical fact.
-Human Nature: There is nothing in libertarianism that says there cannot be rules. Ever watch sports? There are always established rules that each individual has agreed to play by for the opportunity.
I always find this contradiction funny, that some make this claim about how people cannot be trusted, and then advocate to grant a monopoly on violence over society...to people. And guess who is always drawn to that kind of power? It's certainly not benevolent people that crave power over others.
That's the proper recognition of human behavior.
-Disputes and Collective Problems: There are solutions to all of these things outside funding them by threat of violence. I don't have time to go through each, so you can pursue those rabbit holes. It's really a totalitarian mindset to automatically default to, "let's just point a gun at someone to achieve our ends".
I'm very confused that the idea of cooperation was praised in the video, but the subject continually championed central planning...which is the opposite of cooperation.
-Liberty vs Justice: This is an interesting one. I don't exactly understand why anyone would assume those are opposed? of note: I've found that a lot of people that struggle with libertarian concepts are often arrested by binary thinking.
-Practicality: I addressed this earlier, but I'd really like to know where libertarian societies have been attempted, and a dictatorship arises? How can reducing the power of the state over peaceful people, result in an empowered dictatorship? This makes absolutely no sense, and sounds like re-written history.
-Racial equality: I'm not even going to address this, other than say this is a dishonest talking point, that tells me this discussion isn't really going to be had in good faith.
The problem is that there is no evidence to anything he says.
Which particular part?
Are you going to back up what you said
@@HomelessRomantic He need to back up what he says. He doesn't bring examples from other country in the world where his model is successful, he doesn't explain how success will look like, he doesn't explain how the whole system is going to be effected by the changes he propose etc. Its all just theory and ideas. We are not Gini pigs I do agree with him about post colonial theory though.