Should You Argue With Libertarians In Real Life?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Watch the Majority Report live Monday-Friday at 12 p.m. EST on RUclips OR listen via daily podcast at www.Majority.FM
www.house.gov/...
www.senate.gov...
#SamSeder #EmmaVigeland #MajorityReport #politics #news #progressive #leftist #democrats #liberal
SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: www.jointhemajo...
Download TMR's FREE app: www.majorityapp...
TMR MERCH: www.shop.majori...
CHECK OUT MORE from the MR crew:
Matt Binder DOOMED / mattbinder
Brandon Sutton DISCOURSE / expandthediscourse
Emma Vigeland ESVN / esvnshow
Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING / leftreckoning
OTHER LINKS:
Twitch: / themajorityreport
Facebook: / majorityreport
Twitter: / majorityfm
Instagram: / majorityreport.fm
"Should you argue with libertarians in real life?"
No, unless you are on coconut island, and have had time to gather the coconuts while they were unconscious from the plane crash.
I love arguing with libertarians but I am from Texas and I am a leftist and I have been doing this in the trenches from way back. There are some great things to keep in mind with these people. 1. Don't confront them with this all the time but just know it. There is nothing these people have under white supremacy that was not colonized from someone else including their talking points. I say this as a Mexican and I can tell you a lot of their libertarian talking points were appropriated from the revolutionaries of the Mexican Revolution! Two. In practice these people live in a much more leftist way than most leftists in america. They watch each other's children. They grow their own vegetables and trade them at market. Where can point this out to them then it makes them question. As a leftist you have to leave behind the high-minded jargon because right leaning people only find it tiresome. Talk about the practical things like watching each other's kids and growing veg. Finally keep in mind that their view of socialism has been shaped predominantly historically by cults in America like Jim Jones who highly appealed to socialism and then took his people to Guyana and KILLED THEM! I know not all leftists. But this in media and in their understanding has shaped what they think socialism is. A little empathy in this area and understanding on your own part goes a long way.
Reads more like an endorsement. What your main beef with them?
They don’t need empathy, they need tough love and ridicule. Don’t pander to ignorance.
I lived in Texas, and I grew up in Boston and Los Angeles. You’re 100% right. They don’t view socialism, the way people who have a college degree or have lived in a major city does. Texas really is like its own country, with its own, very intensely colonialism history. but you’re right, everybody watches everyone’s children and live in a very communal way. If we could just call socialism or communism something else, and tell them it’s a new thing, maybe they’d go for it.
Any moral value
Leftists: "dibs."
Can't make this up. 😅
@@graceenstine1486Literal world renowned economists who are against socialism, but I guess that's a reality you conveniently ignore.
The question is moot. Libertarians will debate you whether you want it or not.
And you being the more intellectually gifted and curious of political groups, that shouldn't be a problem. Turns out not so much, huh?
It is usually really effective to point out to them that their philosophy boils down to....
"I should be able to do whatever I want and everyone else should be able to do whatever I want."
Which is the same philosophy of a 4-year-old.
It's also the most consistent while yours is a incoherent mess of 105 points of mediocrity.
@@Whoyouwishyouwere well consistent 4 years old are still just 4 year olds
@@KeVIn-pm7pu I'm guessing your four year olds are a little to slow to understand fairness? Guess it's genetic?
@@Whoyouwishyouwere You haven't read the updated edition. I'm up to 162 now.
@@kcolonelx6181 And my fairy grandmother made a pumpkin into a carriage.
*My go-to tactic for 'debating' libertarians:*
Ask them if they would still be a libertarian if the world they claim to want actually existend BUT they don't get to be the rich and powerful guy.
If they're honest, it should reveal to them, that their so-called politics is little more than a vaguely sadistic powertrip where getting what they want isn't limited by law or decency anymore. Where by leveraging their unemcumbered money and cohersive influence, they can get what they want from others because those others no longer have any legal or material way of saying no.
It was never about politics or people, it was about power and pleasure.
Agree with them on the drug war and the military industrial complex
Couldn’t they just say the same noble selfishness bs? somehow through the magic of competition great men acting in their own interests will rise to the top and lead everyone to a better future for all
@@LiquidTangsounds like the trick down economics meme. Businesses with zero taxes and zero regulations will make enough money to help the working class.
Arguing with anyone about something to which they've integrated into their identity trends towards futility. That's when cognitive dissonance hits hardest.
Libertarians believe in capitalism and freedom, for instance, and providing instances where there's conflicts tends to resolve into goalposts moving or denying such things are capitalism, etc.
I just nod, pretend to listen too them, while my thoughts are elsewhere.
I walk away chuckling.
Tell them to get off the road!
Tell them to get off MY/YOUR** road.
Stop taking our money to pay for it then.
You really thought you were being clever
I ignore them and just admit what I believe in. Seeming more rational in a normal way not trying to make a scene or argument.
I can understand the view but I still wish this was a longer video. I’d love to hear some reactions to Ron Paul or someone and then some analysis
Libertarian Ideology use to be so popular with kids and teens during the 2010s. It really was Rightwing-Lite in a sense maybe more Liberal social views (of sexuality, gender, marijuana, premartial sex, abortion, etc.) while just repeating many Conservative economic values (such as trust in the "free market", hyper-privatization, hyper-individualism, etc.).
I think in a Post-Obama landscape, that kind-of made sense that many were attracted to it. Obama was not a successful administration for many USAmericans, but it brought about change in terms of Gay Marriage and Gay Acceptance ie mainstreaming many current Liberal Social Views. But I'm not sure we're in a similar place anymore.
Most of the old-guard of Libertarian tended to just become Republican or worse fully MAGA. Which threw-out a lot of pretense of liberal social values, when Trump eroded Gay Rights, eroded Trans Rights, eroded Abortion Rights, implemented the Trans Military Ban, and implemented the Muslim Ban.
I just don't think there is much of an appetite for it. Kids are consuming harder rightwing content, that embraces the regressive social views instead of hiding it.
You can argue with them in real life, but they won’t be there.
Thanks for the thought provoking insights.
I agree with libertarians on social issues, but not economic issues. I agree with them on the Non Aggression Principle, you do you as long as you’re not potentially infringing on someone’s health, safety, and rights.
Problem with NAP is its arbitrary nature within Libertarian framework, I saw Ancap to justify child labor not thinking about consequences, exploitability and tons of other despicable things. It's voluntary vague rule, not hard law. Also it demands that every person act rationally all the time.
I want to agree with your assessment, but uh, have you actually spoken with IRL Libertarians about social issues? Sure they're probably in favor of legalizing drugs and they MIGHT not be bigots (and big grains of salt with that one)
But...
Child labor, no age of consent, it's ok to pay women / minorities less just because, no right to or expectation of medical coverage, no social services, no social safety net.
@@steveglynn1006this. Unfortunately, most libertarians have an "all or nothing" state of mind, so instead of thinking about the individual scenarios, they default to a "whatever grants more freedom" answer.
It's like saying that killing is always wrong. Ok, I get where you're coming from, but what about: self defense, hunting for food, insects, weed killer, euthanasia for people and/or animals, viruses, bacterium etc.
"Well, those are ok," they'll likely respond. You'll ask how we determine which ones are ok, they'll say everyone decides for themselves, you'll ask what happens during disputes over interpretations, they'll say there needs to be a group of people making those decisions, you ask who chooses the people, they'll say something similar to a voting system.....and there we have it. Back to what a government is, as always.
I just don't get why they want to tear the system down and ultimately build the same system again. Why not just fix what's already there? If your premise is that government sometimes spends money in a stupid way, and that we need to fix it, count me in. In fact, you'll have most people in, I bet.
In my experience, Libertarians are just Republicans with a LITTLE less hate, and a LITTLE more support for SOME rights.
Ever notice that Libertarians are all about freedom from the law until they need it on their side. I definitely see the parallels with Sovereign Citizens, just a little bit more coherent.
No
Depends on the libert. Whether they’re more utilitarian or more principled. As a former libertarian, three things flipped me:
- The fact that high taxes on corporations and the wealthy improved our grandparents’ standard of living.
- The fact that our primal nature is communal. Libertarians think that human nature is like Minecraft. But we were communal since before we lost our tails.
- How fast the libertarian chat rooms filled up with Nazis. We’re supposed to be peace-niks, but a good chunk cared more about anti-welfare than anti-war when Trump came through.
Poisioning the well, appeal to nature fallacy (humans are also territorial and favor their children over others,) and the most economically prosperous times occurred before income tax and the tax rate is as high as it ever was.
I take it you're a nonSTEM major?
Never argue with a fool for he is doing the same.
Tried to be smart and made a sentence that made zero sense.
Congrats.
well, there is a lot of underlying political philosophy nonsense, they use as an explanation and reasoning for their preassumptions, like locke, the whole austrian and chicago school nonsense etc. - it all does have rather broadly economic, political and philosophical origins and theory based roots (of which each snd every bit is utter nonsense, for example locke was REALLY destroyed by kant)
how bout Zionists irl?
As always it depends. If they are a soft Zionist, who clearly believes that the I-state helps to protect its people abroad, but isn't sure why, that person is worth talking to or debating.
A person who is very clearly invested beyond that won't have their mind changed.
Why are you capitalizing zionists?
@@kennybachman35 good question. idk? have i been programmed
@@jacofalltrades7610 maybe a little. It’s not a proper noun. It’s the same as saying “fascist” or “nationalist”. 😏
Don't fight with libertarians, ask them questions... "if someone violates my property rights, how do I settle the matter?"
"If a contract turns out to have an illegal clause in it, or mutually exclusive clauses, or there's a disagreement over the interpretation, who adjudicates the matter?"
"Who do I register copyrights and patents with?"
"If I can buy more private detectives and tort courts, do I get to do anything I want?"
Go full 5 year old on them... "why is the sky blue?" "light diffraction" "Why?" "Moisture in the atmosphere." "Why?" "Eat your peas." "Why?" Eventually the discussion will break down to "because I said so," at which point: you win!
Seriously though, asking questions is much more effective at changing someones mind, because it makes them actually consider their position.
This comment comes off as ignorant for a few reasons.
Firstly, you clearly don't have any good idea of what libertarians beleive as made evident by the fact that you ask where copyright would be filed. Libertarianism opposes intellectual property for your knowledge so there would be no IP to register.
Secondly, this approach assumes that they would have no answer to the questions. What if they have answers to these questions? Would you concede your position? I doubt it.
So then what point is there in asking unless you are just assuming that there is no basis for libertarianism? An assumption is no argument.
Thirdly, this line of argumentation usually relies on a type of 'on the spot' fallacy which is VERY commonly used by Sam. If you probe and probe for one thing that cannot be explained, or a gap in somebody's knowledge you have not necessarily refuted any argument, or position concerning the wider discussion.
Typically when Sam debates, he will not stake a position of his own but rather will start questioning the person he is debating for. For this reason his debates tend to look like interviews for large portions. Only once he questions down to a specific, or gap in the opponents knowledge will he then take the opposing position, championing this gap as a contradiction of sorts that disproves their position.
This fallacious technique for example is very commonly used by flat earthers to debate. An example is the claim that the centrifugal force would counteract gravity. Most people don't understand the relevant physics to argue against this point, and because of that, flat earthers appeal to this gap in knowledge as proof that their opponent is incorrect.
My point here is that your argument, and most of Sam's debates, makes use of this fallacy and it should be avoided.
Libertarianism doesn't have the juice anymore?! What about stop ignoring Argentina?
Theres nothing positive about Argentina. They are cutting everything that helps the common man. Libertarianism only benefits the wealthy.
@@Alan-mr8ls Argentina is recovering from a century of social spending that destroyed every "common" man.
It is the clearest example of your ideology failing, and free markets saving the day.
Read up, both on economic theory, and what is happening outside of Sam's narrative in Argentina.
Things are the way they are for reasons.
Sam, how is trying to eliminate private stock because BlackRock, an SEC SPE, is too large? Thays the government themselves, destroying small business and trying to expand the wealth gap. Its not impossible for the government ti be more successful, but tender value and fiat currency are destructive policies that are integrated into the system. The markets are better for these reasons, not just that the property is owned by the people. Why does the government need to regulate internal land ownership in cities and redline what types of houses are built? Thats purely just destructive, maybe racism caused it, but i dont think that racism makes sense regarding the solution. I just dont want to talk to the government, i dont trust them, any and all opinions will be responded too by further limiting of things like Ron DeSantis making lab grown meat illegal, etc. As a Libertarian, I see Michael Keaton address mental health in a very human way subvertly, I mean id rather not talk to anyone it seems to be destructive when all i want is to maybe create a more open minded space. I mean thanks for that I guess. I surely better end up comatose before the government suddenly decides ive actually made money and should be jailed, what am I supposed to stop being who I am and pretend to be someone else? I cant talk, it results in the world crumbling faster, my question is whats the point in the first place? I dont think what people think is a bad thing, but whats even the point of saying something when im treated that way by the government?
Is Sam just incapable of saying a simple “yes” when Emma makes a reasonable comparison?
You must enjoy arguing
Just ignore the trash.
No, for the exact same reason you shouldn’t argue with communists. When there has never been a successful example, all there is to talk about is hypotheticals, and yet they still tout their ideology as viable, then you’re wasting your breath.
People like you would've argued against the idea of liberal democracy using that same faulty logic, back when monarchies were the norm. Just saying.
@@snapgab if you’re trying to insinuate that I would have argued against the founding fathers / idea of America, then I’d be arguing against the idea of a democratic republic. Because, ya know, that’s what we are: Nice try tho.
@@proofofmyexistence LMAO do you even realize what a caricature you are?
2:02 imagine being Emma and thinking that every republican wants to make children hate women, I.e. mothers, sisters, daughters, wives.
Actually after typing that out I’m starting to wonder if she even really believes that. Maybe she’s starting to grift a lil.
You don't need to be a frothing ball of rage to hate women. All you have to do is ensure the continuation of a patriarchal order, and repeat propaganda that casts women as lesser beings that firmly belong in the shadow of men
Republicans actively oppose human wellbeing, this is very clear in everything that they do.
More than a little.
You are actually at the point of self-satire. Do me a favor, take three seconds, re-read what you just wrote.
"women, I.e. mothers, sisters, daughters, wives"
Do you... not actually notice that you are specifically framing *the existence of women* in terms of their relations to men or the family unit?
Stop and consider that. Please. I'm serious here.
@@steveglynn1006 I was making a point regarding relationships to families, not men. Re read your comment and then think to yourself about how, maybe, Republican women have…daughters…and sisters….
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but failing at.
You’ll have try a little harder to make everything some kind of “ists” problem. Otherwise you’re the one self satirizing yourself and even this channel. Good grief.
No