A Short Introduction to Libertarianism: The Libertarian Mind with David Boaz
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2015
- Libertarianism-the philosophy of personal and economic freedom-has deep roots in Western civilization and in American history, and it's growing stronger.
Two long wars, chronic deficits, the financial crisis, the costly drug war, the campaigns of Ron Paul and Rand Paul, the growth of executive power under Presidents Bush and Obama, and the revelations about NSA abuses have pushed millions more Americans in a libertarian direction.
The Libertarian Mind, by David Boaz, the longtime executive vice president of the Cato Institute, is the best available guide to the history, ideas, and growth of this increasingly important political movement.
With new information on the threat of government surveillance, the policies that led up to and stemmed from the 2008 financial crisis, corruption in Washington, and the unsustainable welfare state, The Libertarian Mind is the ultimate resource for the current, burgeoning libertarian movement.
Video directed and produced by Evan Banks.
Order your copy of The Libertarian Mind here: www.cato.org/libertarianmind
For more on the theory and history of liberty, visit www.libertarianism.org.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the feudalist, it belongs to the king. No, says the theocrat, it belongs to God. No, says the fascist, it belongs to the nation. No, says the Nazi, it belongs to the master race. No, says the socialist, it belongs to the poor. No, says the communist, it belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... libertarianism.
Darth Vader
wow. well put. im gonna steal this.
There are reasons that Liberals will, in a conversation with someone that they don't realize is a Libertarian, accuse that person of being a conservative. Many Liberals seem to want the government to have more control, Libertarians are very much against big government. I know, this doesn't answer much, I seem to have trouble stringing together explanations right now, for which I apologize. Suffice to say, Libertarians are a portion of the middle ground between Liberals and Conservatives, and our views are typically some mix of the two.
well if you chose libertarianism don't infringe private property (copywrite laws).
great speech but a bit of steal from Andrew Ryan bioshock. kind of makes you a parasite by his definition.
Clem, I gotta leave you at "That state is presently authorized by us to do whatever rationally serves a legitimate public interest." Nonsense
Darth Vader preach
17 dictators disliked this.
No, they are not dictators, they realise that it sounds like Ayn Rand or the Koch Brothers. Of course, capitalists sound very convincing and are always eager to tell you what you want to hear.
Ben Angel so what if they sound Koch Brothers or Ayn Rand? The foundation of the United States is build upon the ideas of liberty, property rights and limitation of powers allowed to organization, and any organization that is built by the should SERVE the PEOPLE that built. Now, if you excuse me, you sound like a desperate Bernie Sanders fan 😂
They have the freedom to dislike the video haha
I think you all missed the point of the comment... Its a fucking joke
Now it's only 71.
Quite a good result in 4 years.
Especially when you also have 2000 libertarian likes.
Libertarians are the true guardians of freedom.
Only*
I'm a brand new libertarian, and this video was just what I needed to hear.
Good for you, I am as well. Welcome aboard. :-)
Im still trying to figure this shit out. The only thing that makes me not completly consider myself a libertarian is because I want education and healthcare be available for everyone
I think I may have a suggestion. I myself find that a compelling argument however this is the best way to put it. On the federal level it shouldn't be thrust upon the nation and you and I are forced to pay for it in our taxes, however states can decide to pursue their own initiates. If I choose to live in MN or any other state its a pro / con analysis. They might be offering me more thats important in one state vs the other. As Gary Johnson puts it. The department of education should be eliminated and instead let 50 laboratories of democracy compete to build the best model.
Daniel left libertarian?
Libertarian points:
->
The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
->
Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
->
All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.
->
If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?
->
Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.
If you want to have control of your own life and respect the right of others to control their own lives then you are a libertarian.
I joined the Libertarian Party and will work to destroy the Republican/Democrat duopoly that shoves lousy candidates down our throats.
Harold Goodman After Hillary and Trump for the first time in forever is a third candidate maybe possible. Next national election I hope the Libertarian party can put up a candidate worth a shit and mix shit up for once.
I really Hope the Duopoly goes down and we can focus on Proper politics instead of the clown show we have now
Libertarianism in 4 Minutes
----- Tribute to David Duke and Murray Rothbard (cover by Knoxie Davis) -----
Don't have orgasms in the furious horseback riding scenes!
Ive been a Libertarian my whole life but I often have to come to these videos about the basics so that I can wash my mind from the fascist/communist/theocratic bull**
Thank you Cato, I'm 43 & I've been a Libertarian before I knew it. I was a Chomsky guy (As I'm from Massachusetts) but I've been an Ancap since I "woke" to Libertarian ideals..I do vote & I have been vòting libertarian for 10 years... thanks for all you do CATO Institute..
Why are so many people worried about the poor? Libertariansim is economic survival of the fittest. If you can't build your own wealth, get an education, good job, etc. sucks for you. So many people are saying "Libertarians live in a fairytale world" But then you turn around and ask "How will the poor survive?" There are 8 billion people on our planet and counting, that's 4 billion more than we are capable of sustaining. You think you can save everyone, and sustain the additional hundreds of millions of people being born every day, yet libertarians are the ones living in a fairytale world? It only seems like a fairytale world to you because you're poor and if the government stopped holding your hand and feeding you, you wouldn't know what to do with yourselves.
Winnreck Elitism much? The fairy tale world you live in is that poor people have the same chances. Tigers aren't born rich or poor.Comparing the wild world vs. the world humans created is flawed. If youwant to talk genetics then you would need all people to be given the same chances to see who are truly the "fittest" and not just the most privileged. You have to have never worried about feeding yourself to think like you do. Welfare keeps people from starving and not much else. The welfare system needs changes and ending welfare should be the goal, but cutting it off would be catastrophic for those receiving it. If you are poor in the U.S. you already live in the third world. Abolishing welfare right now would create more homelessness and desperation than we already have. Depending on the goodness of people to make charitable donations doesn't sound like a solution since you don't sound very empathetic or charitable. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with the systems humans have created. We are well past living naturally. Who is to say that many poor people aren't more mentally "fit" or will become more valuable than a middle or upper socioeconomic class person? Frankly, I'd say the poor who survive on next to nothing are far more fit to survive than those who don't have to worry where the next meal comes from. The country needs to improve our overall education and manufacture more goods. People want jobs and want to contribute. Many poor feel marginalized and alienated from the government as it is. Believing that people could be great for the country with some help is optimistic and it is working. There needs to be more help from the bottom up. We are a long way from letting the country fend for itself. It's naive, lazy and self-serving to wealthy people to think otherwise. I hope that your view isn't shared by many Libertarians because you are advocating a turn the other way genocide. You sound just as narrow-minded and bigoted as many winged nuts in the U.S. The fairy tale that you live in results from the position you were born into and thinking that makes you more fit than someone else. In order for your ideals to work you would need to redistribute all the wealth and then start over. See where elitist people stack when everyone gets a fair chance. If you're right on your "survival of the fittest" then eventually the wealthy will return to wealth and power anyway. I'm white, male and a student. My mom and grandparents went to Stanford and my dad went to M.I.T. I am going to school for my masters in Virology. If wealth is just genetics or "fitness" then why are there so many students in my classes from lower socioeconomic families? They are receiving assistance from the government and in many cases the first generation in their family to attend college. They are brilliant and will someday pay back the help they got a hundred times over in taxes. They might someday discover a way to improve or save your life. Show respect for life and think of a better solution to our problems then let poor people die. If you can't think of a better solution keep your simple buzz word opinions to yourself and let the people who are moral and intelligent figure out a solution. Your opinions are worse than fairy tales they are delusional nightmares. They are opinions reminiscent of the antagonists in some bad futuristic movie. They are the way the elite entitled "superiors" speak before revolutions start. "Let them eat cake"
John M I was born dirt poor, didn't go to college and instead started my own marketing business. If you believe success is based on the chances you're given, that's what's keeping you poor. The majority of the Forbes 500 is comprised of people who bypassed college, bootstrapped and started their own businesses. The picture of the 1% that the media has painted in your head is a fallacy. Most heirs that inherit their wealth squander the money and legacy by the next generation.
As I said, success is survival of the fittest, the reason we don't have more millionaires and billionaires isn't because there aren't enough opportunities, it's because making it in that world is EXTREMELY difficult, and any sane person would likely give up before success. The 1% that this world portrays as evil and greedy, worked harder and faster than the poor are capable of even thinking about. So as I said, if you can't build your own success, don't come to me, let alone the government looking for a handout. There are way too many people on this planet for governments and the 1% to babysit everyone.
John M We all have the same opportunities to put ourselves out there and achieve massive success. Facebook for instance has amassed billions, and all that was used to start it was a computer, $19, and an internet connection. If you can't manage to scrap even those resources together, I'm at a loss of words. The fact of the matter is anyone can be successful, but few are strong enough to persevere. And those who don't make it, get tied down to a family, get low paying jobs, and reproduce when they can't afford it, and pass on their negative attitudes.
Poverty is a state of mind. Not only that, but it's a sickness. Change your state of mind and you gain the ability to manifest and control your own future.
Winnreck A college degree is not always necessary in the business world. In most professions it is. How would a poor person become a nurse, doctor lawyer etc? If all that was left was the 1% there would be a whole new list of problems. I did not realize you thought that the fittest was the 1%. I thought you were only excluding the poor from your utopia I didn't know you meant everyone who wasn't a millionaire or billionaire. Lonely world for those 1% and their money. Wouldn't your vision result in the billionaires hiring the millionaires to cook for them, build their houses etc? Wouldn't the dollar collapse? I am not a business major but I think that those CEO's like having consumers and employees. We can't all be brilliant but I would like to think we still have the right to live. Where did you get your information about heirs squandering their inherited wealth? There aren't enough opportunities I agree and I bet most of those Forbes 500 would tell you they got a lot of help along the way. I think you've had the vision of poor people painted in your head. I dare you to go to a poor neighborhood and start preaching that. Tell them they are ruining the country. Tell them they're lazy, unmotivated, not "fit" enough for this world. Poor person with high school diploma walks into a bank and asks for money to start a business Banker: Haha please leave. If what you say is true why aren't you gracious about your success? Why aren't you selling your knowledge in a book or giving it out to better the country, the world and help people who were once like yourself? How exactly did you start a marketing company being dirt poor and having no college education?
Winnreck You need to do a little research. I'm new to politics but I know that we are not all given the same opportunities to achieve success. There are schools in the city I live where the kids are starving and are not given a real education. They are short on books and faculty are overwhelmed. Facebook was started by students at Harvard. The Zuckerburg guy was given a top education his whole life. Prep schools, the works. I truly wish what you were saying was true. I understand welfare is a huge problem in this country. It's growing too as more poor people have kids. Many poor don't have access or can't afford birth control. There is a lack of knowledge as well as money that exists in many communities. Would educating people be cheaper than welfare? I don't know. I would think it would be more beneficial to educate people. Cutting off welfare completely is immoral and elitist. It goes by your belief that it's their own fault they're poor which in most cases is not that simple. If it were it would be easier to have disdain for poor people. If it is a sickness then we ignore sick people because it's not us? That's easy to say while things are going good for you. In reality very few if anyone makes it without someone helping them and no one is born with the same options and opportunities. I realize you're saying that is what makes the elite the elite. There has to be some middle ground between a welfare state and poverty genocide.
Libertarians are just smarter than all the other parties, we get it.
Not smarter, more knowledgeable. There's a difference.
@@iamchillydogg ...go one step further.... more complex in our beliefs.
@@stephennickerson2547
I think our beliefs are pretty simple, initiating force is immoral. Believe that and you're a libertarian.
Unfortunately, since we live in an oligarchy, Libertarianism will only flourish when we all decide to fight to take our liberties back from those who have taken them away from us.
@Down with Corporate Amerika I'm sure that's the communist view.
It's really simple. There is one human right, to not have force initiated against you. This means that all actions should be allowed except those involving the initiatory use of force, threats of force or fraud. This means the proper function of government is to defend individual negative liberty with the retaliatory use of force. Done. Everything required for a civil society in three sentences.
true
Agreed
I agree
NAP does not, and cannot exist in society, or in nature. Even in a (feudal) libertarian utopia, property-owners must initiate force in order to claim property, and also must initiate force in order to maintain the ownership of the property they have claimed.
While poor people, serfs, renters, and anyone without property constantly live under the threat of violence by the owners of capital or property; whether by threat of eviction, threat of unemployment, threat of starvation, threat of disease, theft of the fruits of their labor, etc.
*NAP is incompatible with capitalism, because capitalism is inherently and necessarily barbaric. Like the state, capital cannot exist without the threat of violence to prop it up.*
Property such as land or lakes cannot be seized by private ownership without the threat of violence against public use. NAP is only even remotely possible in an egalitarian society with collective public ownership of all natural resources
Or, we can all arm, train and defend ourselves and our loved ones.
I just discovered I’m a libertarian. I could never choose between D and R. I evaluated myself a little and this is what I feel I fit most with
Libertarianism in 4 Minutes
----- Tribute to David Duke and Murray Rothbard (cover by Knoxie Davis) -----
Don't have orgasms in the furious horseback riding scenes!
The truth is with it is you know you were one before you know what it means as it’s just so simple and logical it’s just common sense
Well made and well said. This deserves to go viral. Especially in these times.
Now this is why I love being an American citizen! Hallelujah!
Love this video. Now I'm going to keep a link pinned.
very interesting history, thank you!
Brazil has the biggest libertarian ancap comunity and i love it
What is that community?
Where can we find that community and why are Brazilians a bunch of AnCaps?
Beautiful video!
Well said! Very knowledgeable thank you for sharing your insights
I identify as a classical liberal, and I kinda think this is approximately the same thing.
I searched it and it’s exactly the same
This is my introduction to libertarianism.
Beautiful.
Emotionally mature people resonate with this message, those who want to be emotionally mature are attracted to the message, people determined to remain emotionally immature are repelled by this message and pathologically immature people loathe the message
Just genial!
When is your next event in the Kansas City metropolitan area? Because last time I showed up someone thought my kindness was weakness.
On 3.15
would you mind, explaining where from "individuals learn to be moral agents " ?
Great video. Sharing this for sure! #LegalizeFreedom #LiveFree
Everyone who confesses that he is a libertarian, admits that he lacks the slaves.
Logical thought? Equal rights? I am able to make my own decisions? Where am I?
Some good points here, however a question. What of those who can not help themselves?Persons like the disabled, the old and frail and those that have been at the mercy of the greed of others? How does libertarianism work for them?
Do you know someone in need of help?
Help that person.
Libertarianism does not help people; only people can help people. Libertarianism is a set of ideas designed to be used to live as society. But what each individual does in such society is each individual's decision.
So, some people will help others; some people won't. What group do you belong to?
I am curious, in libertarian state, people would still be forced to pay taxes for police, military and justice sector(dont know if I said it right) or that would be voluntary?
And whats the difference between (in short) libertarians and classical liberals?
I know the for the second question there is no difference and for the first one i presume there would be tax but very little but it depends on the situation
India needs this!
I am a registered member of the libertarian party of the state of Kansas and do I have some things to say to you people.
Is their such a party in Canada?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Canada
My only regret is that it took me 50 years before I discover libertarianism even though it was evident to me forever.
I would like to talk about technology propaganda and the military do you have an event I can attend?
RIP Milton 'Freedom' Friedman
Cool vid
No mention of Rothbard or Hans Hoppe, eh?
The philosophy is that you should be free to do whatever you want, as long as you do not harm others.
That would be the good part about it.
The second part is: Nobody else has to take care of you.
And this is the part, where it gets tricky. Not everybody is able to do that.
Then they claim that earning money and having to work for it, is equal to natural desires like food, water and shelter, only to justify that having to work for money can never be a constraint.
That is thinking for justification of a relationships between people that depend on others.
Why should anyone be forced to care for you? Where do you get the right to enslave others?
I am very interested in Libertarianism, but one thing I can't work out, in regard to completely free market, is the occurrence of monopolies. In the 1700s, industry hadn't yet seen the revolutions we have today. Steam power, electricity, combustion engines, and especially computers, have all allowed industry to advance at an impossible rate, thus allowing monopolies to form.
How do Libertarians believe Monopolies would be handled? Would monopolies be considered an infringement of others rights, as it causes low wages and high prices?
I'll attempt a reply: Ideally, in a Libertarian world, if a monopoly forms, that can be a good thing. In a free-market society, that would mean that if 10 companies all sell the same thing at the same market price, but then one company has a R&D breakthrough so that it can sell the same thing but now at better quality and even lower price, then it wins and the market shifts to buying from that company. In that case, it's not the company that created the monopoly but the consumer who en masse decided to buy from them instead of the others. Ok great, as long as the consumer still gets a better product at a lower price, this works. But then, bc the other stores had to close because they couldn't keep up - I think of Blackberry back in the 2000s that were beat out by Apple iPhones - then they get the market share and likely, due to lack of competition, can raise prices, cut corners, and lower quality. Ideally, and I know I'm speaking ideally, this raise in prices and likely concurrent drop in quality due to the lack of competition actually invites competitor entrepreneurs who think they can do better: maybe some do and maybe some don't, but the result is actually more competition which lowers prices and increases quality as new competitors with new creative ways of thinking and working enter the market. I think, then, that the free market, left to itself, will solve its own problems. The problem as I see it, is that the free market is rarely left to itself as there is so much regulation and government interference that skews the market in the direction the government chooses. The libertarian will want to rid the market of government interference to permit the cycle of "creative destruction" and of discovery to continue. It's a Darwinian approach, sure, but the results speak for themselves. I know this may sound silly, but look at charts of the price of TV's vs Education and Healthcare over the past 50+ years. TVs have largely remained untouched by too much government interference and the result is higher quality, better dependability, and lower prices almost regardless of which brand you choose. But then look at Education and Healthcare and it seems that the more government intervenes, the lower the quality, the higher the price, and the worse the overall outcome.
Anyways, just my thoughts.
Important Monopoly’s are basically impossible under libertarianism as they won’t have there patents and they won’t have there funding so Powell would constantly compete if they were doing a bad job and even if they lower prices to destroy the business it would mean good for the consumer
Anny site to pay north korean to do my homework?
Language has agreed on rules so that it is uniform. That is how it can be taught
Yes, but the rules of language are not imposed by any sort of language authority. They evolve organically.
Argentinian Libertarian Here!
the music was a mistake. Utopian principles are admirable, no need to guild the lily.
Venezuela comes to mind, Liberty is scary but it works
i dont think people understand that the same things can go on, just through the efforts of private groups or organizations. its about not having the government do everything. if you personally are worried about the poor, start an organization, or let them start a vegetable farm on part of your land. dont rely on big brother to do good for you with your tax money, as we all dont agree and should go our own routes as to what to do with our lives, money, and time
Libertarianism in 4 Minutes
----- Tribute to David Duke and Murray Rothbard (cover by Knoxie Davis) -----
Don't have orgasms in the furious horseback riding scenes!
I am an unaffiliated voter. I like some of thesd views.
I only recently discovered this party. This video really expresses how I feel as a person, and it makes me happy to know that there are many others who think the same way that I do. I do not identify myself as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Empathy is the word that comes to mind as I consider Libertarianism. That is what the world has always needed, and always will.
This isn't the US Libertarian Party channel. This is a channel about libertarianism as a political principle.
The Libertarian Party channel is here:
ua-cam.com/users/LibertarianPartyvideos
And the 2020 candidate channel is here:
ua-cam.com/users/JoJorgensenforPresident2020videos
The drug war is an interesting subject I'll bring it up publicly at the next event maybe the rest of you can help me figure it out. Why don't you believe in me?
Now how do we implement our agenda? I'm in the arts.
This is a different take on it. I do NOT want to be tortured with my impending death and torture constantly. I do not want to be hunted when I can't submit and being told by idiots to do this or that when I have little control over my life, as I've expressed. I only have so many options in life. I'll walk the long way to the grocery store. Rebel over here. I like all of the moral lessons. The humans are fragile and break easily. My helper told me once that a guy shot all of his cows and was put on a ward after the bank took his property. He had a pet lama that he attached a leash to and walked around the ward. To me, they made me more vulnerable, and these people keep on coming. I simply hate them now and want away from them. Our "masters" or whatever have taken so much from us that we can't fulfill them even.
The market has government’s setting the rules and enforcing them. The market also has governments that help it when it crashes. The market is also helped by massive government welfare. The market is impossible without the infrastructure built by the government.
The government is unnecessary for market functioning, the government causes market crashes, the massive government welfare is counterproductive, and the market can build infrastructure itself.
How would libertarians run their community? Is it through direct democracy?
98k views and zero likes? It must be an awful idea
My question is: How is Rothbard a libertarian? He seems to say the opposite of everything said here.
He is an anarcho-capitalist, which is a small subset of libertarianism. The people in the video are not anarchists like Rothbard. They want a small and limited government, not no government. This is often called minarchism, which is another (larger) subset of libertarianism.
I'm not scared. Because I'm with this other team on the other side of the military-industrial complex. And they are not scared either. But someone else should be scared of them. We already have a space Fleet. Are you on that team?
This is the kind of stuff on tv.
Ron Swanson? is that you without the mustache?
❤
I don't mind if you use the phones and technology to monitor everyone. As long as we are all being held to the exact same standard. Let me tell you the standard I think the rest of you should live by.
Thomas Paine also supported the government giving every senior citizen a pension, every young woman a dowry, and every young man some capital to use to start his own business. He wanted this to be funded exclusively through Land Value Taxes.
He recognized that private landlords who demand rent in order to allow their fellow man access to Land (natural resources which were not produced by human labor and thus are not valid private property) are members of the exploitative class just like warlords.
Thomas Jefferson was explicit that private property in movable goods preceded the state, but that land ownership was created by government rather than nature.
John Locke was clear that homesteading did not actually justify ownership of land, but rather justified its possession to that degree necessary to protect the fruits of labor only so long as there was as much and as good land left available for others to homestead.
The Lockean Proviso is violated wherever there is a positive market value to land separate from the improvements on it. People would not pay rent if as much and as good land was avalible for free. The most important factor in the quality of land is not its fertility, but its location relative to other resources including humans with whom it is possible to trade. People seem to associate Land with farming, but this basic economic factor is actually most important in densely populated cities.
Adam Smith and John Locke both taught that a just society could be funded exclusively through Land Value Taxation, but the best arguments for that position depended on later improvements in economic theory made by David Ricardo and Henry George.
A Georgist government is the only morally consistent form of minarchism. Voluntary Georgist organizations would also likely thrive under anarchy.
So libertarians are less hardcore anarchist
am libertarian can confirm not "hardcore"
Haha, almost. Libertarians are people who rate right on the economic and liberal on the societal axis of the political compass
Depends. Ancaps are also libertarians.
Anarchists are far-left and believe property is theft. Ancaps are far-right and believe taxation is theft.
Left anarchists like anarcho-syndicalists are opposed to a society with rulers, but they are not necessarily opposed to self-governing by and of collective rule.
Ancaps just oppose government on general principle, but have no problem with rulers, as long as they rule with the force of capital, and not the force of the 'state'
Lancerelliott Productions I believe libertarians would rather keep things on a state and local level while republicans still tend to be more involved in the federal government, though less so then democrats.
"The morality of equal rights is a lie." - Nietszche
Libertarian's atheism really does them a disservice, the mark of the beast in Revelation is the splendor of Solomon.
Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with atheism. The only common thread is accountability. Atheists aren't afraid to ask questions. No one should be afraid to ask questions. Libertarians limit Federal power by restoring accountable local power, which is the opposite of the empirical power symbolized by the mark of the beast...
Equal opportunity is the truth to which equal rights is the counterfeit.
How to you decide exactly what the "rights and responsibilities" are? And who enforces it and how? How do libertarians resolve that? What if their opinions differ on what that means? Is there any role for a Democratic process? What if the majority of voters vote for more central planning? On what basis can Libertarianism stand in the way of that? It's easy to talk about "rights" in general terms, but this is a vague concept, the devil is in the details, details that Libertarians habitually seem to leave out.
"Spontaneous Order" is a Darwinian concept, and as we have observed in nature, does not always produce optimal solutions. There are many evolutionary dead ends and mistakes, some of which can be predicted now and then, though certainly not all of them can. Hayek suggested "spontaneous order" as a solution to the fact that optimal central planning is impossible. Of course if that's true, "central planning" via "spontaneous order" is impossible too-- as allowing spontaneous order to proceed as it will, is essentially, a central plan ("we plan to not do any planning"). At the same time, there is the presumption here that there are only two options, "central planning" or "no planning" and that's not at all the case. For while it may be impossible to accurately predict the weather, that does not mean that we never will need umbrellas.
Further, Libertarians imply that there is some need for "central planning" elements, but never seem to elucidate what they are. In this video, Boaz refers to "rights and responsibilities" which implies there are some generally agreed upon standards of some kind, and I don't think they're quite suggesting that everyone should do their own enforcing of these standards in vacuum, wild west or anarchy style. So just how should that work? --Another important detail the Libertarian faithful seem to leave out.
And I've seen several Libertarian commenters make the blanket statement that "the state is evil." Perhaps this is not a universal Libertarian paradigm, but it raises a relevant question anyway. If the Libertarian free market allows some people to become powerful, and they choose to use that power to control or impose an "evil government" on the rest of us, just who "owns" that evil anyway? "Government" does not exist in a vacuum, something put them there, and it remains interactive with other societal forces. To separate government out as some special entity distinct from "individuals", especially powerful ones, ignores how governments actually exist. There's military dictatorship on one end, and anarchy on the other, and everything in between, and democracies and constitutional republics and the whole litany. None of them came about in a vacuum, there were at least some people's individual freedom involved in their creations, even if it was only a single person or small group, and of course, on the far end of the spectrum, anarchy, all individuals have complete freedom to do anything. The question remains, "who's individual freedoms" and how do you decide what they are or should be, and why? Does a hungry person have the "natural right" to pick up a gun and steal some food to survive? Does a business owner have the "natural right" to fire all of his workers and hire replacements from slave-labor in a foreign non-Libertarian country?
Libertarians seem to suggest that life without government or perhaps with some sort of ill-defined minimalist government is what’s best. Yet at the same time they also seem to be clear they are not talking about pure anarchy, either as a government or as a marketplace. So just how convenient is it for Libertarians to use individual freedom concepts to criticize what they don't like in government while at the same time not feeling it necessary to accurately outline what they are proposing as an alternative? Will we have voting? If yes, how will it be different? If no, what mechanisms will guarantee the Libertarian utopian conditions they espouse? The basic governmental mechanisms they want must be different than the current basis for the US, since if that were the case, they would simply conclude that we are in fact, living the Libertarian Utopia. Should there be military, police, courts, etc.-and elected or appointed (and if the latter, by whom)? What keeps Libertarians, some of whom will undoubtedly flourish and become powerful in the new Libertarian utopia, from choosing to apply their individual freedoms and power towards market or government coercion, and how will we be sure to recognize and identify it before it becomes a problem? The Libertarians seem to suggest that, left to their own devices, everyone will just behave themselves-- but I'm not quite convinced.
So, there’s talk about “rules” and "responsibilities" here, but conspicuous by their absence are any important details. The description of “constitutional limited government” is pretty much how the United States got to where it is. So exactly how would the Libertarian solution differ? What responsibilities, if any, does a business owner have to its employees? To the environment?
And finally, what if the vast majority of individuals decide, by vote, that they don’t want to live in a country where more and more downtrodden and unhealthy poor are collecting in the streets. Where many low-end jobs are such that workers are forced to compete with third-world slave labor via “free trade”? What if voters vote for social services? Should that be prohibited? How and on what basis? Do Libertarians care if business leaders in their country choose to buy products from non-Libertarian countries that abuse their workers and in the process, leave many of ours out on the street in exchange? How would they handle that? What is the Libertarian solution for the homeless? Is there anything keeping any such Libertarian solutions to these problems from working right now?
The title of this video starts with the words, "a short introduction"....
***** Hayek borrowed his ideas about "spontaneous order" in the free market from Darwin. And in fact, Darwin provides us with a lot of good examples. Darwinian evolution produces haphazard solutions, sometimes dead ends, and organisms that can end up ill adapted when the environment changes. Darwinian evolution is often chaotic, as a "plan" for the future it could just as easily be the fate of the dinosaurs. It is the survival of the fittest, law of the jungle "spontaneous order" that they're talking about. The claim here is it's "orderly and harmonious." That's BS. It's a pipe dream that has no basis in reality. It is a "hope and change" model of planning, and we've seen how fabulous that works out.
***** Watched minutes 4-5. If you honestly believe there's any intelligence found in those comments - you need some fuckin help buddy.
What about the environment? Creating and enforcing regulations that lower pollution requires government spending.
Adam Melkun As a libertarian-type country. Nothing forbids you to enact regulations to protect the environment, assuming we are definitely causing the issue. A company that would allow that to happen probably wouldn't last long. A free market would let that company go under for having such practice according to its population.
Wars are mostly imperialist and the citizenry of the respective parties rarely are informed of the issues.
how do libertarians think about incest? should it be allowed? how do they want to prevent the formation of oligopolies and monopolies?
Schniedelwutz Incest? the magic is "consent" if both party's agree to it let them, monopolies would either delight all consumers, or would be short-lived.
Most libertarians are opposed to incest on the moral level, and believe even without laws, the numbers of people living in incest would be kept down by other means like ostracization, I believe people are individuals and if they are aware of what they are doing, it is none of my business from baning them from doing something even if I disagree. Most libertarians argue real oligopolies and monopolies are not possible on the free market and it is actually the legal framework of the sate influenced by lobying that creates them.
I forgot to add racial and economic inequality
#WakeUp #RiseUp #BringBackLiberty #VoteLibertarian #WildstarForGovernor2018 #Wildstar2018
Just be who I think you should be and live the life I tell you to live. Is there something wrong with you that needs to be fixed? Why don't you think and feel the exact same way as I do about everything?
In the end, every ideal is based on morality. In the case of libertarianism, it's based on the moral belief that every person has 100% rights over his/her life&property. Rothbard, who said that rights and morality must be distinguished, tried to explain this. He said that if people did not have rights over themselves, there are 2 alternatives(I'm not going to talk about the other unprovable but also un-unprovable alternatives, such as a third being like God owes everyone or everyone is owned by me); that some type of people have rights over the property & life of other people, or everyone owes each other to the same degree. Rothbard says that the former is slavery, and therefore is evil. He also talks that this can't be true (as though if trying to strenghthen his arguement) since we are all equal humans, and non of us are sub-human(Why? How? Is Rothbard talking about biology?).
Right there. Why is slavery bad? Sure, myself, you, a 5 year old child, thinks that slavery is bad. But why? It is because we believe so. We (Not all of us btw) have a moral compass to say that owning another person and controlling them against their will is a bad thing. It's because we believe its wrong. We can't prove it wrong. It's just our belief. A libertarian, logical explaination (which claims that it distinguishes rights from morality) would be that slavery is "bad" because it is against the "fact" that everybody owns himself. And that "fact" is true because slavery is "bad." Rothbard deduces the "natural rights of people" from the nature of people. This is, in the end, another "ought-to" and MORAL evaluation. Let's say A's nature is to perform B (Even this "fact" is unproven.) Why is an action that prevents A from doing B wrong? Why? Because it was supposed to happen? Why is violating the so-called "natural law" of something (I say again, this natural law ain't even proven) a bad thing to do? And if it is a bad thing, isn't the whole arguement based on MORALITY? Which is the very thing that Libertarians claim to distinguish from "Rights?" Under the frame of logic, aren't those "Rights" based on MORALITY?
Then comes another question; why is logic right? Everything what I've just written; is it logical? Why? How do I know it's logical? Maybe, everything I written above is pure bullshit. Maybe it's wrong. I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but somehow I belive I know it. Maybe logic doesn't exist. Maybe I don't exist. Everything is bullshit, including this sentence. Maybe not. The sentence "Maybe not" could be bullshit or not. Shiiit, I'm going to spend the rest of my life on how to know that I know that I know. Or maybe not.
Slavery can be proven wrong.
We are living creatures, but our survival is not guaranteed by nature. We need to act in order to find (gather, steal or produce) the material we need to survive - food, water and shelter.
The freedom to act for the attainment of those values is an objective necessity, given by our Nature as human beings. Freedom is a necessity, which means that, without freedom, human life cannot flourish.
Freedom is not a luxury that libertarians stubbornly desire; freedom is a necessity for human survival.
It was Joseph Dejacque, a libertarian communist, who first used the term
"libertarian" in a political sense back in the 19th century. It wasn't
until around the 1950s in North America that the right-wing appropriated
the word, with people like Murray Rothbard
boasting about having "stolen the word from our enemies." The US
"Libertarian" Party itself wasn't created until the 1970s.I'd highly
recommend visiting the Anarchist FAQ, as they have entire sections on right-"libertarianism" and "An"Caps.
I know how to put on a suit and tie and network with the best of them and I will prove it to you.
Quoting Henry Kissinger for an ideal on foreign policy?! Wow. Okay….
Laws should be Objective not arbitrary.
Great video. But I feel it would be better served to find more diverse libertarians. So I'm going to be a bit critical here. You got a bunch of Suit & Tie white folks. Get some Libertarians that are people of color and Alternate orientation and different religions and backgrounds, and get them to expound the virtues of individual liberty and wax poetic on why they are Libertarians.
sounds all fine and dandy....so did communism
No, it didn't. Communism has a few theoretical errors. It does not sound fine and dandy.
Libertarianism is based on the fact that you own your body; and thus, you should be the rightful and legitimate owner of yourself.
How can you argue against that? Who dares to argue against freedom - and logically, in favor of slavery?
I would like to be a libertarian, but 3 problems:
1) The public is too easily manipulated by media (The same interests would arise)
2) There must be a governing system to protect endangered species, go to the moon, etc... (Not necessarily the government)
3) If no taxes, how will the poor survive?
I would love some answers, thanks!
1. The public is already heavily influenced by the media and that's never going to change no matter what form of government you choose.
2. There can be environmental regulations on business and society in a libertarian government. Most likely what would happen though is a private company would prevent the killing of endangered species. (assuming enough people are behind the cause.)
3. If you're referring to welfare then there would be charities set up in the absence of government aid. With the free market there would most likely be more Job openings anyway. Why steal from one man what is rightfully his and give it to random people.
The Geek Machine
1. Different government will have different levels of influence - we should strive to have a form of government that reduces bad information.
2. A private company is going to place environmental regulations on another private company? So a private company is going to tell another private company how to run their business. That's an interesting philosophy. But wait... we already have that in a government. And our government has authority to enforce private companies to obey laws. What authority will this private company have to regulate other private companies?
3. Free market has created record profits for rich people - they're not creating record level jobs - they're just getting record level money. You can proclaim 'it's their money' all you want - they made that money shipping jobs overseas and paying children 2 cents an hour to do the job - and you're complaining about us stealing from them? that's LAUGHABLE at best. They abused people's basic human RIGHTS to get that rich. (not every company... but a lot of the major ones have some form of slave labor)
Justin Beagley 1. Government produces more propaganda and suppresses more thought than competing media institutions. The mainstream media in the United States sucks, but the lowering of costs to PRODUCE this media has greatly diversified media. Smaller groups (in this case, libertarians) have been able to get their ideas out when platforms like UA-cam allow them to cheaply broadcast. Giving government the power to control the media is a terrible idea. Haven't you heard of Joseph Goebbels and Nazi propaganda? History seems to escape people more and more...
2. The environmental regulations by business refers to a business's preference to limit tolls on the environment because that would bring about a loss of profits to them. Think of a logging business: They do not want to chop down all of their trees and would like to promote sustainability, or else they would be out of business very quickly. There is actually an instance in my home state of Florida where Florida panthers (not sure of the species, but it is something of the sort) were extremely endangered. Then a company comes in and buys a lot a property for use as hunting grounds with this endangered species. Then the population of the species INCREASES. If they hunted the panthers (again, correct me if I'm wrong about the species) down to extinction, that would result in a loss of business. I'm not endorsing hunting, but what is better, illegal hunters killing them off, them being dislocated to some foreign environment by the government, or this?
3. China has had double-digit economic growth since their application of capitalist policy. Please research economics and get Keynesian pipe dreams out of your head. People DO have the right to become rich, but so do business owners. By increasing government (and its regulations), you discourage small business from even happening. And when the government increases taxes on rich people, the rich simply move to another country. The unions, regulations, and taxes are what have exported jobs. And if you really don't like young children in China making your clothes, you have the RIGHT to not buy Chinese goods. But you still will because American unions make some American goods way too expensive without much increase in quality. If those children do not like their jobs, they can get new ones that pay better with a better boss. If it is slave labor or they physically cannot move jobs, we have a human rights violation on our hands. And this is what separates libertarianism from anarchism, which are too commonly confused. Libertarians believe that the government's only job is to protect life, liberty, and property. Everything else, government does a poor and expensive job of.
Tom Bryant 2. you didn't answer my question at all... you just rambled on about how in a libertarian society things will be better.
What AUTHORITY will a private company have to tell another private company how to run their business?
Justin Beagley There needs to be no private authority to regulate. People govern themselves. I actually gave real-world examples of how businesses can keep themselves under control and it works better than government and their regulations. Please re-read what I said. I'm not trying to be condescending, but you really didn't grasp the concept.
Tom Woods
Can anyone explain how libertarian policy would help the unemployed? I can't find clear information about that.
And is libertarianism all about the individual, or does it also recognize the benefit of the collective?
SimonWieger Right off the bat, libertarians do not believe in collectives. Everyone is their own moral compass. As a libertarian, there's no certain way to help everyone. Everyone has the creative capability to become rich or not poor. In a free market, the unemployment rate would be much lower than it is now. For example, I had an ice cream shop, if there were no minimum wage, I could hire 5 people for $2. (resulting in less unemployment). Hypothetically, if the minimum wage was 10$, I could only hire 2 people. (Higher Unemployment).
Libertarianism is all about the individual, who lives for his own, as long as his actions are not motivated by other people and allow others to do the same. As per the unemployed question, we believe unregulated market which allows for stuff like lemonade stands, ultra small business and no minimum wage would help the poor
Most of the unemployed is caused by minimum wage meaning they higher better people the unemployed people just not working as then they won’t get benefits
@@stepaniki3319
But how is someone supposed to live from 2 dollars an hour? That's impossible!
@@Trainrhys
Sorry, your comment is hard to figure out. It's really not clear what you want to say.
I have a strong leaning towards libertarian thought, but I always come back to the fact that in the USA, it was the federal government that had to intervene to protect women, Native Americans, African Americans, and others from what the people (the States actually) were imposing on them. Add to that the 'hands off' approach to the economy that the Hoover administration took that led to the Depression. I wish I could reconcile those things.
Brian Gallegos And slavery wouldn't have been abolished if the northern states didn't pass legislature. The rich southerners had the money (and the representation; 3/5ths clause) to have the fed in their pocket.
Garrett Millard Really? Because it was abolished pretty much everywhere else in the world. And nations who treated slaves even worse than you US did, didn't have to have a bloody civil war to do it.
He followed the no-interference approach that had worked very well until then, meaning the budget had to be balanced no matter what.
Brian Gallegos Hoover's own words:
We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times…. For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered…. They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.
Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for … "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom…. We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.
There's a better article on it here
mises.org/library/hoovers-attack-laissez-faire
It's still undeniable that his policies didn't get the country out of the mess that his policies helped cause. The lack of regulation contributed to the disaster. And we're as much risk now as the. Clinton started the de-regulation that's now the order of the day. Will we never learn that corporations will always act in their own interests no matter what havoc they cause?
"Too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious!" said the man who owned and refused to free hundreds of slaves.
Haha what the fuck
Your comment simply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the institution of slavery which still exists in many parts of the World today. I'm not saying I condone slavery. Just that it was and still is. How many countries can you name that fought a war to end it in their society?
@@rkba4923 "You think you're a fan of anti-slavery? Haha right. Name one of their albums."
How is a free society orderly and harmonious? Shouldn’t failed states be orderly and harmonious? Somalia, Syria?
Failed states aren't free societies. A free society has mechanisms to sustain order and harmony. It's a misconception that libertarianism is just lawless chaos, it is instead a private law society with laws evolving organically based on what people go by, tending towards convergence.
Tell everyone I am the man who does not blink and I want to prove it to you.
Remember when I left everyone alone but that wasn't good enough?
"We must secure the existence of our corporations and a future for tax avoidance." - traditional Libertarian proverb
*****
You tell me, Captain Weeboo?
+Valter Sarajevo "and a future for tax avoidance" Are you implying that tax avoidance is a bad thing?
deklor
Depends on who is doing the avoiding.
I support tax avoidance for poor people and oppose tax avoidance for rich people and multinational corporations.
That seems a bit arbitrary.
deklor
Ok.
amen, hope taiwan would have this voice strongly 🙏
Winnreck...your right we can't save everyone. Hmmmm thats what God is for.
anarchists are the true libertarians
Now DCFS can look in your prescription records without a warrant: ua-cam.com/video/B3Do7Qfmde0/v-deo.html
Adam Smith was not a Libertarian,nor he would be one if he was alive today.
I think I want libertarian "lite". My issue is how they have manipulated the "as long as you don't harm others" during the pandemic and sold people that anti-maskers and anti-vax are a danger to others. So how did this all get puppeteered?
So there is no such thing as we the people because that will never mean 100% o the population and that makes it void.
Don't tell me who to be or how to live my life because I tried it your way and it doesn't work for me. Who are you again?
In fact bring over the entire Department of Defense and the military industrial complex I would like to talk to you about some things. I have some special warrants I think you should ask for in the name of my ex-wife.
You took my family away from me and now there is a price to pay.
I gave love a chance but this Catholic woman just used it as a weapon against me Amen.
I would like it to be the competent in charge and the weaker people under, but they tilt that stage. We can't even stop them from becoming complacent, as they've stolen so much power. Now debt is what we have, not as much substance. It's a void of pointless consumption where we are ripped apart for different interests we can't see but belong to. "A man cannot have two masters." -- Bible. If your slaves aren't productive, you yield no crops. People need basic things like sleep, food, shelter, and water. Otherwise, they will die.
On a very related topic, I wish all the Ayn Rand haters would come out and explain what it is specifically that they don't agree with. All I've read were critiques against her writing (I myself think she wasn't by far the best writer around) but what about Ayn Rand the philosopher?
While I'm at it I also wish people would stop launching personal attacks (''she's a selfish prick'', whatever). Some of the best artists are pricks. Including socialist ones.
she was on medicare when she died..shes a hypocrite..there...
I'm a socialist. From what I've seen of her interviews on television, I actually like Ayn Rand as a person. There is no hating about it. On her philosophy though, I think it's b.s.
Perhaps the biggest point of disagreement I would have with Rand is her notion that questions of values can decided objectively. To me, that is clearly and logically false.
Add to that the fact that I personally reject the notion of self interest as a measure of all things, and the rest all flows from there.
+papackar I'll agree with that assessment
So you like mooching off other people..
Governments are dangerous so let's give them the most important functions possible - justice, defense. yeah, makes perfect sense.
Tomas Horvath sooo much truth.
anybody heard of the basic income idea floating around? basically cut all programs and send every citizen a check it leaves the government to not fuck anyone and everyone else to live life away from the edge.
***** So instead of the government 'fucking' with people - you're advocating that people fuck with each other?
Yeah - that just sounds like a retarded fucking idea.
the government is inefficient when it comes to redistributing the tax dollars. so why not raise taxes on billionaires and send everyone the same amount of money each month.
***** Umm... yeah, we don't make the claim that they are inefficient at redistributing tax dollars. In fact, they're actually really good at it, the only problem is that certain laws create loop holes so it doesn't occur as much as we'd like it to.
The resolution then is not to 'get rid of government' - the resolution is to change the laws.
--
There's also no argument presented that states that everyone should get the same money... that's an ad hominem fallacy (inferring that we're evil communists) and that's also a red herring fallacy. Libertarianism is for the mental midgets. Always has been, always will be.