Libertarianism vs. Liberalism: What's the Difference? | Polandball/Ideologyball History & Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 кві 2023
- 📢Thank you Nations & Cannons for sponsoring this video! www.kickstarter.com/projects/... 🎲Use our exclusive promo code Ezekiel to get a free pdf of the Nations and Cannons core rulebook! 💬And join the Nations and Cannons Discord: / discord
🥰Patreon: / callmeezekiel
▶️UA-cam Memberships: / @callmeezekiel
⭐SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/CallMeE...
🙏PayPal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_...
💬 Join our Discord: / discord
📨Subscribe to our free newsletter: callmeezekiel.substack.com/
📺Catch our livestreams on Twitch: / callmeezekiel
👽Join the conversation on our official Subreddit: / callmeezekielofficial
🐦Follow us on Twitter: / callmeezekielyt
📚Main sources and further reading:
💭A New History of Western Philosophy: amzn.to/3Ni5DZP
🟰Rights of Man: amzn.to/3LgoqBZ
💡Common Sense: amzn.to/3Ve4eFk
✊Radicals for Capitalism: amzn.to/3lQLw9T
😂It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand: amzn.to/3m0vF8D
📈Human Action: amzn.to/3h6F2ks
⛓️The Road to Serfdom: amzn.to/3nDgsuM
🦅The Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority: amzn.to/3zBUMSR
🙏The God of the Machine: amzn.to/3FwhUWC
💀Anatomy of the State: amzn.to/3FyVgwP
🗳️Democracy: The God that Failed: amzn.to/3h4lInS
⌛A Short History of Man: amzn.to/3WpR7kA
🤝Mutual Aid: amzn.to/3WpRyeI
🌎Atlas Shrugged: amzn.to/3NyA3F9
🌇The Fountainhead: amzn.to/3FDzSGQ
🤔Philosophy: Who Needs It?: amzn.to/3ftG2yv
👁️Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: amzn.to/3SVBFtJ
👨💻The Virtue of Selfishness: amzn.to/3UljFdr
💰Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: amzn.to/3gRAfmy
✍️The Romantic Manifesto: amzn.to/3SX8d6v
⚙️The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism amzn.to/41vwC7S
Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Crypto: 💸
🟠BTC: bc1qj2szqj0h0rj2zz5x0zdhr8fzrh85zmatwxht26
🔵ETH: 0x0344A4aF3eCe5F8E5C0f65FC4c7eB667bf31cD60
You can also watch us on... 👀
❤️Odysee: odysee.com/@CallMeEzekiel
💚Rumble: rumble.com/CallMeEzekiel
💬Learn about Libertarianism, Liberalism, John Locke, The Glorious Revolution and the humanities at large with CallMeEzekiel in this fun and informative video presented in the Polandball/Countryball style.
📢Thank you Nations & Cannons for Sponsoring this video! www.kickstarter.com/projects/flagbearergames/the-american-crisis-a-nations-and-cannons-adventure-for-dnd-5e?ref=1gv93h 🎲Use our exclusive promo code Ezekiel to get a free pdf of the Nations and Cannons core rulebook! 💬And join the Nations and Cannons Discord: discord.gg/CjNVyGJ
🥰Patreon: www.patreon.com/CallMeEzekiel
▶UA-cam Memberships: ua-cam.com/channels/nZ1r94_Ptz_1gN5VBnE0Mg.htmljoin
⭐SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/CallMeEzekiel
🙏PayPal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=EAQPBZ8VHGFL6
💬 Join our Discord: discord.gg/callmeezekiel
📚Main sources and further reading:
💭A New History of Western Philosophy: amzn.to/3Ni5DZP
🟰Rights of Man: amzn.to/3LgoqBZ
💡Common Sense: amzn.to/3Ve4eFk
✊Radicals for Capitalism: amzn.to/3lQLw9T
😂It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand: amzn.to/3m0vF8D
📈Human Action: amzn.to/3h6F2ks
⛓The Road to Serfdom: amzn.to/3nDgsuM
🦅The Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority: amzn.to/3zBUMSR
🙏The God of the Machine: amzn.to/3FwhUWC
💀Anatomy of the State: amzn.to/3FyVgwP
🗳Democracy: The God that Failed: amzn.to/3h4lInS
⌛A Short History of Man: amzn.to/3WpR7kA
🤝Mutual Aid: amzn.to/3WpRyeI
🌎Atlas Shrugged: amzn.to/3NyA3F9
🌇The Fountainhead: amzn.to/3FDzSGQ
🤔Philosophy: Who Needs It?: amzn.to/3ftG2yv
👁Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: amzn.to/3SVBFtJ
👨💻The Virtue of Selfishness: amzn.to/3UljFdr
💰Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: amzn.to/3gRAfmy
✍The Romantic Manifesto: amzn.to/3SX8d6v
⚙The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism amzn.to/41vwC7S
Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Crypto: 💸
🟠BTC: bc1qj2szqj0h0rj2zz5x0zdhr8fzrh85zmatwxht26
🔵ETH: 0x0344A4aF3eCe5F8E5C0f65FC4c7eB667bf31cD60
You can also watch us on... 👀
❤Odysee: odysee.com/@CallMeEzekiel
💚Rumble: rumble.com/CallMeEzekiel
Hey, can you do a video on Corporatism & Distributism?
@bastiat It’s a bit more complicated than that.
@bastiat Distributism isn’t socialism actually. It comes from Catholic Social Teaching, and it’s about localism & decentralization of society into small private family-owned business.
Bro really used Bad Apple instrumental as the background music for a not insignificant portion of the video
How about a Video about national libertarians?
The EU4 revolt sound giving me a panic attack, here have a like.
Here, have a like
@@curry_be_tasty5051
Here have a like
You havent played enough eu4 to make you happy
The Vic2 one is even worse
@@Frodudus the socialist revolts that revolt before the last socialist revolt was finished...
The more I learn about Libertarianism, the more I realize that it really only exists in the US. As a European interested in politics, I have never seen or heard about any party advocating anything close to the Libertarian ideals shown here.
I know what you mean. But comparing both libertarianism Vs stateism I see both sides advantages and disadvantages. I would say one can easily see on which side one is with asking himself the question: "would you allow someone else to stop you from doing something bad?"
@@georgforster8114 I mean, yeah. And honestly if you consider that at some point you were a child and hopefully had parents to take care of you, that highlights the issue I have with Libertarianism (one of many tbh) and also shows why such an ideology only makes sense in a culture as freedom-obsessed as the USA
I guess I really am just some flavor of liberal.
In my country we have 2 libertarian parties. Libertarian communities are very prevelant in countries USA, Brazil, Argentina and Czechia, just to name a few.
Konfederacja in Poland has something very akin to this ideology, just on the social side they full on Catholic
@@RealBadgerScrutiny But it's still quite funny that even JKM doesn't discribe himself as libertarian but as "conservative(classical) liberal"
Civil war D&D?
“I cast slavery!”
*rolls dice*
Honestly John Brown would be a great D&d character
Its everywhere. Roll for effect.
I am not a "slave owner", I am a Negromancer.
Does being in the South give you advantage?
@@justaghostinthesea it give you an extra 1d 4 to your Rascism saving throw
“It was not impossible to build Rapture at the bottom of the sea. It was impossible to build it anywhere else.”
-Andrew Ryan
You might want to tell a large proportion of libertarians that libertarianism isn't just meant to be a justification of their degeneracy.
That was one of the reasons I kind of stop Identifying as a Libertarian. I pretty much am still one but we have some wackos that make it very cringe to describe yourself as Libertarian.
The root cause of aggression and degeneracy is high time preference.
Almost all ideologies have their most-radical's being the vocal minority. Right wing has racists, leftists have commies, and so on.
Lmao you confusing leftists who say they are libertarian biggest psyop ever
@@Wyatt_B I get what you are saying but left wing and right wing aren't ideologies. It came from describing the seating arrangements of politicians during the French revolution. the radicals sat on the left and conservatives sat on the right.
I am strongly libertarian politically and identify as a right libertarian, but "the government shouldn't control you" does not mean "you can do whatever the fvck you want."
It should mean more like, "the government has no right to control you (to an extent obviously), but you have the responsibility to control yourself".
I just recently found out about Autarchism, which apart from its denial of the state's existence is a pretty good descriptor of what I mean. Basically, self-government.
its impossible without state. If a group of people mutually agree on certain things out of necessity in order to live together, it is called a constitution. This is the state indirectly. So minarchism is the most practicable libertarianism. state is only the enforcer of the non-aggression principle to prevent chaos.
I think ‘you can do whatever you want with no responsibility’ is more of a caricature of modern libertarianism, unfortunately one that is easy for opponents (as they control the media) to pass off as reality.
me when i replace a government i can somewhat influence using elections with a hierarchic corporation/oligopoly
Libertarianism is the best party in the world,
Libertarianism is true democracy,
Thanks Ezekiel for partnering with us! Happy to answer any questions about Nations & Cannons in the comments here.
I think I'll be backing this project up. It looks really impressive, and as a map lover that one detail really intrigued me
@bastiat I think that in most wars, there's rarely a cut-and-dry good and bad side. The line soldiers are often very far removed from the political reasoning for the conflict, and they are almost never the BENEFICIARIES of the war (see: the repeated struggle for pensioners to be compensated after the American Revolution in events like Shay's Rebellion).
The Revolutionary War was at its core a conflux of different mercantile interests, and ultimately it was British shipping firms putting pressure on Lord North that led to his resignation (after a long war of attrition ate into their profits). Yorktown was really the straw that broke the camel's back. None of these decisions filtered down to the level of individual citizens; the landed gentry class more or less caught the reigns of power. The American Experiment is one of "all men created equal" that was gradually (and grudgingly) extended to the citizenry through further political movements and protests.
The US Civil War is a whole different beast, and not my area of specialty, so I can't quite speak authoritatively to that. While it's true that Lincoln first set out to preserve the Union as a political entity-not to free enslaved peoples-this objective did gradually shift over the course of the war, especially as manpower shortages led to more black soldiers being admitted to the army, and radical abolitionism became a more popular mainstream idea.
I think if there's ever such a thing as a just war, one that was waged to liberate people is as close as you're going to get. Reconstruction, sadly, was another story.
Can I LARP as Judge Holden and massacre indigenous minorities? Or is it really just focused on the Civil War aspect?
What is included in the Poor Richard's Almanac booklet?
How do I use the promo code?
I would argue that at least some libertarians want to legalize vices not out of darwinian disregard for people's welfare, but because it's the best way to mitigate the damage those vices do to society. The point could certainly be argued, though.
Both can be true at the same time
Both can be true, also the fact that what the Government does always generally makes the situation worse off than it already was.
Not legalize, depenalize, less interventions lesss vices. Look the prohibition law in the 20s
You Come on my lawn while smoking meth you get smoked. Is the mindset of a real libertarian idea.
I wanna legalize vices because I believe in freedom to make your own decisions. If you wanna drink and smoke weed that's none of the government's buisness. The government shouldn't tell us how to live our own lives.
The Natural / Human rights dichotomy presented here is really the Negative / Positive rights dichotomy.
The so called "human rights" concept is so irrational
@@cyberedge881 okay. so do you think you have a right to exercise your reason as you see fit for the sake of formulating that opinion?
@@cyberedge881 I assume this opinion comes from a mind that thinks itself the peak of rationality.
Wait... am I a revolutionary?!
We are 🥰
Just wanted to let you know that I think you are one of the most interesting youtubers on the platform. Keep up the good work!
Ok 7:25 is insane. The artstyle, the music... 10/10 work by the guy who made this, as well as those in the previous vid.
It's a JOJO reference and the music is Dummy from Undertale
Can't wait for the examination of how Hans Herman Hoppe's brand of Libertarianism fits in here.
Hoppe is so underappreciated
As a Hoppe enjoyer myself, I'd call him a Reactionary Revolutionary. Revolving against the past in favor of the future, while using the past as a guide.
Hoppe is the brains of the movement, and definitely Revolutionary. Argumentation Ethics provides a Deontological basis for the NAP and Natural Rights, and this foundation makes truly Hoppean AnCaps unassailable to Gnostic Utilitarian influences. A Libertarian that rejects Hoppe either did not understand his arguments, or is not a Libertarian.
@@kasimirfreeman Or they are slaves to their ideals and believe the natural order need to apply in comparison to their feelings.
Voluntary exclusionaryism is a hard pill tl swallow for many libertarians
@@vaporwavevocap literally nrx
9:12 come to think of it, _Vermin Supreme_ would make a great JoJo arc
>Don't want to make the USA into a Province of the HRE
But Ezekiel, I am a Feudalist.
Everyone is a feudalist until they are the peasant.
@@Amantducafe
>Actually own my own land
>Taxes drop to 20% from 50%
>Master of my Fate
>Required to bear Arms by Feudal obligation
I don't see the drawback.
@@semi-useful5178 I do see them because i am a land owner by inheritance from a place where nobility still exist but remains silent.
-Land is finite, good land is even more finite. If all land is taken when you are born then there is no land for you and good luck getting a land reform with Feudalism.
-I agree you can completely avoid taxes if there is no one above you but if there is someone above you, that means you will be taxed.
- I don't believe in supernatural Fate but i believe in being born and tied to a reality outside your control at birth a reality that limits actions and thoughts where we are never truly in full control.
-Yeah the feudal obligation to bear arms is nice, but just for me, i don't want the peasants i lease land to work to be armed and become a threat to my system, do you?
@@Amantducafe
If your vassals are a threat to you you deserve what is coming
@@Amantducafe Our idea of medieval feudalism is influenced by liberal revolutionaries who overthrow it.
Peasants is not the same as serfs for example
It was not a gloomy dark clouded
I think this video does a good job at showing why we libertarians tend to confuse leftists. We use rights to describe being left alone, while leftists tend to use them to describe entitlements, and thereby use equal rights to reach anti-equalitarian conclusions. It also nice to be able to take the "has never been tried" arguement from our rival tribe: the communists.
This also helps explain why someone like Moldbug who repulses liberals can come out of disillusioned libertarian thought.
As a radical centrist, I really love you libertarians.
Im pretty sure leftists see liberty of greater importance than equality. It is rare to find a communist who endorses pol pot's socalisation of poverty. Communism doesn't advocate for the type of equality found amongst slaves, but rather the type that creates conditions wherefrom an individual may realise their potential. The point of divergence between commies and libs is the matter of whether an employers relation to a worker is exploitative. The state is viewed as a tool of repression by communists, and is something to be abolished, to quote lenin, "While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State."
In essence the left view rights as positive rights while the right libertarian view rights as negative rights
This is wrong actually, libertarians use rights to describe entitlements too, that's literally what property rights are. "I am entitled to this property and anyone who disagrees with this entitlement will be subject to violence".
We are the right wing marxists jsjjsjsjs
“Rules of Nature” as the closing song was incredible. Thank you very much for this 🤣
I personally prefer contrasting Libertarianism with Anarchism.
While the Anarchist believes the state is both evil and useless, the Libertarian believes the state is evil yet necessary or unavoidable, sometimes useful even.
But they are also libertarian who are (from your definition) anarchiats, alao wanting to abolish the state as immoral and evil coercive Force
@@neonschaf Anarchists fail to realize that in the absence of a state, government forms organically to fill a vacuum. The only exception is if you're so technologically regressive that you can only communicate over small distances.
And if you were to have an Anarchist revolution, in order to maintain the status of the land as an anarchist region you'd have to oppress and persecute those who'd organize among themselves, thus paradoxically forming a government in its own right.
That's why I refuse to take Anarchists seriously as a political entity, only as the potential threat they pose. The de facto Anarchist doesn't exist, only a mentally ill adult-baby.
No, the libertarian dont believe that xd, didt see the video my dude?. The core diference is the teory of value, that the prices in the market are objective or subjetive. Nothing more
2 Main types of libertarians:
1- Minarchist: Those who believe that the state should be minimal (a professional army + plus a justice/settlements system) it could be also included an emergency system, but that’s it. They use the natural hierarchy (pyramidal shaped social structure) for the minimum required, to deal with violence and injustice.
2- Anarcoindividualist: They are made by 3 types of anarchist, Anarco mutualism, anarcocapitalism, anarcoegoism, they basically believe in having some foundation to deal with violence and injustice, but it should be decentralized, using small corporations or an alike setting, with an universal contract as law being the natural rights obviously, so there is no longer risk for the pyramidal structure to get growing again, since, well, it won’t exist.
as far as i can see the only thing the only behavior libertarians want to abolish
is behavior that harms other people
that makes libertarianism liberal based on the first spectrum of France
by equal they mean equal in rights
not economic outcomes
Voluntaryism: Because we're comfortable not needing everyone onboard for our ideas to "work"
It's still more morally consistent than any form of statism.
I have heard the terms Liberal and Libertarian quite a few times, but never really looked up what they meant.
This is very nice, thank you for making this. ❤
As a libertarian, the only thing I want is my government to actually respect the Constitution instead of using it to wipe their ass and tiptoe around it. The system can work pretty well if it's not constantly abused
American Constitution is not a libertarian document, and "states rights" are not libertarian in any sense.
@@user-lj5wy6rx3h As an American Conservative, I agree.
@@user-lj5wy6rx3h I think there’s a lot of small government conservatives and constitutionalist that think that’s what libertarianism is. Which in all fairness is closer to what they want than the current Conservative Party (and certainly the democrat party) but I digress.
@@yourlocalyoutubecommenter constitution is binding "federal" power in relation to "state" power - both of these are governments. You could say, binding, outlining and specifying these powers serves to legitimize them. By the way, I' not a libertarian, but if they were here, they would shriek and cry at the "states' sovereignty" part.
@@user-lj5wy6rx3h is the bill of rights a libertarian document ?
The problem is that social issues don’t just “resolve themselves without the state”, they do resolve themselves if left alone, just the people who do the resolving will now wield a significant amount of power for having resolved them. Power that can be used to displace the libertarian order either via creating new problems or outright overpowering it, with the latter being easier if the libertarian order in question is of the anarchist variety.
Minarchists might be able to deal with this problem better since they maintain a state with a professional military to put down such threats when they become too advanced, but that is assuming that the state doesn’t expand (as it always does) to displace the libertarian order itself. This is one of the many reasons you see disillusioned libertarians either become conservatives, or take on much more forceful views like libertarian monarchy.
Good comment.
Freedom is not free. Libertarian ideals required an active participation by everyone within the (Libertarian) society in order to defend other's rights and liberty to enjoy their vices.
If someone or some group of people ever try to "resolve" any "social issues" by forcing their own idealism/"solution" on others, then we (Libertarians) must defend the persecuted (i.e. the "degenerates").
In short, we will defend your rights and liberty to enjoy your vices against the threat of those self-righteous a-holes.
I can't quite tell the difference between Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism
Both believe in freedom over equality,
Both wants to abolish the state,
Both believe that a government enforcing its will upon its people by force is wrong,
Both are fundamentally right wing in nature,
So what's the difference?
@@KaiHung-wv3ul 1. Libertarianism calls for *small government,* NOT outright abolition of all authority (i.e. anarchy/anarcho-capitalism).
"Small govt" has many definition/variants, but IMO government should only focus on 2 things, namely:
(1) Maintaining *internal order* thru law enforcement and justice system, and
(2) Protect the society from *external threat* by organizing collective defense (i.e. Military).
That's it.
No wealth redistribution, no licensing (e.g. license to sell foodstuffs or medicine), no foreign adventure or offensive war, no propping up foreign govt or international aid.
Individual citizens are ofc free help whoever they want (i.e. private charity) and to travel abroad to help people in foreign countries, but they shall do it with *their own resources.*
2. _"Both believe in freedom over equality"_
Freedom as in "equal opportunity" (thru your "natural rights"), but NOT "equal result".
With equal opportunity, the best people will eventually came out on top. There will be winners and losers, and so be it. In other words, a *meritocracy.*
Libertarian monarchy is the way to go since republics even without democracy are prone to be influenced by the mob. Federal libertarian monarchy and abolition of democracy aka tyranny of the masses is the best solution for this.
You had me intrigued with the HRE flag ove mainland US. Now I want an American version of the HRE
The USA has the Electoral College!
@@robertortiz-wilson1588THE NATION CALLS!
I think most radical libertarians/Anarchists would agree libertarianism has never really been tried
Most likely due to a similar fate to true communism, anarchism, and capitalism.
It will be very utopian (even if no one likes the word in any sense) and how society/state would react to it.
@@remanscimitar Never heard anyone say that capitalism has never been tried, since it worked, but yeah anarchism falls into the same category as "Real Communism".
@@KaiHung-wv3ul there is no 100% capitalist society in the world or it would've actually crumbled, realistically it never worked (and the us is closer to corporatism than capitalism, even if the system used is mixed).
Liechtenstein is pretty much libertarian, trough.
@@remanscimitar libertarianism ≠ Anarchy
another absolute banger, your editing and new scene intro cards keep getting better, your ad read is for something legit and a product of much thought, sheesh each video you inspire again for the roark style life, thanks
LIBERTARIAN JOJO REFERENCE!!!!
I think a very important distinction to make is that many who call themselves libertarian do believe in the equality of man, but what's most important is that man is equally free to pursue their own profit and happiness. While it can be argued that man may never be equally free in a word where there is power inequality, what's important in the libertarian mind is that no matter your status, with enough hard work, you can achieve what you set out to do. Become rich, own land, be a gun loving nutjob, innovate technology, learn new things, or even disappear completely. Everyone should be equally free to set out and obtain whatever future they set out for as long as they put in the work to achieve it. That is why there is an anti-federalist sentiment among many libertarians, because they usually see the state as an entity that should promote this world but usually ends up being an obstacle by making it impossibly difficult to take control of your own life.
Just because everyone wants to be equally free doesn't mean everyone will be born with the equal opportunity to freely be all those things.
Of those mentioned only being a gunnut and disappearing completely are the things that everyone could technically achieve achieve, everything else will be limited by luck or birth and nurture which means it can fail. Because the truth is, not everyone can be rich, not everyone can own land (plus its finite) not everyone can be smart enough to be innovative nor learn new things and definitely not everyone will achieve it through just sheer hard work, they can increase their chances, but its no guarantee.
It is idealistic but hey, dreams are made from ideas after all.
Us moderate liberals and libertarians are brothers, some of us even vote libertarian due to the similarities.
As a libertarian, God bless the moderate/libertarian brotherhood
But what are globalist???
@@HKNative217 Sandwhiches
I loved how you used Polcompball, it deserves more recognition
Interesting Video! And of course at best illustrated! I especially appreciate the part “right wing revolutionaries”, since it explains a lot about libertarian thought on (in)equality. And it is most likely the reason, why so many people (even some libertarians) do not understand Hans-Hermann Hoppe's content because they do not understand and overlook his harsh rhetoric, but the content, would every libertarian agree upon. He is really not talking about something else.
Based hoppe
It's untrue. We cannot be reactionary cause we don't want to re-do society, neither change man, we just want the state out of us. Think like this, you go visit your mexican nephew and he lives into a drug cartel dominated area. Saying that the cartel should not exist and that it doesnt have any rights is reactionary? We're not trying to change how your nephew and family lives, nor society. What we're saying is that the state is the ultimate thug, isn't a legotimate entity and it shouldn't exist.
I love your political videos. I have learned so much from this channel, keep up the good work
Found you through Nations & Cannons! Awesome video!
Bruh just out here dropping straight bangers and people still sleeping on this channel. You deserve all the subs.
Videos talking about National Liberalism and Conservative Liberalism would be good.
You mean fake Liberalism
I guess I discovered I’m more libertarian than classic liberal in the sense of placing natural/human rights above all other.
I don't know how this channel only has 80k subs, it's awsome! I love the style of the vids!
Learned more from this than from any of the libertarians i've actually talked to. Good work mn.
Fr. Got into a heated conversation with my cuz and turns out he was just drunk and didn't know what the hell he's talking about. It abruptly ended with him telling me to kill myself and that he'd like to see it. 😅
Libertarianism is interesting because of their view of equality; as it's predicated on the individual and natural rights. Essentially- you are equal in that we are both human, you have the right to defend yourself, the right to property, and the right to make your way in the world, but it ends there. People are inherently unequal in the sense that people are different; some are smarter, some stronger, etc; however, in many cases if not most, it is the individual that can make themselves stronger or smarter- therefore actual inequality lies within the difference in temperament, those who are willing to strive and those who are not. So Libertarianism believes in equality of rights but diverges in that said rights must be universally enforced for a universal outcome on the basis of sentiment, and the state only exists to ensure that there is no infringement on said base rights, but outside of that their borderline ancap.
(Note: I am a libertarian who uses the term NAP unironically)
"The good lord made all of us out of iron. Then he turns up the heat to forge some of us into steel."
-Marie Osmund
the ironic thing about libertarianism is that by the very nature of its ideals anyone who would run for office under a libertarian party is inherently the worst kind of libertarian, and fails to exemplify libertarian ideals... because if you think about it... a libertarian politician is something of an oxymoron. it would be like someone running for a theocratic party while being an atheist. by its very nature they fail to embody the group the are supposed to represent.
Not sure I agree. For an anarcho-capitalist yes but for a more moderate libertarian that does not seek the complete destruction of the state there is not necessarily a contradiction here
Athiest representing theocrats. So Machiavellian thought.
I think a Libertarian politicians is possible then. Even if they’re not exemplifying it, they’re fighting for it long-term, because they believe in its good.
dont get me wrong, im not saying its "impossible" im saying any one that exists is just bad at representing the party. a conservative party can find an true conservative and a liberal party can find a true liberal, same for socialists, communists, all across the board because at the end of the day they embrace government to varying degrees. however by the very nature of its core values libertarians cant really do that. anyone who would run on a libertarian ticket is by default the worst possible option to represent their "peers" this is how you end up with libertarian candidates who run on the ticket while personally believing in the diametrically opposed socialist values (as happened in 2020 if i recall) by the very virtue of its core values any "libertarian politician" is the least representative of libertarian values and ideals.
so put simply, any "libertarian politician" is the worst possible representative among all available libertarians, if (like that socialist) you can even consider them libertarian at all. by the very nature of libertarianism finding a proper representative willing to join the cogs of government and be a politician is an almost sisyphean task.
@@e.corellius4495 not necessarily. Perhaps not in current political climates, but I could see someone come up who strictly deregulated and devolves only.
All it takes is a politician that wishes to weaken the government, disband the burreacracy, etc. A politician to run on a platform or putting politicians out of a job, or atleast dramatically reduce their own power. Not inherently contradictory, but an interesting little self own of sorts.
I just love the Playlist playing in the Background. Very nice
17:25 Rules of Nature should be considered worldwide Ancap/Liberterian main representative song.
I'm my own master now is another option tbf
@@belthesheep3550 True, true.
I don't think it makes a ton of sense to say libertarianism is ok with "degeneracy" only because it'll "sort itself out". like there are bigots who identify as libertarian, but the approach most would take is just that if something makes someone happy they should be able to enjoy it. that bigotry isn't integral to the ideology
Dont really get what you are trying to say here, but if you want an example of what a libertarian racist would think I can provide it. It would be line of reasoning something along the lines of "the minorities are genetically driven to engage in socially degenerate behavior that would see them destroy themselves if it was not for the intervention of the state, so in order to destroy the minorities we must get rid of the state."
This is... a wild take?
To keep it short, I believe that DEV (Short Fat Otaku) got it right in describing Liberals and Libertarians in broad lines, but still fails to understand ANCAP on a fundemental level because of the "is/ought" regarding what we ANCAPs say and how the world has been rolling out.
DEV's " Liberty, Fraternity, Equality " is pretty spot-on.
Both good channels.
12:20 is a masterpiece
can you make a video on the intelectual justifications of divine right? i really want to know, especially from a catholic perspective
I would like to see this as well. 👍
Anyone who believes Medieval Iceland was Libertarian (or better yet, a Libertarian Paradise) either fundamentally misunderstands medieval Iceland, it’s political structure and culture, or Fundamentally misunderstands Libertarianism
It’s probably a combination of both.
Or other two diametrically opposite options:
1) Desires for Libertarianism to have a precedent of failure, letting confirmation bias get over lack of actual evidence in support
2) Desires for Libertarianism to have a precedent of success, letting confirmation bias get over lack of actual evidence in support
I absolutely loved this video. However, your video on the Friekorps is still my favorite.
2:05 "China will grow larger"
The nostalgia man!
Do you play the ROTR mod?
@@akumaking1 unfortunately not
Libertarians just want to be left alone and honestly for all the people shitting on them, they should at least learn some economic responsability from them, that skill is soarly lacking.
its been something I've been struggling with myself when it comes to dealing with the social costs incurred from vices. so we just let our friends and family rot? it always seems so cruel. But considering that the only real alternative to letting them learn from the school of hard knocks is to have the state legislate morality and we all know the state doesn't follow its own rules at all or secretly benefits from those vices behind closed doors which is FAR worse. (epstien island anyone?)
One is based,the other is cringe, that's the difference
Liberalism based
Good luck Argentina, probably the one nation that is trying to get as near to true libertarianism as possible.
Could you do a video about Christian Democracy and Distributism?
Distributism is the best system of economics and social organisation.
Edit: what’s even better, is the range of Distributists. From the economic left and right, to authoritarians, to ‘libertarian’ verities, to progressives, to conservatives.
Discord notifs come in handy once again
I am rightwing revolutionairy i guess.
Break the chains.
Halfway through the video, this really goes off the rails
anyone can help me to find the background music at the first part around 4.45 and 5.30 ? Ive heard it first in a game called bowmaster n since couldn't find the name
ua-cam.com/video/3wv_8V011n4/v-deo.html pretty sure this is it
Classical liberalism still goated
I want to see you make a video of Hoppeanism vs classical libertarianism. It would make a wonderful video.
It's less that modern liberalism is the next step of classical liberalism, more so it's something else entirely that uses the name. Liberalism was and is concerned with limiting the powers of government through natural rights, the rule of law, and ultimately individual sovereignty. America was the most successful application of liberal principles, with its emphasis on individualism and equality under the law. Disagree with the idea the US Constitution wasn't trying to limit the powers of the federal government. One doesn't design a system of checks & balances, and specifically enumerate that any power not designated to the federal government is reserved for more local bodies, unless he intends to limit powers.
Compare the above to modern "liberalism" (which is really Progressivism). The focus is no longer on what the government cannot do, but what it should do. A liberal belief is that society is formed by the people inhabiting it, not though state direction. Progressivism argues that the government needs to take a proactive approach in solving societal woes. That sounds good and all, but in application it's a Statist & Collectivist ideology, as the government cannot do anything without coercion, typically in the form of laws & taxes.
Consider that modern American "liberals" de-emphasis or outright despise the idea of constraints on power. They emphasis *Democracy* as a legitimate form of rule, something that the American Founder's would've considered tyrannical if without limitations. The shift from natural rights (what the government cannot do) to human rights (what the government must provide) was not a change in liberalism; it was a new ideology. The latter is usually referred to as "Social Liberalism" or "Progressive Liberalism" or just Progressivism outside America & Canada.
ARRRRGENTINAAAA
Can you do a video on de Tocqueville and/or The Leviathan by Hobbes?
The question of self destructive dependence will sort itself out. Yes, the natural world has a word for that. Conquest, a society that allows itself to decay will be replaced by a stronger one that will not tolerate degeneracy and decadence.
What is the song at 12:20 I feel like I’ve heard it I don’t remember the name
The song is called Bad Apple!!!, it seems to be some remix
Hi Ezekiel, met you at #Rev2023. I finally watched this video. It was very good!
I love that God in this universe is just this hand from above the sky and the way it chooses people is that it just pokes them
What is the title of the outro song?
Rules of nature
10:47 I heard Bad Apple, Got a Link to the Remix of it?
I swear it trips me up, banjos Kazoo soundtrack is also hidden in the background music. I had to block this channel. I can not take the cringe.
ua-cam.com/video/_nw2410rcvA/v-deo.html
There is also an instrumental version
Love the video
Lore of Libertarianism vs. Liberalism: What's the Difference? | Polandball/Ideologyball History & Philosophy Momentum 100
Uh hate to break it to you facism is a form of socalism the 2 branchs of socalism is comunisim or facisim
Thank you Ezekiel, i am now more informed
This video has made me realize that the Canadian government (being Liberal) is quickly approaching the crossroads between fascism and socialism. And has indeed been infringing on Canadian rights and freedoms to preserve the Liberal government and state.
LoL, I like how he had Bad Apple as a background music. Cool
Liberalism is wanting rights to be respected.
Libertarianism is worshipping the concept.
7:32 I think this is a remix of “Dummy!” From Undertale. Does anyone know the name of this remix?
Nah it's just the original.
I like how early islamic caliphate think that its good that the people can vote caliph based on piety, then 50 years later all hell break loose as they can't decide who gonna be caliph (everyone wanna be caliph and raise an army).
After fkton of civil war they just went for hereditary monarchy for caliphs.
Cool. Thank you for the insight Ezekiel! I never knew this!
glad you brought up, iceland cospire but shame no acadia, tho this video did educate me that i'm in fact a right wing revolutionary. have a great day
Rights are not subject to consensus. The fundamental failure of modern liberalism is the idea that a right is simply a matter of opinion rather than an objective reality.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that this is probably the first time I've seen someone give a good faith explanation of libertarianism. It did not go unnoticed. Thank you.
That is just factually wrong, they are not inherent.
To believe an ideological principle is inherent or universal, is the same path to Totalitarianism. With equality and nationality, those are clearly seen, but not with freedom.
Freedom becomes paradoxical in action when it’s pushed down that same line of universalist thinking. It’s the source of many modern problems and invasions.
@@purpledevilr7463 Guys, remember that no murder is just as bad as mass murder
@@purpledevilr7463 I'm in your camp but you're trying too hard. I'll say - a man having his rights is his opinion, and opinions are secondary to power. If you have power, it's a valid opinion, if an opposite opinion has more power, it's more valid.
I mean the real issue of rights is that they have no legitimate basis. God certainly didn’t give anyone free speech and it certainly isn’t a material thing. That only leaves it’s legitimacy as social consensus
@@badart3204 Yes, that's why we don't define rights as things that are given by some authority. They exist universally in the absence of everything else. For example, freedom of expression is a right because if it was just you living in the woods you could express whatever opinion you would want. Someone would have to take an action against you in order to prevent you from expressing yourself. And this applies to everyone.
The result is that there ends up being very few things that qualify as rights.: life, liberty, property and that's pretty much it. And because that list is so small, people who want to justify aggressing against others for their own benefit need to define rights as entitlements rather than freedoms: healthy care, shelter, education, etc.
Rights cannot be removed, they can only be violated.
CallMeEzekiel: real libratarianism has never been tried.
Argentina: And I took that personally.
He made this before Milei, and besides, Milei has only just begun
@@warcriminalgaming2359I know
*Now we need one on difference between libertarian and libertine*
Physical possibility trumps human/natural rights.
I thought of liberalism as an obsession with the human in general: kindness, humanity and what it can achieve in a concerted effort.
Whilst what can be called individualism goes straight into person's eyes, his own perspective. And of course the former will always be detrimental to the latter 'cause liberalism is a political society - an archnemesis to any individual around...
Libertarian here, my only critique is the dichotomy of natural rights versus human rights. I would argue that these are both silly terms with nebulous meanings. I think the correct terms, that also fit perfectly into the broader point you are making, are libertarians believe only in negative rights and liberals believe in positive rights. Negative rights mean that you have the right to not participate in things or be acted upon or own anything, positive rights mean that you have the right to participate in things or have certain actions done to you/for you or own things. One sees man as an individual, wid animal, the other sees man as a domesticated animal and an inextricable part of a collective. When I first saw the title my first thought was "there is no difference, the vast majority of self described liberals actually arent". Positive rights are inherently at conflict with each other, which then creates a situation where classes or races or any kind of people groups are in conflict with each other. That's why "liberals" are really just communist/fascists sympathizers at best and communists/fascists at worst
11:04 libertarians in Brazil, half of them, are basiclly that actually, many are monarchist, defends the end of separation between church and state and defend feudal levels of descentralization.
1:50 Yeah but Luck wasn't the first to say that, it was John Calvin who declared that a ruler can be rightfully disposed of ,if He doesn't serve his people.
Hey, wait the thumbnail changed
Edit:He changed it back to the original thumbnail
Les goo new video
7:03 isn't the symbol/flag/ball of neo-liberalism the white globe with red continents?
I like the vid because its informational, but it also ignores the problems inherit in right-wing ideology
"There is nothing new under the sun." -Ecclesiastes 1:9.
As something of a reactionary myself, I think there is very little distinction between libertarianism and liberalism. Libertarianism strikes me as reactionary liberalism, i.e. a desire to return to an earlier state of liberalism. This is the practical goal of libertarianism even if there are some nuanced philosophical differences regarding natural vs. human rights. I guarentee most self described libertarians would not be able to articulate that distinction.
As for returning to an earlier state of affairs, I do not think that is such a bad thing. It depends on if the historical path that led us to the present was inevitable, like a round rock rolling down a hill when placed near the peak, or if that historical path was not inevitable. While some flawed ideologies such as liberalism do seem to lead inexorably to the problems we see today, I do not think that that is true of all ideas. Some ideas are more like forking roads. Those who came before us took a wrong turn, but if we were able to retrace our steps, we could continue down the road we ought to have from the beginning.
16:10 that's why i kinda like tankies and nazbols
Very neat.
Anton I love your content. I have been subscribed since the first North Korea video.
10:45 oh boy do i have some news for you Ezekiel from 11 months ago
Is there a video that goes over the origin of Right v Left and what each mean. I found a video stating that it started with the French and how they organized their parliament based on economic policy.
I don't remember if it was economic policy, but it was the seating, the radicals being seated on the left, and the conservatives on the right
@@rockergamer109 It was based on Government control of the economy. Those that sat on the Left wanted more government control in the economy, and those on the Right argued for more Laissez Faire style economy. Which is where we derived Left from Right when talking about the political square. Unfortunately people have forgotten this and have no definition of Left and Right anymore other then it being something that they oppose.
@@LunarKn1ght It was based on whether they wanted to keep the King (Right) or if they wanted to restrict or even abolish the monarchy (Left).
Those who wanted to get restrict the monarchy or get rid of it entirely included proto- capitalists AND proto- Socialists; those sitting on the Right wanted to keep the monarchy and retain the old system in some form, or otherwise reach a compromise.
The King himself felt like a hostage in his own country, and tried to flee to raise an army abroad; when he was captured and his intentions found out, the Royalists were shoved out or forced to change, and the more capitalistic factions became the new Right, although there were other issues between them like whether or not to go to war with the rest of Europe, or whether Paris had the right to keep imposing laws on the rest of the country.
Most economic stuff came later, mostly thanks to Karl Marx pushing it as a central issue. Economics as a field was in it's infancy at the time of the French Revolution.
@@jonathancampbell5231 So then if that's true, does that mean that we are wrong, and authoritarianism is on the right and Libertarianism is on the left?
I've always viewed the political square as Absolute Control/Totalitarianism on top with Absolute Freedom/Anarchism on the Bottom, and No Govt. Control/Laissez-Faire being the Right with the Left being Total Govt. Control/Socialism as economic policies.
@@LunarKn1ght Left and Right are just overly simplistic from the start, and originally had more to do with whether or not someone wanted to preserve the status quo or not.
The "political square" is an attempt to add nuance by claiming that Left and Right are Economic differences while Top and Bottom are Statism vs Freedom, but it isn't really much better and is fundamentally rooted in 20th century Western / American politics.
Anyone who studies political science or political philosophy at the academic level knows that you can't reduce politics to one or two dichotomies, and that there are multiple issues that don't neatly conform to either of those such as Nationalism, Feminism, Green Politics, Security, Religion etc
Not everyone thinks that State and Economics are the two central issues that every other political issue revolves around- in fact the only ones that "do" are Socialists and Libertarians, and unsurprisingly the "political square" seems to have been created or inspired by the latter.
Minarchy has been tried. It's just that the people who enjoy the benefits of liberty get greedy and try to infringe upon the freedom of others for their own benefit, leading to the slippery slope that classical liberalism took towards communism.
To be fair, such is a weakness of Libertarianism, but really, it's a weakness of all systems of governance as long as they respect natural negative rights. Therefore, I'd rather struggle against the cultural weakness of Liberty than accept defeat and try to get ahead of others in the race to the bottom that is statism.
good video
1:50 2:30 4:53 6:03 6:50 7:50 8:02 8:20 8:41 8:55 9:22 10:13 10:45 10:55 11:05 11:12 11:27 11:45 11:55 12:13 12:45 13:05 13:30 14:00 14:59