Interns Debate: Libertarianism vs. Conservatism (Cato vs. Heritage)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Featuring Cato Institute Interns and Heritage Foundation Interns; with an introduction by Neil Saul, Student Programs Coordinator, Cato Institute; moderated by Charles C. W. Cooke, Editor, National Review Online.
Libertarians and conservatives alike claim to be advocates of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. In some policy spheres, these shared values lead libertarians and conservatives to similar conclusions about public policy. As a result, popular political discourse often conflates libertarianism with conservatism, and proponents of “fusionism” go so far as to regard a libertarian-conservative alliance as being both natural and politically useful.
However, the differences between the two political philosophies are at least as significant as the similarities. On matters such as national security and foreign policy, immigration, criminal justice, drugs, surveillance, marriage and the family, and the role of religion in public policy, libertarians and conservatives often clash with one another.
Despite whatever similarities they may have, libertarianism and conservatism are substantially different political philosophies. So which one provides better answers to today’s most important political questions?
We invite you to a debate about the two political philosophies and their associated policy implications. Interns from the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation will go head-to-head to answer the question: Is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy?
Learn more: www.cato.org/e...
Want to find the Cato Institute elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / catoinstitute
Twitter - / catoinstitute
Instagram - / catoinstitute
-
I live in a Libertarian commune in Hawaii. We do what we want as long as it doesn’t harm other people. The price of freedom is responsibility.
@@Bada_Boom78 What happens to those who are irresponsible in a conservative society
"The price of freedom is responsibility" but does someone who consumed drugs responsible?
If yes how so?
If not then he can't have freedom
@@yermec5761 if you use drugs voluntarily and then something happens to you (heart attack) or you hurt someone (you cause a car accident), you have to bear the consequences yourself (go to prison, pay privately for your medical treatment, donate money to affected people)
Libertarian communism?
@@legaciestr No such thing.
Damn I was libertarian before I watched this now I'm a libertarian.
traitor!
While I was watching this all I could think was, "Man, these guys aren't real libertarians."
A better way of understanding the difference comes from the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (or property). When a policy would protect one at the expense of another, social conservatives champion life, libertarians champion liberty, and economic conservatives champion property.
@@ericrodwell8706 No, because one person's right to live trumps your license (not right nor liberty) to vent a bit of frustration by pushing them out of a window. However, there are some policies like Stop & Frisk that possibly reduce homicides in a city at the expense of a lot of people losing their Fourth Amendment rights. Should 1 million see their Constitutional rights eroded just to prevent one murder?
@@ericrodwell8706 Well, small l libertarianism is about individualism--not grouping people together. The 90% of cops who are good shouldn't have to suffer for the 10% of cops who are crooked or abusive.
I find myself in agreement with the conservative side on some issues and the libertarian side on some issues. This was a useful debate to spark conversation and self reflection.
This is what they call Centrism, or Centre Right!
Same
Where my people at? I've always been pretty center but man today that makes me feel alt right sometimes
@@RavenVonK Centrism is too authoritarian for libertarians and not authoritarian enough for conservatives, so it is true centeralism can lead to a look at the bigger picture.
@@RavenVonK on the internet they call it ult right. I'm sure they would call the libertarians debating far right
Imagine believing that the government has the right to regulate what substances adults put into their own bodies
tbf, the government actually prohibits minors from smoking -- which basically puts nicotine, a substance, in your body
Libertarians say drug users don’t harm anyone but themselves, so it should be legal, but they do harm the surrounding people, and harm their children more than anyone. It should be illegal for people who have sons and daughters still dependent on them, either living with them or still financially dependent.
@@trafledrakel7118 Ya I totally agree. If you choose to have kids, you can no longer drink a beer. Right on brother!
Imagine that liberty only extends to degenerate behavior but doesn't extend to people owning nukes and liberty to absolute individual defense
The religious conservatives are of the slave morality, just as leftists are. Libertarians are overwhelmingly master morality.
"Will legalization of drugs fix the problem" after given data on how legalization did fix drug problems
Rebuttal: legal drugs have destroyed countless lives, especially amongst the white working class in rural and semi-urban areas across the country. Part of the "good" done with legalization is "druggies don't go to jail" which doesn't exactly sound like an upside for the most part.
If drug legalization is the way, then all drugs must be legalized not just recreational drugs, how is heroin any different from a prescription drug, if you don't think drugs should be regulated then you must believe in the elimination of pharmacies and no need to go to a Dr to get a drug prescription becuz all drugs are now legalized.......
@@SeanWinters We don't implement laws based on utilitarianism, but on protection of rights. If no rights are infringed, it shouldn't be a problem.
@@emc448 Partly true... Laws are somewhat based on does it do good or does it do harm. Banning heroin or Meth for example is not based on what rights you or I have. It's based on does it harm society at large. Laws are designed to protect the many and are based on morals. Theft, Murder, Lying are all illegal in one way or another but are in the interest of the "common good". My rights begin where yours end is very much valid. When the drugs infringe on others rights to live or health are involved we limit the few for the sake of the many. A guy does heroin and gets high, crashes into another car killing a mom and her kids while they were going to school (example). Some Drugs alter your mental abilities and are not safe for everyone else who is around you. This is where many freedoms Trump(pun intended) the individual's freedoms... They have a right to life, peace and not to be harmed by someone else choices.
sunny vegas Not exactly. If you have the knowledge or connections to get a prescription then yes, you could go get a drug o your own. Pharmacies are designed to respond to doctor recommendations for specific issues, and offer, procure or facilitate the consumption of those drugs. That would still be necessary if legal. I wouldn’t know what to take for hypertension without someone saying “based on your blah blah blah you need x”
Why can’t our political leaders be half as well spoken and truthful as these guys 😩
money...
They're too boring to get votes in an election.
Because Republicans decided to tap into grievance politics instead where nastiness is a virtue. Thank the right wing populist media that really began to take off with the talk radio boom with figures like Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter. Then Nute Gingritch brought that behavior to Congress, and the Tea Party made it worse, and we ended up with Trumpism. The market is with the grassroots base who just want the nastiness. Republican Strategists in the 1970s with groups like NCPAC saw what George Wallace did in the 1968 election and wanted to build off that behavior, and it worked, and an entire ecosystem developed around the grievance. More and more conservative intellectuals have been leaving the party and conservative movement due to Trumpism. David Frum, Charlie Sykes, Max Boot, Stuart Stephens, David Brooks and many others have all left now. There is just no desire for respectable or the compassionate conservatism of figures like the Bush's, Romney, John McCain (his daughter Meagan is more grievance alligned), and Reagan anymore so the whole movement aligned with the nasty extremism.
"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence." Gary Lloyd
But to be honest, it's easier for an individual to fight against a small government than a big one.
I hope more people will reason like that in Latin America.
Now most people are having to fight corporations, colleges, NGO's, sports leagues that all push a Neo-Marxist social agenda down our throats. Government is not the only means the Left has of implementing their views on the rest of us. The enemy is the Left, not government per se.
@@christophergraves6725 holy shit you are just saying words what is a “neo marxist social agenda”???
@@ADarnSmore Take a look at the work of Herbert Marcuse with his shift away from the working class to certain racial minorities, Second Wave Feminism, and the Sexual Revolution. He saw these groups as being less likely to being "bought off" by capitalists with higher wages and improved working conditions than the working class. Post Structuralists following other Marxist thinkers such as Althusser have pushed a similar line from a somewhat different framework. You see this trend continuing with Post-Marxists.
@Vebunkd To restore one's LIBERTY.
All governments have become tyrannical dictatorships.
A lot of conservatives get upset when they find out I smoke weed. If your for freedom than what's the problem with people smoking weed. I find myself inbetween conservative and libertarian.
then you are a libertarian conservative my friend, as am i
As a conservative I would say your mind is put to better use than to be polluted with THC. It’s not so much a faux pas as it is you were made for something better
I dont smoke personally, but the idea that marijuana is illegal is ridiculous
@@AlexKomnenos do you drink alcohol?
It's for the good of society has been the lie told to the populace just before every single piece of tyrannical legislation is passed.
"Drugs are destroying this and that!?" So is alcohol....making that illegal didn't work out but was only legalized to feed pockets. Drug war also isn't working..and has a much more profitable and safer alternative in decriminilization
Also..she is using legal prescription drugs in her argument. Government sponsonered drugs they tell you to uss instead of the "illegal" ones. None of those people are dying of weed like that. Nor shrooms.. Or even cocaine for that matter probably. They die from opiates.
Drug war worked extremely well in East Asia, including democracies like South Korea and Japan. Why?
@@nefspeaks1983 Excuse me, Nef. I beg to differ on cocaine deaths. In fact, I’m so aware that cocaine related deaths are prevalent that I considered purchasing to overdose with when I could no longer receive treatment for pain bc MY doctors did NOT stand for patient’s rights, in the face of overdoses from illicit drugs which the DEA missed at the border. Not MY fault. Why should ANYONE suffer so needlessly?
Drug war was founded on illegalization of drugs as the drugs began to cost more so they received more money… if drugs were legalized, it would probably cause competition amongst the narcos with the people which will result in narcos defeat and probably cause the end of criminal narcoterrorists
@@philipmeyer7402 these countries still have drug users.
Hayek conservative? Hahahahaha He has a post-scriptum called "Why I'm not a conservative"
Arguably he would be considered a conservative in comparison with Mises.
@@farmyardfab But it is not. The conservative does not defend the spontaneous order but the established order. He trusts in authority and distrusts changes or evolution without shepherds.
A classical liberal thinks exactly the opposite.
@@farmyardfab "The conservative, in general, does not oppose coercion or state arbitrariness when the rulers pursue those objectives that he considers right. The action of those in power, if they are honest and upright people, should not be constrained, he thinks, by rigid and fixed rules. The conservative, essentially opportunistic and lacking in general principles, limits himself, in the end, to recommending that the leadership of the country be entrusted to a wise and good ruler, whose rule does not derive from his exceptional qualities - which we would all wish to adorn his superiority - but from the authoritarian powers he exercises. The conservative, like the socialist, is concerned with who governs, ignoring the problem of limiting the powers attributed to the ruler; and, like the Marxist, he considers it natural to impose his personal assessments on others."
Extraction of "Why I am not a Conservative", Friedrich A. Hayek, 1959.
@@mikehoot3978 I suppose you’re correct. What would you argue is the big intellectual difference between Mises and Hayek. Could it be described as anarcho capitalism vs classical liberalism? I believe that Mises described himself as a liberal as well.
@@farmyardfab Rothbardians/extreme praxeologists see them as different. Hayek argues that he needed auxiliary hypotheses to understand the human being outside of economics, that praxeology was not enough(above all to understand the institutional order).
And another difference is that Mises was a minarchist and Hayek would tolerate more intervention if it is to maintain the liberal system.
Those would be the main differences, in the rest they are quite similar.
Libertarian views on drug usage are so clear. Data backed even. Its superior.
Hell yeah
Yes thats because we are the superior party we are the master party
@@the_future_is_anarchy1791 That’s only because ancaps can’t have a party
@@jamescurth701 agreed
I'm a fascist and I even agree
*Faith in government is the triumph of hope over experience.*
So is faith in liberty.
Give me liberty or give me death!
Faith in government's is like begging for being raped. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ Government are actually all the same, no matter Republican or democrats
@UNION WORLD That’s not true. Our government was massive and overpowering back in the 50s and even more recently and it has resulted in neither
@@charliem6467 It is sad that people still think this is the first time government has made a attempt on our individual rights.
The conservative side appeals too much to emotion and authority. Conservatives could still voluntarily organize within a libertarian society without forcing their ideals on people who don't agree with them.
Possibly, but there will always be disagreement over what is actually right and moral.
@@konroh2 I'm fine with conservative morals as long as they aren't being violently forced on others
@@AlexisBuschmann Isn't it a value of conservativism that violent force would be wrong?
@@konroh2 enforcement of victimless crime laws is violent. Of course conservatives will argue that society is the victim, but I don't subscribe to contractarianism
@@konroh2 - ask yourself these questions:
1) Would these two Conservatives punish me for growing a little marijuana in my back yard for personal use?
2) Would they punish me and my neighbour if we came to a mutually benificial agreement whereby I gave him some of my marijuana in exchange for him to fix my car? Or if we exchanged marijuana for money?
Four years in prison has an equal but opposite influence on a person's character as does four years at Harvard.
One could argue they both turn out the same type of people....
Four years at either does not teach drive.
I’ve met Ivy League students who really had no critical thinking or common sense skills at all.
4 years at Harvard makes one a self-absorbed, arrogant, narcissistic douchebag. 4 yrs in prison makes one a self-dependent, strong, intensely paranoid introvert. IDK which is better
I would love to side with conservatives on the drug issue honestly, but my heroin addicted friends who overdosed and my meth addicted accuaintences didnt care those substances were illegal and niether did the black market. And niether do my friends that have great work ethics and like to do a little coke on the weekend or smoke weed before bed. I think it might be time to try something else.
Markets always win out over artificial impediments imposed by government. Markets are an unstoppable force. If there is a market for something the government will be powerless to stop it (which is not to say that it won't cause lots of pointless harm trying to).
Anyone doing heroin (besides the poor souls doctors screwed over) knew better and chose to anyway. Same with meth crack whatever. Thats their own fault. They shouldn't be put in jail for it. They shouldnt get government assistance. Its all about free cjoice to be as stupod as you want
Its not just about markets, there are markets for things that should be illegal. Its about not unjustly punishing someone for an act without criminal externalities and wasting the publics arguably stolen money on efforts that dont yield positive outcomes.
@@EMO_alpha
What things in your opinion should be illegal to possess and why? What is your stance on the right to property?
@@artemiasalina1860 well.. there is a market for kiddie porn, there is a market for anthrax, there are things that can be commoditized that should be illegal.
The Libertarian was much more professional. The Conservative often spoke without facts and philosophical support.
No not really they are only speaking facts from the US
Kevin Simmons it’s a debate based in the US, why would you expect anything different? If this were a broad scale debate on how the the entire world would be if we were conservative vs. libertarian it would be a completely different conversation, i.e the reason why they brought up the U.S. military at all. Because there isn’t another military on the planet even close to what the US has, this debate isn’t even really applicable to any other country other than the US. Although I would like to hear some conservative, libertarian, and some liberal views of other countries as well just to paint a better picture in the future.
@@adg932 conservatives use facts from the government and historical data on failed policies. Liberals use emotion appeal and moral values instead of the ethical and logical approach. Welfare is the greatest example
@@adg932 Education how?
@@adg932 liberals appeal to emotion for more than conservatives. Passion is not the same as emotion. Also if a side uses no emotion then it will likely lose. That’s why the left gets more supporters. Facts aren’t enough anymore. But this whole both sides are equal thing is just ridiculous to me.
The solution is simple, prohibit the government from initiating force.
iamchillydogg have I found someone who believes in the non aggression principle?
@@neilstone3730
Another one here
.
bye bye govern-ment then, and good riddance 👍
How would you arrest someone based on past crimes that they got away with/escaped from/ under suspicious of, then? The main purpose of government is to monopolize the use of force to prevent interferences in the market and enable individual freedom from tyranny. This is why the government needs to be powerful but also not use the power. A difficult if not impossible balancing act.
If someone is being arrested, you’d argue they initiated force (at some other point in time), but the reality isn’t clear to those around them, the overall public or the government itself during the actual engagement. The government needs to be able to initiate reasonable ‘force’ in situations that citizens cannot. This is obvious unless you believe there should be no government at all. ie, Anarchy. This is untenable, as a group of people with enough significant force will rise and be the de facto government.
@@Ssyphoned the main purpose of government is to guarantee an individual's rights.
The “conservatives” made me move from sort-of libertarian/conservative to full blown Anarchocapalist...
😂😂😂😂 same
bienvenido.
Yes. Welcome to AnCap.
Welcome to Ancapistan
I grew up with conservatives🙄🙄 that’s the reason I’m libertarian. I can’t stand their righteous attitudes. According to them if “ you’re not Christian and don’t think the same way they do then you’re wrong “ that’s actually not Christian at all!
Conservatives: Drugs are bad
Libertarians: Evidence shows drug legalization results in less drug use
Conservatives: Yea but drugs are bad
Drugs are bad mkay
Tell that the Portugal. They legalize drugs and the OD rate went up. Heck even look at American cities such as Seattle and San Francisco
It all depends. In Portugal, the libertarian view finds evidence for legalization, but that is unlikely to hold in America. The welfare state works better in Europe, too, but that does not mean that a more extensive welfare state would work here. People in different cultures and political regimes act differently. People are not like atoms in a void.
@@christophergraves6725 I recall it failing in Portugal. And I agree if it was implemented in the US, there would be catastrophic consequences
If you do drugs, then you should rely completely on your private healthcare and do not rely on the public healthcare. As long as it is, I'm all for it.
Libertarians on da house 🗽
Lots of fear on conservatives side and arguments on libertarians side
Milei presidente!
Definitely gonna watch the video to know what they think and say before I jump to any conclusions or any sides.
@@Santiagola24 also fascists and conservatives are way two different things lmao. In fact conservatives are closer to the middle than to fascism.
That tasers joke did not land well 😂
I know. was a shocker
@@vincentfizz1880 ahhh! I like you! That was a good one!
This is actually a good debate, both sides are so well spoken.
The US is about 4% of the world population, but we hold almost 25% of the world's prison population.
What do you think the point of this is? Are we less criminal than other countries?
@@konroh2
To be honest, I don't really know. I guess it means either Americans (and some subset thereof) are congenital criminals or there's something drastically wrong with our criminal justice system. Who do you think?
@@danstewart2770 I think it is complex. There is something in freedom where we are free to choose good or criminality. But I do think we have a system in place which regulates criminals more efficiently than other places.
@@konroh2
▪︎ konroh2
I agree... _in part._
1. Yes, the U.S. has an efficient criminal justice system, consequently imprisoning more people. But, to be understood that efficiency should be contextualized. Generally speaking, the U.S. imprisons people at a rate of approximately 8-10 times that of other developed nations (Canada, U.K., Germany, etc.).
2. There's also the question of whether the constituent parts of the U.S. population has something characteristic about it that distinguishes it from other developed nations. Can you think of anything that might fit the bill?
3. The thing about enough freedom to enable more criminality is convoluted and circuitous, and makes no sense.
You may find this _Intelligence²_ debate on whether U.S. policing is racially bias interesting It's on point and very well done.
ua-cam.com/video/3TInGHcG-_Q/v-deo.html
I agree that the penal system is economically driven. We are throwing money at the system, not necessarily for a solution. In order to really evaluate our rate of incarceration compared to others I'd need to see statistics on the comparison of laws. Do we criminalize more things? Or do we have a culture which breeds more criminals? I don't know.
I do think that there is a complexity in freedom which means that it will achieve both great good and great evil. So I don't think I'm being convoluted. To be honest given the same level of morality in a society, I don't know if freedom will generally produce less criminals, or if some level of authoritarian morality will produce less criminals. It's the libertarian vs. conservative debate.
I'll check out the vid, thanks.
Being from India, when I heard the opening conservative speech, I was like "is this woman from my country?" because everything she says sounds like some old guy from an Indian village would say.
Lol that’s why libertarianism is superior
Ha! That was very funny! Cranky old busy-bodies and control freaks!
They quote a lot of Hayek in India, do they?
Yes they do quote hayek lol
"lol OlD iNdIaN sAy SaMe ThInG sO gIrL wRoNg!"
What a poor format. All their speeches are pre-prepared including the rebuttals. As such, they aren't rebitting what their opponent just said but just delivering their pre-preapred speech. The timings are too short making the speakers have to gabble their words in a monotone. There is almost no studies with citations given, making this appear as just 'their opinion'. I don't see how anyone can have their mind changed from such a rigid, rapid unthinking format. Waste of time I'm afraid.
Agreed , also some of the prepared statements/rebuttals actually didnt fit the actual words spoken by the other side. This isnt a debate it's a longform thesis
@@mattdiehl83 I noticed this as well when they were talking about drugs.
Which is why I have been saying for years now that Wikia technology should be used for debates such as this so that the debates can be as open-ended, inclusive, nuanced, and as open and available to the press/public as any debate could ever be imagined being. Imagine if the Presidential Debates, much less Global Climate Debates were to switch to such an asynchronous process. Why is Wikia technology only used for an encyclopedia and for fantasy/sci-fi genres alone?
Very good points, agree with you completely on the pre-prepared remarks and lack of quality rebuttals.
Bro they are students give them a brake not to mention its pretty realistic for debate candidates to know the questions before hand e.g. CNN
Also... She is the ONLY Libertarian I have ever met out of thousands that supports reparations. We do not as a whole support it at ALL. That is very very very clear across all campaigns.
Libertarian reparations would have to happen on an individual level and the logistics of it would be difficult to say the least. An individual would have to show that specific property held by another individual is properly theirs.
@@Nanofuture87 not true, we support a government large enough to protect the rights of the people. That would include a court that would decide that scenario.
@@titaniumwolf1123 How is that relevant to what I said? Whether the court system is public or private, it would still be individual plaintiffs (or class actions of plaintiffs) seeking to recover specific property from defendants and would need to be able to provide evidence to support their case.
And she disavows Murray Rothbard... My god, she is horrible.
Each side had some good points. I agree with the position of Dave Smith, a libertarian podcaster, who remarked recently that being libertarian doesn't require a completely postmodern or neutral stance on right and wrong. You can be pro social liberation without endorsing or being neutral to drag queen story hour or your daughter growing up to be a sex worker.
Also an unpopular opinion, but I liked the prepared answers in this debate. I think I'd much rather hear a performance of battling letters with researched points than gotcha rhetorical tricks and quips often in debates. I am not sure where I can find this tho.
@I ain't no millionaires son! Nah progressivism and conservatism are flawed from the start.
@@watkins7086 Transcend the polarity.
I'm a proud libertarian but I can't seem to get on board with an open-border system. Anyone else?
That's the problem I have with libertarians. They let some issues just go completely un fixed.
But I agree with some of the things
Same here, if the welfare system stays it incentivises illegal immigrants to arrive and live off the tax payer, this is not what happened in the early 20th century as there was no welfare state and so immigrants had to be productive and contribute to society
Just look back to the history of US and you find why free immigration is a good thing
@@behrouz6625 incomparable, there was no welfare state in the 19th and early 20th centuries, if there wasn't a welfare state I'm sure more libertarians would be open to the idea of relaxed border controls
Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit
-- Michael Malice
-- Dave Smith
Placed in context they're not. 2019 Conservatives and 1960 classical liberals (i.e. progressives) both have the same values.
@Jacob Howell umm...george bush ? Boot licking conservatives?
And modern day libertarianism is just progressives’ trump derangement syndrome driving the speed limit.
The problem with the conservative argument here is that it rests on a series of bad assumptions, misinformation, and ignorance of cause and effect. For instance, the lady on the conservative side constantly raises the need for government to intervene in the drug trade because it causes harm, blissfully unaware, it seems, that the reason the drug problem is so severe in the United States is because of government intervention in the first place. The criminalisation of drugs has devastated communities. The conserative side stated that legalisation would increase demand. This claim flies in the face of established evidence on this matter that suggests legalisation has little impact on overall levels of consumption. Legalisation of softer and safer drugs does not mean the legalisation of 'black tar heroin' - as if this is the only drug available. Most users of drugs do not get addicted to them because drugs are inherently addictive. They get addicted because of personal issues in their lives.
Not to mention completely ignoring the numerous cases of addiction to legal painkillers from post-surgery recovery.
I know this is an old comment but I have to say your comment about addiction is completely not true. People DO drugs often to escape reality and because of issues in their lives but people become ADDICTED to drugs because they are chemically addictive. That is a fact. You are confusing the two. The desire to start doing drugs could be because of their issues but that is absolutely not why they become addicted. That's obvious just in the effects of withdrawal. Physical addiction comes from rewiring in your brain, telling you that you need that drug which in turn can cause physical illness. That has zero to do unrelated issues in your life and no matter how much AA/NA wants to say otherwise, many people become dependent on drugs who have not suffered trauma and are not dealing with issues any more than your average person.
@@meganevans839 but this over states how addictive these substances are chemically. Even for drugs like heroin, the number of people who become addicted is only around 15-20 percent (based on a study I read a few years ago).
I am not denying physical addiction. What I am saying is that for many the addiction is psychological and as a result of their circumstances.
Legalisation allows us to control the drug market to a greater extent then is possible now, to control potency and quality, to remove much of the criminal element, and to create a more open space for people to come forward for a health issue without becoming criminalised.
Conservatives use the appeal to emotion fallacy
@@adg932 hahaha and then they complain about liberals using their feelings in arguments
As a conservative I noticed this too. It didn’t help their positions
I am conservative and I agree. Frankly there girl here uses her appeal to emotion too often and me, one for not falling for things like that, found it a breach in the argument considering, well it is not an argument. it is an appeal to ones emotions haha
That's why they actually can get the office.
Another thing is that they completely ignored the example of Portugal that was brought up when discussing drug legalization
Libertarianism is Conservatism in the US. They are two different categories. Conservatism in Pakistan is vastly different than the US. It's important we know this.
And what is really "conservatism" in practice? The word is empty, and if you put other things in it, like how to run the economy, suddenly the Conservatist, turns into X.
Conservatism in Pakistan=Nazism
Man this was so cool. It's really interesting to see where Libertarianism and American Conservatism overlap, and where they differ. Good job interns, too!
For a group that call themselves pro-smaller government Conservatives sure do want to make a lot of things that are legal illegal like porn between consenting adults, same sex marriage, abortion, etc and there are even some Far Right Conservatives who believe it should be illegal for women to vote but yeah muh "small government" Conservatism.
Conservative starts debate by quoting Hayek, while ignoring the fact that Hayek wrote an essay called, "Why I am not a Conservative," and would be way more on the libertarian side.
10:00 why'd she start a speech with Hayek when Hayek has a book (or more accurately essay) titled "Why I am Not a Conservative"
LOL
Because she's a evangelical. They are great at cherry picking things
She quoted Walter Block on drugs. If you google his views of legality of drugs, he wants them legalised.
Wake me up when the Mises Institute Ancaps arrive. 😉
"""""Libertarians""""" versus conservatives. This is going to be miserably boring.
If I wanted to listen to a mainstream libertarian I'd listen to an objectivist.
@@CarrotCakeMake And they would hate you, quite irrationally, for calling them that.
@@CarrotCakeMake Objectivism =/= libertarianism/Austrian econ
They're not anarchist.
As a Conservative, I’d say that we should go deeper into Libertarian Theory, which is far closer to our actual Beliefs, than focusing on periodic niche Cultural Events and/or the Partisan Requirements of The G.O.P.
The libertarianism is not a theory, it's a science
The libertarian position on marriage is that it's not the proper role of government to decide who can and cannot be married, nor should one be required to obtain a license from the government to marry.
I’m a libertarian but I’m pro life because with out life you can’t have liberty
Interesting take. I'm pro-life for the world's minorities, but pro-choice for everyone else. So in the US, all Europeans and some islanders all not allowed abortion except cases of forced rape that's not a boyfriend, and interracial babies.
I am 100 percent pro life. Anti abortion, anti death penalty, anti war, and ant euthanasia. I am anti murder!
C the right to live is a pillar of libertarianism so a murder of a baby isnt a right you have lmao.
You’re so right
How do you feel about people in comas or vegetative states being taken off of life support? Technically, you'd be robbing them of their liberty by doing so.
Full disclosure: I consider myself an An-Cap Libertarian.
I find both teams presenting lame, unprincipled arguments, indicating a profound lack of philosophical understanding.
The Conservatives presented here are identical to Progressives in that they both loudly proclaim defense of individual liberties while clearly proving themselves to be enemies of individual freedom. What they MEAN to defend is the individuals' freedom to do as Conservatives believe to be 'right', while suffocating any chance of liberty or free-thinking that would contradict whatever their position. This is actually a quite common affliction in society, which does not require specific polarities (e.g. Progressive/Conservative; Democrat/Republican; Left/Right) in order to manifest. This large group of people has the SINGULAR DEFINING PRINCIPLE that we should defend everyone's freedom to do things in accordance with THEIR WAY and - for the good of society - prevent them from doing things the OTHER or WRONG WAY.
Myself a Libertarian, I was insulted by the extreme offense the team representing Libertarians took at the mere suggestion of any kind of alignment with Murray Rothbard, stating that "we publicly disavowed Murray Rothbard last year and let us do it again... he had horrible ideas" [~1:00:42 in the debate video].
This Libertarian team may be even worse in their fraudulently professed value of individual liberty while openly displaying obviously contradictory, ardent, government-enforced social engineering skills: in their eyes, the 'right' way (A.K.A. THEIR way) would be to have government engineer and impose coercive social programs to un-addict the addicted, which they regard as preferable to socially engineering cages to accommodate human beings.
Certainly we Rothbardians might prefer as the lesser of two evils, un-addiction programs that would allow individuals to remain productive in society - crucial if true criminals (violators of others' property rights) are to pay restitution to their victims as things SHOULD be in a truly free and just society. That's nominally better than putting the addicted in cages where they're not likely able to be so productive. We Rothbardians would insist that it's still social engineering, a violation of private property rights, immoral, unjust and should play no part in a truly free and just society, but we'll agree that although abominable, un-addiction programs are nominally better than human cages.
As an example, let's take that so-called problem of addiction. I myself being a proud Rothbardian would venture to guess that he and I'd agree that whatever the problem - if indeed there is one - only each individual in his or her own particular set of circumstances can have his or her own specific answer to the question of whether or not he or she is addicted AND IF SO, whether or not it's a problem and is of negative or positive consequence (or some combination thereof).
The true libertarian (small "L") response to such a problem is that the individual in question must be the sole bearer of consequence for his/her individual choice(s). Were society to strip away all the legal impositions as well as the socialized crutches, we would in effect also be stripping away all those things that tend to complicate choices, skew cost/benefit analyses and severely and sometimes irreparably cloud issue and options, thereby robbing the individual of the opportunity for a clearer and better understanding of said consequences and possible options and solutions.
Would this be a Utopian solution? Obviously not. There will always be a subset of people who are addicted and can't handle it. Isn't that what we have now? Didn't we have addicted drunks before prohibition? How about during prohibition? How about now, with so-called 'enlightened' laws on alcohol? Neither are Utopian any of the other proposed solutions put forth by would-be, well-intentioned social engineers on any side of ANY social question. Be willing to consider however, that not only does social engineering not solve targeted social problems, it creates many more troubles that are often significantly worse than the one initially targeted for solution. Before prohibition we had some drunks and perhaps bar brawls and probably some vagrants sleeping on the streets. During prohibition we had all of that and also an empowered and enriched mafia, who settled disputes in public streets with machine guns catching innocent passersby to boot. This is a shortly truncated fraction of a very LONG list of consequent horrors to prohibition that could take forever to enumerate so I'll leave it there. With some thought and imagination the impartial reader can spend considerable time on his or her own, greatly expanding the list from personal experience.
The much-maligned Rothbard would point out that whatever the government project or social engineering program, not only would it not work but the program itself would gain a life of its own and build into its business model (be it governmental or private) the means of perpetuating itself. Be willing to consider that a major reason that prisons have ever-increasing populations is that it isn't in the interest of the prison industry to rehabilitate prisoners, nor is it in the interest of anti-poverty agencies to make themselves obsolete by eliminating poverty, nor in the military's interest to declare peace and bring the troops home. In fact, it was that 'idiot' with so-called horrible ideas Murray Rothbard, who doubted there'd be any peace-dividend upon the collapse of the Soviet block and consequent end of the cold war despite his most fervent hopes to the contrary, because it's just NOT in the interest of ANY government program or beneficiary of the public trough to give up the golden goose so readily. The military industrial complex sucks MORE resources from society after peace than it has ever before, forever creating more and more fake and fomented bogeymen to justify their own perpetual existence and growth. I guess the idiot wasn't such an idiot after all or at least he has unexplained, remarkable powers of predicting the future.
Be willing to consider that the addict being 'helped' by our Libertarian debate team - assuming that he in fact is an addict needing and wanting help - might have an additional problem to cope with: it isn't in the anti-addiction program's interest to declare the addict "no longer addicted". Just look at the current landscape: common theory professes that "once an addict, always an addict" and that being sober requires day-to-day vigilance and intervention into perpetuity, despite the fact that there are many individuals who reported having been addicted, deciding on their own it was time to quit and then never looking back. These folks claim that ending their addiction amounted to giving up the substance's hold on them by never even giving it more thought - a side of that story you'll never hear from an anti-addiction program or agency, who needs its customers to depend on them forever if only to boost revenue. Let me put it this way: I challenge anyone to point to just ONE anti-addiction agency that promises the 100% never-look-back cure for addiction. It just doesn't exist. What they promise is to always be there for you. In fact, if you fall back into your own ways, you're not badgered or beaten up but rather applauded for coming to the agency, declaring your failure and redoubling your efforts with them (while contributing to agency revenue). Don't worry, we understand and will always be there for you!! Just remember that if you fall back into your old ways, the first thing to do is call us and we'll be there... what good friends!!
The following are the premises that define TRUE libertarians (small 'L'): Don't tread on me so I don't have to tread on you. You clean up after yourself and I'll do the same after my own self. Private Law Societies develop common law (not legislated law) to deal with property rights violations, which are the ONLY type of transgressions requiring intervention that can exist in a truly free society. The primary purpose of that law is to restore the victims of property rights violations to as close to wholeness as possible, and that doing so is the responsibility of the perpetrator. Is it perfect? No. But it's certainly the best, most honest, equal opportunity, just and potentially prosperous and peaceful society that humanity can possibly conceive.
Ahem.
Very well said.
@Jim P You are an inspiration to me and I'm sure others. Personified proof of the power of unadulterated personal responsibility. Just imagine the glory of a society full of people like you.
@Jim P That's precisely what makes you such an inspiration to me. For sure such a change and level of commitment can't be easy. It requires painfully-frank reflection, thoughtful determination and the kind of unwavering integrity required to align a new and challenging reality with your vision of a better future. That work is hard - as difficult to achieve as the rewards it yields.
Interesting true libertarian take. A few questions: doesn't advancing technology mean that military will always require new costs?
I can appreciate the idealistic view of human responsibility and free will, but it is an ideal, not necessarily the true reality, right? We will always have poor people, and criminals, that can't be idealized away.
@@konroh2 You ask thoughtful questions, konroh2, thanks.
Answering your first question, "doesn't advancing technology mean that military will always require new costs?":
I agree with you 100%. Not just advancing technological costs, but myriad other costs that are necessarily associated with any ever-changing market environment and in fact, any aspect of life itself. New technologies, new and different threats, ephemeral circumstances... changes constantly arise which are themselves changed changes and which often can't be anticipated. All of these can and often do impose additional costs. Sometimes they REDUCE costs. There is a mountain of overwhelming evidence that the private sector does an immeasurably better job of dynamically adjusting to such changes than any government can.
Most of us know that government and the collective is horrifically bad at responding to changing needs. Most of us would never suggest that they should for example, manage our food or clothes production just because food and clothing are so important in our lives.
So we know that asking government or the collective to take over the means of production would be catastrophic for human health and prosperity. Why we can at the same time assume that government managing our self-defense should be any different I'll never know although I have suspicions:
Politicians are of no productive use and have nothing to sell except the resources and power they steal from others under cover of law and government. It's politicians who coordinate the writing of government school textbooks to be distributed among government schools towards indoctrinating government school students to "teach" society that (surprise!!) our politicians are so great and our lives are so blessed for their heroically selfless contributions built around their incredibly effective interventions. Yeah, right!!
All along the way towards publishing books, building schools and all the rest of it, politicians take a cut of the action. While they were at it, did you really expect them to allow publishing the truth about themselves? What would make anyone think that politicians are any different than the rest of us? Given the opportunity to publish wondrous descriptions about their fictitious heroics skewed to fashion themselves in the best possible light while conveniently forgetting to publish their failings is certainly what I'd expect - absolutely not an anomaly.
The only political "failings" I can recall ever having been published in school books are when politicians purportedly didn't do enough. As far as I can tell, this is to sew the seed in students' minds that politicians should always DO SOMETHING. It's in the 'doing something' that they can engineer a cut for themselves. Sitting on their hands and doing nothing yields them neither profit nor power.
I only ask that readers keep an open mind and be willing to consider that what might be the root cause of skepticism that we could most effectively defend ourselves from foreign invasion without a government to coordinate it all is that we've been indoctrinated to think that were it not for our glorious politicians we would certainly be living under tyrannical rule. I ask only that you keep an open mind while viewing the video referenced in this next paragraph:
For an excellent answer to your question - contained in a comprehensive, big-picture look at what a truly effective, private solution for defense in a free society might look like - I recommend you look up in UA-cam the following text string: "The Market for Military Defense | Robert P. Murphy
". Bob Murphy does an outstanding job of convincing the most skeptical not only that this is doable even better and at an immeasurably lower cost, but that such examples actually exist and function if not flawlessly, significantly less prone to failures of defense.
You then asked, "I can appreciate the idealistic view of human responsibility and free will, but it is an ideal, not necessarily the true reality, right? We will always have poor people, and criminals, that can't be idealized away."
Of course this is true. There are two things I have to say about this accurate observation:
1) Your premises hold true under ANY societal construct. There will ALWAYS be poor people and criminals - and many other manifestations of concerning human conditions - in EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of societal construct that one can and has conceived of. It's therefore somewhat of a red herring to let interventionists who use this fact to defend whatever their proposed government solution while they discount individual responsibility and free will in a truly free society as being (by far) the most viable solution to the problem they hope to solve.
2) The real question should be, 'can you name a societal construct in which there are FEWER manifestations of justifiably-concerning human conditions than in a truly free society?'. History and Praxeology would argue that you can't... and humanity has tried many different kinds of societal constructs.
The fact is that humans respond to incentives. By definition, societies that confiscate large chunks of private, productive sectors for the "greater good" necessarily reduce the effectiveness of those resources at the very least by whatever the cut stolen by political cronies. The presence of ever-more, alluring means of confiscating just a little bit more to further-feed the cronyism, achieved by fear-mongering the people towards convincing them they need to allow politicians this additional confiscation... this is a never-ending nightmare of distorted incentives that can only lead to a morass of bankruptcy and failed promises. This paragraph speaks only mildly to the necessarily-dwindling pie of available resources, which of itself is a crippling handicap to any other system that isn't a voluntarily free society, which by definition respects private property rights as its highest ideal.
In a truly free society, we still care for the poor. Before there was ever an American government program for poverty or hunger and before there was FEMA there were effective private organizations and churches that helped freely and of their own accord to address important human issues in ever-changing times. Furthermore, these private charitable organizations were freely funded and often largely supported by private individual volunteers, to whom making these kind of differences in the lives of other people really mattered. The difference is that private organizations who make it their mission to make specific differences are finely tuned-in to scammers who would take advantage of such generosity. Private organizations and individuals are much better at making sound judgments as to when it's a good time to cut someone off of the dole due to abuse or ineffectiveness. The incentives to get your act together as a disadvantaged individual to the degree that you can is much more laser-like and effective in a truly free and voluntary society. There will always be poor and criminals, but there will be fewer and to a lesser degree in free societies.
She's really trying to blame libertarians for the opioid crisis?
look look i i nevermind but in white redstates it would boom thas fine dont judge
I already kind of thought I was a libertarian in more recent years because I had watched various different outlets from republicans and democrats and had always questioned their more authority-driven values, despite having an emphasis on freedom and equality, and where that data is really coming from. Watching this was very enlightening, and I think it further strengthened my perspective.
I’m a conservative but I felt that the conservatives in this panel were a little over dramatic. They of course made good points but they used more emotional defenses.
Yes, in a political debate being emotional doesn't make your case any better
The opening arguments by the conservative girl turned me off. Her arguments seemed like they were rudimentary talking points. Morality and faith, while being admirable guiding principles for individuals, pose a dangerous threat to liberty when entered into the political fray. As a Libertarian, I believe liberty is threatened at any mention of government controlling any aspect of anyone’s life.
@@forrestcommander6283 morality by nature poses a threat to liberty. You can’t just do what you want. Do you think morality is bad?
That’s how conservatives are lol
What conservative doesn’t go by their emotions rather than facts.🙄
I think that libertarians and conservatives have a mutual respect for each other and lots of times have beliefs that overlap
well arent u insightful and classy and cultrued do u have any trugffs????
@WorldFlex I’m talking about paleocons with there noninterventionist policy and lowering the debt although it’s hard for them to get shit done with the rhinos in there party
The existential problem with contemporary conservatism is that government agencies especially on the federal level has an extreme bias toward expansion both in jurisdiction and employment,in fact all federal departments are CETA programs.
Nice, now let's see a real debate - libertarianism vs anarcho-capitalism (The Cato Institute vs The Mises Institute)
This was probably one of the BEST debates i have seen in a VERY long time...if ever! Not even the presidential debates are this amazing because most politicians are liars...awesome stuff
@Vebunkd hahaha ok
9:11 Starts:
Note: *(These pre-prepared speeches don't allow for a great debate, and are just two sides delivering speeches full of circular "these are my talking points and that's why I'm right", buzz words, and citations of famous dead people's thoughts to lead the audience to a very different conclusion)*
Of course debate arguments are meant to be able to be silly such that they can be argued against, but right away the opening "conservative" speech used absolutes and was pre-prepared with "family, honor, freedom, tradition, preserve our rights for The Founders"... and it led to pretty crazy arguments within 3 minutes. The 'libertarian' argument claims that GOVERNMENT needs to do X, Y, and Z in accordance with what they want.
Conservatives: Let's ban drugs
Libertarians:. It'll only make things worse
Conservatives:. Don't ban guns!
Libertarians:. Make up your minds!!!!!!!
They have such a "freedom for me but not for thee" view on moral based laws
Great to see Charles CW Cooke engage with libertarianism, he's such an eloquent speaker. I'd love to see him debate one of the editors from Reason Magazine.
I wish they accepted the debate with Dave Smith
You could honestly have 6 different teams of libertarians and not a single one of them hold the same views. Libertarians disagree with each other more than any other political ideology.
Bur we rarely are far away on where we draw the line for government. Im against gay marriage as a christian. But i dont think the government should ban it. We hold different personal morals. But roughly the same line in the sand with government
No, that would be the Communists. There you have extremely different views on how to do the revolutions, how to govern, how to end private property, etc.
Libertarians draw a clear line between moral and ethics.
well that's the wonderful thing about libertarians because you can disagree and agree but still have the same foundation. But the conservative side is my way or the high way.
@@masond1253 No wonder libertarians win so many elections! Oh, wait....
You could TELL the Conservative is a closet progressive just by listening to her skewed arguments.
Your right.
Opened my eyes to some things. Thank you.
As a Progressive, listening to the “Conservatives” and Libertarians debate is fascinating, indeed.
Why did you put quotes around “Conservatives”?
@@theparadigm8149 because they are more authoritarian than conservative
BlackJack Oh...
@@Barklord its the main problem with libertarianism.
@Felipe Gomes Yeah, I guess...
Although I see myself as mostly libertarian, I disagree with the national libertarian party of open borders. A county without borders is not a country
Allowing illicit fentanyl to cross the border resulting in mega deaths is definitely not helpful.
Home girl went IN with her final statement. Go libertarianism!
"marijuana shrinks the size of your brain"
she must smoke a lot of marijuana
Marijuana is an addictive drug. I'm for medical use of Marijuana but it need to be monitored. Marijuana help certain illnesses but it's still an addictive drug.
@@keithbaucum7156 is not physically addictive. It depends on the person whether they have an addictive personality. Anybody can be addicted to anything but I'd rather have them addicted to weed rather than any other drug.
@@keithbaucum7156 Drugs are not a policeing issue, they are a health issue, and should be treated like one.
To know if a system of government is successful.
1. The people aren't damage mentally, physically and spiritually.
2. Life expectancy increases
3. Citizen upholds the law not modify them.
4.the national budget is met and exceed. No deficit
5. Extremely low crime rate.
No abolishing of crime
In the opening analogy, just to be clear, you are the flower, not the gardener. Do you want to be in a society run by people who think of themselves as gardeners and you as a flower who will die without their attention?
Or you could be the flower that dies slowly from pest, disease, droughts or plagues without a gardener to tend to issues beyond your limitations.
When the Christian kid and the rich kid start talking:
I don't get it
Why the Christian and rich kid are some kind of adversaries, what if the rich kid is a Christian...
Yeah it should have been the Christian kid and Kid that loves guns
@@pikachuprime9308 The original version is better
Alright lemme change it back
@@pikachuprime9308 Christians also like guns 😄
This debate made me more of a libertarian and reminded me of why conservatism is anti freedom at the core. Lots of virtue signaling by the conservatives here. I'm honestly surprised how conservatives have increasingly adopted leftist tactics/philosophies like mentioned, postmodernism, self righteousness b.s, and adhomynm attacks full of platitudes.
libertarian is a type of conservative. wish they'd change the title to libertarian vs republican. Republicans are statists.
@@painexotic3757 facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Two sides of the same coin of authoritarian.
Both sides of the aisle have different views of freedom. Both sides have valid arguments. The only problem for me is that libertarianism is the watered-down ideology of liberalism.
@@AnonymousCommentor_Otherway around, liberalism is watered down libertarianism and most so called "liberals" aren't supporters of freedom at all.
How well did that Russia/Ukraine statement age though?
Murray Rothbard is the man
You are a master of understatement, Alex :-) . Murray Rothbard is THE man!! LOL
I'll take anyone on in debate who says otherwise - especially the two bozos on that debate stage.
@@edwardbenet 4 bozos lol
@@alextowell2821 OK, I admit it... you're right and I'm wrong. I'm clear on my principles but lousy in math.. . 4 bozos it is LMAO
I love how she says drugs ruins family's and references families that had there lives ruined even though they were illegal its as though the fact that there illegal doesn't stop them or even forcing there children to not snitch on them to the police or teachers so they dont end up in jail and they can neglect there addiction and refuse to seek help due to the possibility of them being jailed for seeking help
When I was young, I thought I was a conservative, but then I was told I wasn't a "real" or "true" conservative because I believed certain contrary beliefs. Then I learned about libertarianism and agreed with many points, to the point that I began calling myself one. Before I even knew it though, I was being told I wasn't a "real" or "true" libertarian either. I was also told I wasn't a "real" or "true" anarchocapitalist. In every of these circumstances, I wasn't good enough, not pure enough, for the label. You make a comment on a UA-cam video or some website, you run the serious risk of a dogmatist pointing the self-righteous finger, accusing you of not being extreme enough and one of unclean cloth. So many comments I've read of "you're not a REAL libertarian" (not necessarily to me directly). It just goes to show, among other things, that no matter what someone's political affiliation is, a lot of people will consciously choose to be a dickhead to another. Every group has that element for sure (humans all), but I've not seen as much vitriol except from the fringe of the self-identified libertarian, who, it seems, is eager to crucify the unwilling.
I prefer to stay close to where Friedman, Sowell, and Hayek were/are. Don't mind the ancaps. They'll outgrow it.
Try constitutional conservatism. It's the most prolibrity version of conservatism.
I am Libertarian and many of my friends are too and I have never heard any Libertarian stand for open Borders.
Jameel Al Amanee Bin Daughenbaugh its just different factions of Libertarians, usually Minarchist vs Anarchist factions. Im assuming you and your friends are minarchist.
You have never met an ancap. Watch Shane Killian and learn
Exactly a lot of conservatives try to make up their own definition of liberals to fit their narrative.
The conservative debaters really kept me sold on libertarianism!
okay...
The Libertarian debaters make me look up what is the difference between them and anarchists...
"Is it authoritarian to secure our border?" is the kind of argument Kim Jong Un would give about keeping the DMZ and Stalin would give about the Berlin Wall
I live in my libertarian city, you live in your conservative city and we see who prospers more... I know crazy idea.
Lol true, many have forgotten federalism
Lmfao one will have order and the other will be filled with homosexuals and pot heads.
Absolutely conservatism
Moderator should have asked if we should be able to sell our children
It's called an orphanage - but I heard that they don't offer great prices
If a ancap society that would violate the nap or the non aggression principle as it’s more commonly known as. Most ancaps derive their policies from first principles and the nap so if it doesn’t violate the nap it shouldn’t be illegal, and for those wondering the nap does allow for self defense it is not pure passive fist ideology
@@neilstone3730 except that minors are property and as so fall purely under my rights to property.
Augustine children aren’t property
@@neilstone3730 they are
That girl talking about pot causing damage in the brain. So does boxing and football. Why She thinks these things should be legal.
How has the war on drugs been with the state in charge? The drug issue was won by the Libertarians.
The conservative guy had the best performance
Edit: could this happen between paleo conservatives vs neocons or libertarians
(Edit: for clarity)
Neoconservatives are not libertarians
@Carter Mushrooms please help me, I can't.
@Kyle Texas i know, I meant could there be a debate between Paleocons and neocons OR between Paleocons and libertarians. Not trying to imply they’re the same, i think I’ll edit it to make it more clear :)
@Gotham Bat thanks!
Fear is conservatism most used tactic. Scare the shit out of them is their policy
Sadly, the Conservative representative are embroiled in misinformation. I wish they were more diligent about doing their research. For example, they need to research other democracies to see how they have resolved their drug problems. They would quickly learn that their approach is considerably more humane and view addiction as the medical issue it is versus the legalistic issue attached to it by conservatives. The conservative representatives clearly tell us why it is a dogmatic, and inhumane authoritarian concept.
We need Libertarianism now more than ever. Our government has become too powerful.
el pop eye de la onda cruz crew clicka VL for life....GOPrifa
I would love to see one between Libertarians and Progressives/democratic party voters as well. I hate to see Libertarianism so regularly conflated as right-wing, when Libertarians in fact go several steps further than Progressives do in the advocacy of individual freedoms such as drug use, euthanasia, prostitution, etc. Libertarianism ought to stop being perceived as some inane form of extremism but rather as the true rational center of the political spectrum, the one that defends both economic and individual freedom and opposes authoritarianism on both fronts.
Whereas Conservatives and Progressives like to pick and choose their liberties (i.e: supporting abortion but shunning tax reduction or viceversa), Libertarians offer a unified theory of freedom, one where the right to start a business without being taxed out of existence and the right to explore the innermost recesses of your mind with whatever psychoactive substance you may choose are both equally respected.
"Progressives" are basically just Socialists.
Hmm, cool debate. But would have loved it if the first woman defined what type of libertarian she was referring to when she highlighted abortion. I am in the most extreme side of libertarian spectrums, anarchocapitalism. I detest abortion or any acts of aggression in accordance with NAP. But more importantly, the fault of conservatism is that it believes a state ensures an orderly, and moral society. But this is back to front. People act, not based on laws, but upon the ideas they hold, by their conscience and internal ideals- not by externally legislated laws. More simply put, a man doesn't remain loyal to his wife because a law says it is wrong to cheat; he remains loyal because he loves his wife. And he has seen his destructive a cheating lifestyle entails. Government is not the reason you don't murder, it's because you know its wrong to impose on another person, and because people tend to act in accordance with the world they want to bring about.
what kind of debate has participants Read prepared statements in response to debate questions?? scripted arguments could be read by us and considered without presentation considerations, right?
This is how actual debates are. If you look at how debate is taught in clubs and whatnot, this is a style of debate. You choose to believe if the presented arguments are scripted or not. I believe that they have evidence and responses prepared in the event that they're needed, but they still have to represent their resolution on their feet.
anarcho capitalist here :)
Cato Inst vs Mises Inst debate needs to happen.
I'm a conservative and I started reading works of literature on Libertarianism. I am now a Libertarian.
If your conservative values are threatened under a valuntary (libertarian) society, then they are the wrong values. But i am not saying they are. I am saying that you would have reason to oppose libertarianism only if your values need coercion to promulgate them and keep them in place. (which would make those values kinda bad)
Very well said! Might be the best response I’ve heard
And after watching I still find myself somewhere between Libertarian & Conservative.
Pure Libertarianism like AnarchoCapitalism & Communism is a utopian dream. It is one I would like to be close to but Humans are gonna Human.
Conservatives: America has societal problems that continue to escalate under our current policies. We need continue to preserve and be more proactive toward these policies.
Me: I mean if you think that’s the solution again. I’ll be over here contemplating the philosophy of common sense.
The conservatives were spot on about Russia
Also listened to this more recently and those were my thoughts exactly!
Libertarians win
Who else is watching this in 2024 when Russia has been in Ukraine for years yet the American government has not stopped that invasion like the conservative argument asserted they would in their support of increased military budget
Libertarians win.
What debate were you watching lol
Better debate than has been seen in any presidential or congressional/senate debate in decades.
Frederick Hayek wrote an essays entitled "What I am not a Conservative.". Some of his comments in that piece are similar to points made by the Libertarians in this debate.
Im happy to see this debate happening in my country
How can you defend drinking alcohol and demonize other drugs in the same sentence?
If it doesn't grow it has to go. The body is the temple the mind and the soul. I smoke weed and I eat vegetables everyday. I don't drive a car because those things are toxic they produce 4.5 metric tons of carbon monoxide per year
@@mishaladara lmaooo go frolic in the fields with the amish.
@WorldFlex Yea maybe, all while being stuck in the 1800s
@@mishaladara You’re weird ‼️
These educated compassionate young Libertarians, trying to stay with facts (& not corrupted by $...yet?) should Lead the party.
17:28 “libertarianism backfires and invokes government intervention”
AKA you people didn’t do what we want so we had to do the thing you didn’t like
The thing with Libertarianism is that it’ll only work if everyone conforms to the same social and moral norms. Sadly the world isn’t like that. Those with more power will subjugate those beneath them.
I lost track on how many fallacies the conservatives made.
WHOLE BRAIN- Emotion(Democrat) + Logic(Republican) = Balance(Libertarian) + Real Love
Liberalism vs libertarianism. Great
Barsa VS Barcelona
@Übermensch Ignoring the historical fact that libertarian movements were often leftist movements... To portray all leftists as authoritarian, which is what you seem to be doing, is dishonest in the extreme.
@@grantm6933 Well you're both assuming that the left/right divide captures the nuance of ideology. Libertarian movements were "leftist" in the sense that they were for the enfranchisement of all. They were, however, diametrically opposed to the Progressive movement that sought to do so (poorly) by force. The Progressives are the most immediate predecessor to those nowadays referred to as the "modern left". The anti-authoritarian "left", embodied by figures like Zizek and Chomsky, are quite self-contradictory.
@@stanleywang7367 not really. We're about collective ownership over the production of goods and services. This could be done through myriad of ways, but buying/converting businesses into cooperatives, housing into co-housing, starting cooperatives, and funding cooperative services and businesses are numerous ways to create this movement. Nothing about this is authoritarian.
@@James-pb8xu I differentiated between the Progressives and the anti-authoritarian left. Progressivism seeks to do things through the mechanics of the government, so it's naturally quite authoritarian.
I'm libertarian, but i acknowledge that its self destructive.
no your not and and it is if your like the kochs and bernie panders