Used to be Republican, started to strongly favor Libertarianism in ~2021. Once I saw that 99% of policies lack an objective philosophical basis (and are instead based on subjective interpretations), that convinced me to shift from Republican to Libertarian.
We’ve needed a 3rd party and even and 4th for years . Pretty sad the two parties are so scared of it . Which SHOULD tell people a lot about the current parties . THEY are the same!
@Mountain Dew Baja Blast Political parties eventually only serve themselves. As we see today, the two main parties only care about being in power and gaining power. Neither cares about you or me. They do care about lobbyists and the companies that helped get them elected. Also, political parties lead to an us vs them ideology. This is especially evident these days. People automatically dislike someone from the other party. This breaks down communication between them and leads to further divide. People will also just vote for their party regardless of who is running- "Vote blue no matter who" This leads to puppet voters that don't even look at the issues or the qualifications of the person running for office. It's like a high school popularity contest. There is not substance only flash.
That is a hippie on the quick. Absorb some and I mean just some Republican views and return. Republicans are greedy but they are necessary and do good for our society. Libertarian ideals like late stage capitalism can be overdrawn but if kept up with show what capitalism always taught you it could be like. Same with communism and capitalism, the core of it can be corrupted.
I looked into a good bit and I think the video confirms I want to stick with the Republican party, but I hold a lot of respect to Libertarianism, just found it’s not 100% for me
@@bomb1243 I personally could never support any political party that pursues any amount of indefinite monetary growth. Society as a whole´s only goal is to make our children able to live in our world, and societal progress is halted when currency is more sought for than that of care for the common man. Human beings are a awful species, but it always baffles me how any political party can assume pushing their ideals on others will do anything but draw hatrid
Strawman fallacies are ambiguous. Take the word libertarian. The suffix "ian" changes the root word liberal to mean the government and not the person. AKA, the three branches of government is libertarian. And not a person is a libertarian. My union is libertarian because it has a no strike agreement. Well. The totalitarian approach to "Tax the rich, and they will leave your city helps no one."
Hello chase, since the libertarian party pushes for small government. What would you do with the education system? Would you get rid of it all together and let it get replaced by private schools or something else?
@@AwesomeGuy445 The lack of regulation that libertarianism leads to gives too much power to corporations. How do you control them in a system that is already is so influenced by lobbying. I don't believe libertarian policies on economics have ever worked out , especially for the working class. In essence, what legislation would you use to prevent corporatism. The philosophy of private sectors being philanthropic and looking after employees, pensions, and communities is pretty far fetched. If you have certain legislation, would it still be considered libertarian, and if there is a time libertarian policy has worked in history, then can you cite a source to it.
First time I really took note of the term Libertarianism, was when I heard Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir, describe himself as one. That kind of says it all to me. These are the people pushing this type of ideology these days to fast track deregulation and escalate the wealth transfer and gain power. I don’t want to live by some billionaires rules who couldn’t in a million years understand what it is to live in poverty
Thinking libertarian is a person is a self destructing catch-22 cult math. A person can't be libertarian. Only a government. Or a member of that government. "I am Union" is improper grammar. It's, "I am a union member". "I am a liberal in a liberal government". And liberal means a person against a cult. A liberal will not wear white to someone else's wedding. A group brings a different perspective. A group of narcissists will all wear white to a wedding. Where a single narcissist will wear white to someone else's wedding. A cult has a self destructing catch-22 math involved. And a liberal is against that self destructing catch-22. A liberal government is against a self destructing catch-22 math. A libertarian government would be run by a bunch of liberals.
This is an excellent video! Very well explained, and I specially like the cons part, because they steelman a few of the points espoused by detractors of libertarianism. This is how I would counter those cons: 1. Income inequality: The freer the market, the higher the prosperity the society experiences, the more job and business opportunities there are, and the LOWER the cost of living. In such a society, even the poorest of people can have a pretty ok quality of life. Thus, in such a society where even the very poor have a decent life, who cares if people exist who earn 10x, 100x, 1000x what you earn, so long as they are doing so by providing a product or service that people want? 2. Lack of social safety net: First, the freer the market, the better for the poor, since that pushes the cost of living DOWN. Second, the inefficient and corrupt "safety nets" formerly provided by the government can be provided by PRIVATE CHARITIES and mutual-aid societies, way more effectively and efficiently. 3. Negative side effects: PROPERTY RIGHTS is what disincentivizes people to pollute. I won't pollute a lake or a piece of land if I know I can have a lawsuit coming my way from the owners of those places. Additionally, socialist countries are the ones which pollute the most. As for market failure, that's something which occurs precisely because of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Let the market be, and see how the forces of supply and demand regulate it.
Hello, the US are a quite libertarian country as far as economics are concerned. Yet there are way more homeless people than in Norway, for example. In Norway, the state is interfering much more in the economics than in the US. There are currently around 653.000 homeless people in the United States and 333.287.557 (2022) US citizens in total. That means that roughly 0,00196% are homeless. In Norway there live 5.488.984 (2023) people and 3909 of them are homeless (2018), thus 0,00071% of that country's population have no home. Additionally, private charity companies in a capitalist society of course have the urge and need to make their company as efficient and profitable as possible. Yes, this favors innovation and new technology, but doesn't necessarily improve the actual quality and "amount" of charity per person, as some really important insurances for example could be financially unreachable for poorer people. You see this today with the hormone Insuline, which diabetics need to get from external sources on a regular basis to survive. In 2019, in Germany (also a country with relatively high state interference) 13 765 people died from diabetes, which are 0,00012% of its population. In the US, around 100.000 people died from diabetes in 2021, the percentage is thus 0,00030%. Germany even has a slightly higher rate of diabetics (13% to 10,5% in the US). So, why do you think Libertarianism is superior to a Social Democracy for example, where the State interferes in Health Care and economics? Happy New Year and looking forward to your answer! www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2023-12/usa-obdachlosigkeit-hoechststand-corona-pandemie-wohnkosten www.nordisch.info/finnland/das-einzige-land-der-eu-das-die-obdachlosigkeit-reduziert-hat/ www.diabetesde.org/ueber_diabetes/was_ist_diabetes_/diabetes_in_zahlen www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-diabetes-deaths-top-100000-second-straight-year-federal-panel-urges-2022-01-31/ www.americanactionforum.org/research/understanding-the-insulin-market/ www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/02/PD21_N010_231.html www.diabetesde.org/ueber_diabetes/was_ist_diabetes_/diabetes_in_zahlen www.hrw.org/report/2022/04/12/if-im-out-insulin-im-going-die/united-states-lack-regulation-fuels-crisis [04. Jan 2024]
Nope. Sorry, but as we see these narcissistic principles play out, we witness how the rich get richer and everybody else is in Ireland during the potato famine. America was formed to escape the inherent selfishness of a monarchy. Without charity and regulation of resources, it gets ugly. Like now, and Donald Trump... the King's idiot son.
@@Adi-vi8is The Nordic countries are backing away from government intervention as it has proven to reduce living standards. That's what happens when you curtail people's freedom in vast swathes of people's lives.
I am Japanese. I'm interested in philosophy and social issues, but in Japan there aren't many people who are interested in philosophy, and there weren't many videos that I could find helpful, so this was very helpful. I am rooting for you!
Have you looked into The Corbett Report - by James Corbett, a Canadian who lives in Japan? He provides in depth analysis of current issues from an anarcho- libertarian perspective.
In Libertarianism, it's the market that decides the winners and the losers. He who gets to market first, is more likely to win. In all forms of Collectivism, including our current captured "Crony Capitalism", it's the government that decides the winners and the losers. He who buys a congressman first, is more likely to win. Further, the government creates distortions of the market that can break it in new, and interesting, ways.
The problem is that private corporations can be just as bureaucratic and tyrannical as the state. Just think about how bad customer service is. At least the state is (even if only very slightly) accountable to the people. Big businesses on the other hand are organised as dictatorships where he who buys a CEO or board member first is more likely to win 'Voting with your Dollar' is not a fix either, because some people have more dollars than others and this wealth is often not earned (inheritance, extraction of surplus value, etc.) The market certainly has the potential to be a far less corrupt and far more meritocratic means of organisation that statism, but only if each enterprise competing in the market is accountable to ordinary people
@cboyle707 0 seconds ago Nope. Sorry, but as we see these narcissistic principles play out, we witness how the rich get richer and everybody else is in Ireland during the potato famine. America was formed to escape the inherent selfishness of a monarchy. Without charity and regulation of resources, it gets ugly. Like now, and Donald Trump... the King's idiot son
@@amphibiousanimations7721 Ultimately, in a free market businesses succeed by their ability to provide goods/services that satisfies customers. If people don't want what they are selling they spend their money elsewhere. Looking back several decades one can see that very few of the top corporations still exist as they have been displaced by more dynamic, innovative providers. With government, you get the same old ossified goods and services. No surprise socialist countries economies end up in the trash heap. Of course, the free market capitalism doesn't exist. To the degree it did, it has been replaced by another form of collectivism, fascism.
Having read academic work on libertarianism I am regretful to seem critical of your expressed view, but! Your discription of Libertarianism is actually a description of Neo libertarianism which is a capitalist based augmentation of the original libertarin concept. Not your fault though as this video failed to explain some of libertarianisms most fundamental principles. For example, while libertarianism does champion the notion of protection of private property, it only does this though to a certain extent. Under libertarian ideal one can only hold private capital which they can make use of and maintain. Under lebertarian law, lets say talking about farm land as the private property in question, any land that is left un used or not tended to, the land in disuse can be claimed and awarded to a party that decides to inhabit and make use of that particular land section. This means that an individual can only claim what they can maintain resonably. Though there is a subclause that allows for outsourcing labour under contracted social agreements, the real libertarian thought outlines a model of sustainability that is rather difficult to monopolise like you suggest above. this video didnt mention the exceptions to certain rules and the strict criteria which it must meet. I hope Im being conversive and not arguementative with you. Happy to exhange contrary thoughtys
@@brianmcguire5175 Laissez-faire economics requires the self regulation of greed. What a joke. Most children can't even keep their hands out of a cookie jar without a prudent adult in the room.
Thanks for doing this video ( I suggested a couple of weeks ago) proof Dan listens to his viewers and is open to suggestions . I loved the video ! Thanks again Dan
Of course! I loved the suggestion and didn’t want to pass it up. Always open for more suggestions as well and will fit them in whenever possible. Thanks for watching and being a huge supporter!
@@Anonymoose66G Correct, because they aren't. They are economic goods and they are never actually free, someone is always paying for them one way or another. Like other economic goods, they should be left to the market which will provide them more efficiently than central planning if you will actually let it.
@@Nanofuture87 So in a socialist society how are you paying for it? Time? Time that the people are willing to spend for socialization, humans like to work atleast in a safe, happy environment, therefore there's no real cost for this is an socialist society.
@@Anonymoose66G yes, a right is not something that should be given to you, because that then means that someone is obligated (enslaved) to provide it. Who are going to be the slaves in that society? Libertarians believe that rights are things that you can do naturally, that someone should not be allowed to stop you from doing, or take from you, such as speech or the ability to defend yourself. Look up the difference between positive an negative rights. If you believe that rights are physical things that someone is obligated to give you, then you believe in threat of violence to achieve those things. That power is is going to become poisoned and corrupted. All of those things can be achieved, in greater quality and prosperity, without pointing a gun at someone.
@@Anonymoose66G All these things require labor and the use of scarce resources to provide. If people are voluntarily willing to do something, then you won't require the government to coerce them into doing it. Socialism is incapable of rational economic calculation, there is no way for the central planners to know the subjective preferences of individuals and how to allocate resources to meet them.
I must say that the video has really inspired some deeply thought-out opinions and conversations, both for and against. I congratulate you on this, likewise to everyone that has contributed so intelligently and coherently to this topic. 👍
@@zigoter2185well how I introduced you to the era before Teddy Roosevelt where oil, food, and railroad corporations eliminated small businesses and controlled everything they can control, + the extreme poor working conditions because the strict regulations didn't exist. Oh plus all of the corporate sabotage against each other, trying to stay on top.
@@observer4410 during the 19th and early 20th century in the US the concentration on the market was not much different from what its like today. Some markets were even more competitive, like markets that today are monopolised by 1 company because it is supposedely "a natural monopoly" actually used to be competitive before the government monopolized them. Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City … competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry … Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905. Prises for goods and services were contiunuosly FALLING, with the exception of wartime, were extra government spending and emission raised inflation during the times of war, still during 19th century twice, while experiencing sustained and significant economic growth, the American economy went through deflationary periods of 50 percent. Today, with central banks all around the world people cant even imagine the concept of continiously falling price levels. Working conditions were worse than today, but they were improving even prior to any government intervention. And this is the inevitable result of economic growth. As the production of capital goods becomes more and more effiecient, labor becomes more and more scarse relative to capital, increasing the price levels (EI wages). Other metheds of non-price competition also come into use, work shift shrink and labor standarts go up without any need for government involvement.
Awesome video! Congratulations from Brazil. Can you do a video on Anarcho-Capitalism? It is a radical variation of libertarianism created by Murray Rothbard.
Fascism. There ya go. History already showed the less regulation capitalism has the faster and more transparent fascism becomes. Won't work. Can't work. Historically never worked.
I genuinely feel like this is the most ethically and objectively correct political ideology but I can understand why some people don’t agree with the cons
The thing is. It's been tried. Republicans know it's too far right and results in transparent fascism and people revolt. It gives corporations to much power. Republicans effectively do the exact same thing, it's just less transparent. The end result is oligarchy via corporation, which in essence is the same thing as old imperialism.
The people with money will own everything and of course they will control everything in their favor as have always been, do you really believe in that ethics and no harm BS? How old are you?
@@tedlee8277 It doesn't have to be total anarcho-capitalism, that is not what libertarianism is about, some forms of welfare should exist such as Free Edu ,Healthcare (to some degree), infrastructure, parks, etc. However it there should be a limit to what the government provides, and what the people have to provide for themselves, such as housing, clothes, food, electronics, since things like that shouldn't be the responsibility of someone else's wallet (taxes)
All the cons listed about Libertarianism are the very problems we are suffering with right now: worsening gaps between the wealthy, middle class, and poor; increasing poverty, with people sleeping in tents in major cities; and an economy that is in very rough shape. I doubt things could get much worse under a Libertarian government.
All of my beliefs center around a rule I came up with as a young adult; Do whatever you want as long as you dont affect others negatively. Turns out thats a core Libertarian belief.
I'm not super political, but again, and again, every time I start thinking about this stuff... Libertarian Ideals seem to resonate hard with me. With regard to negative social consequences... they're not heartless... there are things we can do, but I still would much rather overoptimize for autonomy. Because of their stance on smaller individual or cluster autonomy (as outlined by this video)... it makes sense that we haven't had a strong libertarian candidate. The parties right now are cliquish - super diverse, we gotta stick together, but we don't have much weirdos or super conserve what we have weirdos
That is an oxymoron What happens if the people freely choose to abandon traditional values? Conservatives love state central planning, just on social and cultural issues instead of economics (although the return of protectionism & tariffs has led conservatives to engage in economic central planning again)
@@amphibiousanimations7721 Cons and Libert can coexist, that is how most countries work, there is a government to control the economy from being overtaken by a Megacorp, while allowing other buisnesses to do their thing
2:48 -Inequality can be overcome if you are allowed to live by yourself without taxes who tie you to money or dead end jobs, it'd be a minor issue. Selfsubsistance would thrive. -Government can still provide a role providing social services being instantly paid, they simply make you pay for what you use, not in a sudden but like when using loans, also they can provide workplaces where you directly work for them in case do you have no money, like community services or private businesses of their own. Giving you a job if you don't have it, by their own hand. -Pollution is brought by needing vehicles so much, but giving people the chance of living off grid or simply allowing certain towns having laws against cars can do. About education, well, it's obvious how much useless crap they force you into as how little of it ends up being useful for real life. It needs never to be mandatory.
My thoughts as a non American, just watching events from afar: Libertarianism sounds an awful lot like what the Republican party preaches on paper, with the exception of reproductive rights. In this regard, Libertarians are more self-consistent (individual rights lead to bodily autonomy). Are there any other differences, even subtle ones? Excellent explainer btw 🙂 Edit / addendum: From the Libertarian perspective, should the US government NOT have bailed out the big companies during the 2008-2009 market crash? Thanks for any thoughtful answers.
Just speaking as one Libertarian, no the Government should NOT have bailed out the big corporates during the crash. This has led to companies, investors and consumers expecting to be bailed out so they don't take adequate precautions to avoid it happening in the future. If they were not bailed out, consumers and investors would be more wary of the financial stability of where they put their money. The market would then have a self-regulating effect.
If the people want social safety nets and a clean, safe environment, it is our own responsibility to demand and provide these things. We choose fair trade products and products which are not abusive to the environment, if that’s what we value. If that’s what we choose more, that is what the market shall provide for us, as it is driven to meet our demands. If we want low income families to have more resources, then we create community based family resource centres. This is not done well, when left to governments that are made up of people with other objectives and motivations. These offered resources involve community members who consider their community’s well being, to be their purpose. This genuine human connection offers a far superior service than that provided by a cold, faceless, government bureaucracy.
If I ran a government as a libertarian I would follow most of these principles except I would impose alot of environmental regulations but that's just me, the rest sounds perfect
"Environmental" regulation is exactly the number one thing that drives the endless legislative train in my country and goes against all principles of individual freedom and even against the environment itself most of the time ironically. If you really mean environment, as in surroundigs, and not "the climate" than yes, there should be some rules for forest and nature management, laws against illegal logging, chemical waste dumping and hunting as a spare time activity. But environmental laws nowadays are the most corrupt and easiest excuse for farmers to be expropiated because of a non-existing "nitrogencrisis", also everything is a crisis now... No nuclear energy but windmills on sea and land and solarfields, no natural gas but biomass, no diesel but electric drive. Making people financialy and mentaly poor; taxation on everything because "the climate", children with mental health disorders because "the climate" and no more fun at new years eve because no fireworks because "the climate"... Please, this is not what you want for your country.
It points towards a looser government hold on taxpayers dollars, not an all out ban on taxing. Also, many libertarians do still believe that taxes should be collected, but in a progressive instead of regressive factor (higher taxes on higher incomes, much greater wealth equality). As for the military and justice systems themselves, the military eats away at half of US spending already and needs to be drastically cut. The justice system is completely out of wack and prejudiced so it needs to be rethought and renovated.
With Democrats the base political unit is a demographic. With libertarians the base political unit is the individual. With Republicans the base political unit is the family.
I love the sentiment of Libertarianism, but I also believe basic human necessities like Healthcare, food, and water are a human right that can only be offered effectively by a government body.
In a libertarian society, people are free to start programs to help people acquire resources for survival like those you described without any form of government red tape.
In theory, it all sounds good until you start really thinking about the ways in which our government protects us pro-actively from various events. Let's say in libertarian US, there are no laws regarding your household waste. No government inference in what you can put in the trash every week, how much, and no laws about where the cans go and when they can be out there on the curb. Your libertarian neighbor throws away hazardous materials which leak from his can into your garden, damaging the environment and killing your prize tomatoes. Your other Libertarian neighbor puts his can out in the street and leaves it there all the time, never moving it. The wind blows his can, a car hits it and it splatters trash all over the streets. Others decide to do this too. The streets become filled with trash. Bears become attracted to the smells and soon, there is a bear plague. There are no laws against any of this. Soon, your nice, pretty cul-de-sac becomes a dirty ghetto.
I'm 41 and have just started making decent money, but I will never be able to afford a home unless the government steps in. Foreign investors and corporations are blocking people like me with a typical family of 4. People must recognize the government must step in.
When i think of libertarianism, i think of when homer simpson designed that silly looking car, it takes so many conflicting unorthodox and clashing aspects and mixes them together, it doesn’t really work, its like taking two things you really like, such as ice cream and pizza, and putting them in a bowl together with the expectation that the food will be twice as good. Every libertarian politician i have ever seen seem a little insane or severely confused.
38 seconds in and I see that the definition stated is wrog. The right definition is: "each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other". If you say "... they do not harm others" you go down a rabbit hole you cannot exit.
i understand that this video is about political libertarianism, but i would like to highlight two very important considerations: at it's core, libertarianism is the value of individual freedom above all else. This sounds great, until you realise that it has a direct contradiction with itself. Person X wants the liberty to do as they please, as does Person Z. Person Z wants to restrict the liberty of Person X, Person X has to either restrict the liberty of Person Z in order maintain their own liberty, or use their own liberty to grant Person Z the liberty to restrict the liberty of Person X. Unfortunately, due to the very nature of existence in this universe, not to mention human nature, the use of force is literally the only way to ensure the liberty of yourself and of those you value the most. Sure you can try being diplomatic and attempt to dissuade opposition from restricting your liberty, but if for whatever reason they are not dissuaded, then you will have no choice but to use force, or accept the restriction of your liberty. The intrinsic anti libertarian nature of our reality means that to me, attempting to move away from a hierarchical system instead of embracing it, may perhaps do more harm to the pursuit of liberty than anything else. What we need is Jesus!
Ok... let's take it a step further. It is really an ideology for high character and high IQ winners. It is for people who choose to put in greater effort into life. That is probably the main reason people scoff at it.... because most people are average and don't have high levels of ambition or self-esteem. I think those people are the ones you're indirectly describing. The people who are true liberaltarians at heart would probably work such conflicts out in a reasonable way.
The people who everyone calls libertarians are not actually libertarian. They are corporatocratists. They believe in corporatocracy, the corporate state, not libertarianism.
I’m a libertarian and am disgusted with our 2 party system, I think they have failed the American people. I would love to see a strong libertarian party evolve in our nation. I think it’s principles would get our nation back on track.
I'd love to see independent also. I agree I'm over the tribalism it creates. I am guilty of it myself because I lean right. It's almost as if our government abused its power to become 2 party only and drown out anyone else
@@milkmanman I lean to the conservative side as well but the Republican Party use to be a quite a bit more fiscally responsible and they’re not anymore. Both parties are about re-election with zero principles, it makes me sick to see our country fall this far down the rabbit hole.
Hi good vid. Libertarianism could have worked in the past but if implemented now would cause immense suffering for 1 reason… AI How are the future working class supposed to feed themselves when UBI cannot be guaranteed due to Non aggression principle.
I believe Left and Right leaning libertarianism in their own respects are the best alternatives for this terrible conservative/liberal two party state we have
So if the government in libertarianism is meant to just protect individuals from harm, wouldn't that also mean they'd stop like for example Lead paint being sold, or not?
Consumers are to be aware of the risks of their purchases. People would stop buying lead paint because there's lead in it, so the paint companies would stop creating lead paint. You don't need the government to tell you that you probably shouldn't buy leaded paint.
Excellent video!!!. I disagree with regards the productive rights because even though you are free to choose, your rights ends when the others begins. Additionally the market failure in my opinion is not the fault of free market but when the government intervene.
Market failure historically was always caused by speculators and greed. Government never intervened in this. Also historically, capitalism without regulation becomes fascism. Corporations get too much power. Like you said my rights end when the corporation begins. The very idea of protest goes against the ideals of libertarianism and free market. Libertarianism is a huge step backwards in American history. And other countries tried it as well long long ago. It resulted in enslavement, and a higher class ruling the lower class.
@@r3shap3r Your argument is a fallacy. For starter capitalism without regulation is not fascism, it's called anarchocapitalism. You also confused corporativism, I don't agree that a corporation should have limitless power. There hasn't being any system or government that practice libertarianism, the contrary history have been filled with regulations in the market. Libertarianism and free market is about competition. Market failure historically is cause by government intervention couple with speculation and greed as you said but not free market. The great depression was cause because the Federal Reserve fail to bail out the Bank of the United States as well as once again greed and speculators, there were regulations in place. With regards facism is basically government intervation with corporativism, there is not free market in that scenario. In contrast socialism and communism had fail every time is implemented internationally.
@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663 historically it leads to facism is what i said. i can cite sources and history for this. and no government intervention had almost nothing to do with market collapse, they don't step in until after the damage is already done by speculation and greed. can also cite sources and history for this. communism has historically NEVER been practiced. ever. only used in propaganda. Singapore currently runs very close to libertarianism, and has the freest market in the world. it also has some of the highest disparity. fascism doesnt mean the government has power. fascism by definiton is any interest group having control over the population without democratic forum. it can happen via corporate takeover, or government takeover. Social democracy HAS proven to be the best political economic system around the world.
@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663 Socialism and Communism have never been implemented in all reality. Only the temptation of equality, the mere fact that your only claims would be under authoritarian rule nullify the statement. It cannot be socialism or communism without open democracy. Secondly , countries like new Zealand and Denmark are very progressive and have some of the best economies and publicly funded social programs in the world. that's about as close and as good as it gets. anarchocapitalism is a theory, and in reality it results in disparity and corruption. Find me and example where libertarian policy has ever worked in history. You cant, it doesn't exist. There's no fallacy in what i said. One is a theory the other is the outcome in reality, and historically proven. fascism is defined by one interest group being in control without democracy. doesnt matter if its through authoritarian rule. doesnt matter if private sectors have been integrated into the government like Mussolini did. Even monarchy is a form of fascism. Royals, elite rich, dictator party, doesn't matter. Its ruling over the majority through coercion or force. Its not always completely malevolent or militant, those traits are just mostly associated with the most recent fascist regimes. Theyre not synonymous though
The cons: it only works in an idealized retorical island... it begins as a though experiment stays that way. It lacks historical context and the explanation of reality before the system. It is a nice philosophy, if you prohibit all other branches of philosophy from being taught...
@@chsi5420 yeah... and that's exacly what happened in the US during the 60 and 70's. Mcartianism extirped left leaning ideologies from the academy. Professors were fearful of their carriers and were harassed if they ever mentioned marxism economics even in an academic context In this definition, the US is also included in authoritarian regimes... just like any other it points its finger...
@@chsi5420 today the US sees "liberal economy theory" as just "economy theory" thanks mostly to mcartianism. Other economy theories are simply absent or barely mentioned. US academy lacks context on other theories as researches were fearful for their carrer. A grand part of the understanding was lost... now They portrait strawman versions of unwanted theories and dismiss them without proper analisys.
@@marcelo55869 By not forcing people to use a single currency via taxation, people are able to take part in commerce in any way they want. Protectionist policies just end up stifling ambition and innovation. People who believe in these policies do so because "that's the way it is" rather than stating actual ways in which they work.
I believe in Libertarian ideals except the social programs. They should have them but people who use them should have to do at minimum night school and be drug tested. That way if you want the assistance you have to be on a path to not need it in the future. I also believe that large companies should actually pay taxes instead of writing off huge sums through political “donations” to manipulate politicians.
I see value in Liberaterianism, but I also see major problems with it as well. The own choices... thing is very much important, but I also see how that follows eventual decay because behavior that is out of control counters true freedom, true individual responsibility and logically leads to needing a balance to mitigate anything counter to Liberaterianism's main objectives. Government is established by God Himself. When it functions right, it takes into its constitution, the will of the People. Since the will of the People is Liberaterian, policies form to reflects main objectives. Once someone's rights to do as they please - which is for such people, to live free without the government dictating their personal way of life, bleeds into someone else's freedom, conflict ensues. The people then must solve their own issues. The bigger of a bleeding into others' way of life, the bigger the problem until its a group against the one who interfered - bled - on their way of life. Who arbitrates that - the People? The same ones who wanted limited government? Because we are fallen and sinful, many of us will seek to emass power and influence. This automatically leads to those people controlling others. There has to be some legal fairness to creat balance for everyone to live as they best can within the framework of their legal rights and way of life - individual rights and autonomy. That's just creating a police force. Such unchecked freedom will lead into more issues where the government - the people will have to step in to maintain balance and order.
It's a debatable area, but I would say most libertarians believe that abortion is killing an innocent baby, and thus a violation of the non-aggression principle.
A mix. It's probably the most highly debated topic in libertarianism, with a seemingly even split between pro-life and pro-choice. This is mainly because there is no current consensus among libertarians on whether an unborn child has rights. The Libertarian Party, which is the largest organized group of libertarians in the US, has pro-choice as their official stance, as they consider it a person enough of a moral consideration that government ought not to be involved. Granted, the LP does not represent all libertarians, and there are to my knowledge many pro-life advocates in the LP. Long story short, you can still reasonably consider yourself a libertarian, regardless of your views on abortion.
All previous replies^ are accurate, IMO. I'll chime in with my 2 cents: Pro-choice is technically the more libertarian viewpoint. That is... if you define libertarianism as minimal government intervention. That being said, some people view libertarianism through the "non-aggression principle," that leads to some libertarians being pro-life. So, it sort of depends how you define libertarianism, IMO. Some libertarians draw a hard line on government intervention when harm is done to someone (hence, why "non-aggression" libertarians are pro-life). And other libertarians (more "fundamentalist" libertarians) believe that the government has no business drawing a hard line on any issue, so they tend to be pro-choice.
"each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other". First we must decide if we consider the unborn living? Do we treat it as "other"? We define life as: A biological individual is any concrete whole having a structure which enables it, when placed in appropiate conditions, to continuously adjust its internal relations to external relations, so as to mentain the equilibrium of its functions. This makes the unborn a biological individual. We must treat is as the "other". You can compare it with a seed growing underground. Is it alive only when it breaches the surface? I don't think so. So if the unborn is a living other, getting rid of it infringes on its freedom to be alive. The adult breaks the law of equal freedom if he does that. But the unborn is also breaking the law of equal freedom because the adult is inhibited to do what it wills by the unborn. So a choice has to be made on who is allowed to break the law of equal freedom. The adult or the unborn. It is a situation where the only exit is breaking the law. One has to suffer... And it is so because the ones who planted the "seed" had broken the law in the first place...
Libertarians don't necessarily agree with free-market capitalism or social services. There is a large spectrum to Libertarianism. Social services can enable freedoms if they are optional programs or provide universal utility. Programs such as universal basic healthcare and limited welfare can be justified. Free-market economy with anti-monopoly and trust busting governmental agencies can also be justified. While some Libertarians agree with your assertions, it has a philosophy and not a rigid set of beliefs.
@@zigoter2185 the specific position OP seems to support it neoclassical liberalism. But libertarianism is even more varied than that: There are libertarians who believe in the state promoting traditional values (Paleolibertarians) There are libertarians who want strict border control and for the state to promote patriotism (National libertarians) There are libertarians who justify a single tax on land to fund welfare (Georgists) There are libertarians who emphasise welfarism and the pursuit of social justice (Arizona School libertarians) There are even libertarians who reject capitalism and want direct worker ownership of enterprise (libertarian socialists)
@@amphibiousanimations7721 national libertarians and paleolibertarians do not believe in state promoting patriotism/traditional values. They believe in these ideas personally and seek to promote it without using the government.
@@zigoter2185 I personally doubt that, considering how many paleolibertarians and Hoppeans glorify the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet I also doubt a national libertarian would permit mass immigration, and would seek to use the state to enforce national boundaries at the detriment of the right to free movement
I'm a libertarian, but I don't believe we shouldn't pay taxes on certain things. Property tax where the government does nothing for me is theft. Personal property tax on my things that sit on my land in west Virginia is like I'm paying rent. I still pay taxes for roads that gets me to my home and wherever, every time I buy gas. So that's fine. I don't mind paying taxes for fire and ambulance. These are things that serves the people. I stay in a country part time, where there no welfare and don't need a prescription to buy most medications. Theres less homeless and beggers and no one is overdosing on meds. malls and transportation system makes USA look bad. This is bangkok. Smaller government is better. They should be monitored and restricted from spending and earning too much money. The system isn't for the people. As a libertarian, I'm for the people. If we didn't have welfare, we would have a larger working class, as most people are just working the system. Social security and social security disability should be all we have. Doctors and dentists are scamming us. They make too much.
His opening definition is totally opposite of how liberals act in the United States. Perhaps it’s appropriate to have a different name for what these people are in the United States.
Living in a tiny blue hell hole state on the shore of the Chesapeake Bay, where democrats levy high taxes to infringe upon my civil rights, I was faced with the reality that liberalism simply is not working in our nation. This is why crime and violence in our urban areas is so great, why our centers of education are failing, why manufacturing & business is going overseas, and why I need to exercise my second amendment. So naturally, I joined the Libertarian Party.
A free market is usually the best for economic freedom, efficiency, and overall quality of life. Most libertarians aren’t opposed to some level of regulation, as long as it’s minimally intrusive and under control. Libertarians aren’t categorically ancaps
Absolutely MUST form a CENTRIST Party, most reasonable 1/3+ from both R's & D's - let the fringes rant! One better!!! Dems run Kamala, Reps run Tulsi and we have to vote for a woman President by DESIGN!
It's neither of those. Republicans and democrats are basically the same in all issues except abortion and gun control. Oh, end republicans like to tell about markets, but then they actually get elected and start a trade war with China, while increasing government spending and debt.
Yes, and no. The vast majority of libertarians see Democrats and Republicans as being effectively the same ideology because both view the government as a tool for shaping society. Libertarians see themselves as an ideology completely separate from D's and R's because they believe that individuals should improve their societies through non-governmental means
I appreciate the feedback. I used to be super annoyed myself until I was looking into growing my channel. You’d be surprised that people won’t take action unless they’re reminded to. I try to keep my invitations less than a couple seconds. Other channels sometime go on and on and that’s a bit much.
Definitely would hate to drive on the roads of a Libertarian country. And I’m pretty sure Libertarians love the military. Those cardboard tanks probably wouldn’t do well against tax funded F-16s. What a bunch of monkeys.
Libertarians believe that everyone has the right to defend their property, and that everyone has the ability to delegate that right to other people, so that, for example, I can hire (pay) someone to protect my property on my behalf. So there is a chance that the answer to your question could be "yes", but it depends on your definition of the word "taxes".
@@BlackLibertarian what would your definition of taxes be? I noted you said you would pay to defend _your_ property but I asked in regards to defending private property in general.
@@regisglass5464 Defending private property "in general"? That sounds impossible! nobody can defend all private property in the entire world! Do you realize how big the world is? How much private property exists in the world? You were the 1st person that used the word "taxes", so you provide the definition first. I'll show you mine if you show me yours! 😛
@@BlackLibertarian that's a weird response. Do you then believe the police only ever defend one specific piece of property forever? Also, why would "in general" mean everything? And i did define taxes. That's why i asked about taxes financing the protection of property in general. However, it seems you disagree with that, so does that mean libertarians actually do consider it an "every man for himself" situation?
@@regisglass5464 ". Do you then believe the police only ever defend one specific piece of property forever? " Well, that's what the current police groups in the world do. They only defend an EXTREMELY small area compared to the entire land area of the world. When was the last time you saw officers from the Los Angeles police department going over to Bangladesh to act as police over there? "And i did define taxes." I scrolled all throughout your comments, and I didn't see your definition of the word "tax". Could you please humor me and repeat your definition?
Used to be Republican, started to strongly favor Libertarianism in ~2021. Once I saw that 99% of policies lack an objective philosophical basis (and are instead based on subjective interpretations), that convinced me to shift from Republican to Libertarian.
We’ve needed a 3rd party and even and 4th for years . Pretty sad the two parties are so scared of it . Which SHOULD tell people a lot about the current parties . THEY are the same!
@Mountain Dew Baja Blast Or get rid of political parties altogether.
@Mountain Dew Baja Blast Political parties eventually only serve themselves. As we see today, the two main parties only care about being in power and gaining power. Neither cares about you or me. They do care about lobbyists and the companies that helped get them elected.
Also, political parties lead to an us vs them ideology. This is especially evident these days. People automatically dislike someone from the other party. This breaks down communication between them and leads to further divide. People will also just vote for their party regardless of who is running- "Vote blue no matter who" This leads to puppet voters that don't even look at the issues or the qualifications of the person running for office. It's like a high school popularity contest. There is not substance only flash.
@@h3m1cuda do you support freedom of speech?
@@robinsss Yes.
I was raised Democrat, but I've recently been shifting towards Libertarianism
That is a hippie on the quick. Absorb some and I mean just some Republican views and return. Republicans are greedy but they are necessary and do good for our society. Libertarian ideals like late stage capitalism can be overdrawn but if kept up with show what capitalism always taught you it could be like. Same with communism and capitalism, the core of it can be corrupted.
I looked into a good bit and I think the video confirms I want to stick with the Republican party, but I hold a lot of respect to Libertarianism, just found it’s not 100% for me
@@bomb1243 I personally could never support any political party that pursues any amount of indefinite monetary growth. Society as a whole´s only goal is to make our children able to live in our world, and societal progress is halted when currency is more sought for than that of care for the common man.
Human beings are a awful species, but it always baffles me how any political party can assume pushing their ideals on others will do anything but draw hatrid
@@bomb1243the Republican Party today if made up of mostly libertarians. Yes there is a libertarian party, but it’s very small.
Strawman fallacies are ambiguous. Take the word libertarian. The suffix "ian" changes the root word liberal to mean the government and not the person. AKA, the three branches of government is libertarian. And not a person is a libertarian. My union is libertarian because it has a no strike agreement. Well. The totalitarian approach to "Tax the rich, and they will leave your city helps no one."
I was a Libertarian candidate for US Senate and now I'm exploring a 2024 run for President.
And looking at the cons listed here, I'm happy to participate in healthy discourse to refute those fears.
Hello chase, since the libertarian party pushes for small government. What would you do with the education system? Would you get rid of it all together and let it get replaced by private schools or something else?
You will never win. Think about moving to New Hampshire and getting into politics there instead.
@@chaseforliberty how do you regulate capitalism to prevent its historical descent into facism, as it has done everytime.
@@AwesomeGuy445 The lack of regulation that libertarianism leads to gives too much power to corporations. How do you control them in a system that is already is so influenced by lobbying. I don't believe libertarian policies on economics have ever worked out , especially for the working class. In essence, what legislation would you use to prevent corporatism. The philosophy of private sectors being philanthropic and looking after employees, pensions, and communities is pretty far fetched. If you have certain legislation, would it still be considered libertarian, and if there is a time libertarian policy has worked in history, then can you cite a source to it.
That "Non-aggression principle" seems pretty important.
First time I really took note of the term Libertarianism, was when I heard Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir, describe himself as one. That kind of says it all to me. These are the people pushing this type of ideology these days to fast track deregulation and escalate the wealth transfer and gain power.
I don’t want to live by some billionaires rules who couldn’t in a million years understand what it is to live in poverty
Thinking libertarian is a person is a self destructing catch-22 cult math.
A person can't be libertarian. Only a government. Or a member of that government. "I am Union" is improper grammar. It's, "I am a union member". "I am a liberal in a liberal government". And liberal means a person against a cult. A liberal will not wear white to someone else's wedding.
A group brings a different perspective. A group of narcissists will all wear white to a wedding. Where a single narcissist will wear white to someone else's wedding.
A cult has a self destructing catch-22 math involved. And a liberal is against that self destructing catch-22.
A liberal government is against a self destructing catch-22 math.
A libertarian government would be run by a bunch of liberals.
This is an excellent video! Very well explained, and I specially like the cons part, because they steelman a few of the points espoused by detractors of libertarianism.
This is how I would counter those cons:
1. Income inequality: The freer the market, the higher the prosperity the society experiences, the more job and business opportunities there are, and the LOWER the cost of living. In such a society, even the poorest of people can have a pretty ok quality of life. Thus, in such a society where even the very poor have a decent life, who cares if people exist who earn 10x, 100x, 1000x what you earn, so long as they are doing so by providing a product or service that people want?
2. Lack of social safety net: First, the freer the market, the better for the poor, since that pushes the cost of living DOWN. Second, the inefficient and corrupt "safety nets" formerly provided by the government can be provided by PRIVATE CHARITIES and mutual-aid societies, way more effectively and efficiently.
3. Negative side effects: PROPERTY RIGHTS is what disincentivizes people to pollute. I won't pollute a lake or a piece of land if I know I can have a lawsuit coming my way from the owners of those places. Additionally, socialist countries are the ones which pollute the most. As for market failure, that's something which occurs precisely because of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Let the market be, and see how the forces of supply and demand regulate it.
Good
Hello,
the US are a quite libertarian country as far as economics are concerned. Yet there are way more homeless people than in Norway, for example. In Norway, the state is interfering much more in the economics than in the US. There are currently around 653.000 homeless people in the United States and 333.287.557 (2022) US citizens in total. That means that roughly 0,00196% are homeless. In Norway there live 5.488.984 (2023) people and 3909 of them are homeless (2018), thus 0,00071% of that country's population have no home.
Additionally, private charity companies in a capitalist society of course have the urge and need to make their company as efficient and profitable as possible. Yes, this favors innovation and new technology, but doesn't necessarily improve the actual quality and "amount" of charity per person, as some really important insurances for example could be financially unreachable for poorer people. You see this today with the hormone Insuline, which diabetics need to get from external sources on a regular basis to survive. In 2019, in Germany (also a country with relatively high state interference) 13 765 people died from diabetes, which are 0,00012% of its population. In the US, around 100.000 people died from diabetes in 2021, the percentage is thus 0,00030%. Germany even has a slightly higher rate of diabetics (13% to 10,5% in the US).
So, why do you think Libertarianism is superior to a Social Democracy for example, where the State interferes in Health Care and economics?
Happy New Year and looking forward to your answer!
www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2023-12/usa-obdachlosigkeit-hoechststand-corona-pandemie-wohnkosten
www.nordisch.info/finnland/das-einzige-land-der-eu-das-die-obdachlosigkeit-reduziert-hat/
www.diabetesde.org/ueber_diabetes/was_ist_diabetes_/diabetes_in_zahlen
www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-diabetes-deaths-top-100000-second-straight-year-federal-panel-urges-2022-01-31/
www.americanactionforum.org/research/understanding-the-insulin-market/
www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/02/PD21_N010_231.html
www.diabetesde.org/ueber_diabetes/was_ist_diabetes_/diabetes_in_zahlen
www.hrw.org/report/2022/04/12/if-im-out-insulin-im-going-die/united-states-lack-regulation-fuels-crisis
[04. Jan 2024]
Nope. Sorry, but as we see these narcissistic principles play out, we witness how the rich get richer and everybody else is in Ireland during the potato famine. America was formed to escape the inherent selfishness of a monarchy. Without charity and regulation of resources, it gets ugly. Like now, and Donald Trump... the King's idiot son.
@@Adi-vi8is The Nordic countries are backing away from government intervention as it has proven to reduce living standards. That's what happens when you curtail people's freedom in vast swathes of people's lives.
@@Adi-vi8isUnited States hasn't been truly libertarian since the federal reserve in the 1910s
This is a really fair rundown of the ideology. Thanks for always being so objective with these
You're so underrated. The amount of efforts you put is commendable 👏
Thank you so much 😀
I am Japanese. I'm interested in philosophy and social issues, but in Japan there aren't many people who are interested in philosophy, and there weren't many videos that I could find helpful, so this was very helpful. I am rooting for you!
頑張ってください!!
Have you looked into The Corbett Report - by James Corbett, a Canadian who lives in Japan? He provides in depth analysis of current issues from an anarcho- libertarian perspective.
Philosophy is useless just like sociology
We used to be the country where all of these ideas are discussed
In Libertarianism, it's the market that decides the winners and the losers. He who gets to market first, is more likely to win.
In all forms of Collectivism, including our current captured "Crony Capitalism", it's the government that decides the winners and the losers. He who buys a congressman first, is more likely to win.
Further, the government creates distortions of the market that can break it in new, and interesting, ways.
The problem is that private corporations can be just as bureaucratic and tyrannical as the state. Just think about how bad customer service is. At least the state is (even if only very slightly) accountable to the people. Big businesses on the other hand are organised as dictatorships where he who buys a CEO or board member first is more likely to win
'Voting with your Dollar' is not a fix either, because some people have more dollars than others and this wealth is often not earned (inheritance, extraction of surplus value, etc.)
The market certainly has the potential to be a far less corrupt and far more meritocratic means of organisation that statism, but only if each enterprise competing in the market is accountable to ordinary people
@cboyle707
0 seconds ago
Nope. Sorry, but as we see these narcissistic principles play out, we witness how the rich get richer and everybody else is in Ireland during the potato famine. America was formed to escape the inherent selfishness of a monarchy. Without charity and regulation of resources, it gets ugly. Like now, and Donald Trump... the King's idiot son
@@amphibiousanimations7721 Ultimately, in a free market businesses succeed by their ability to provide goods/services that satisfies customers. If people don't want what they are selling they spend their money elsewhere. Looking back several decades one can see that very few of the top corporations still exist as they have been displaced by more dynamic, innovative providers. With government, you get the same old ossified goods and services. No surprise socialist countries economies end up in the trash heap. Of course, the free market capitalism doesn't exist. To the degree it did, it has been replaced by another form of collectivism, fascism.
Having read academic work on libertarianism I am regretful to seem critical of your expressed view, but! Your discription of Libertarianism is actually a description of Neo libertarianism which is a capitalist based augmentation
of the original libertarin concept. Not your fault though as this video failed to explain some of libertarianisms most fundamental principles. For example, while libertarianism does champion the notion of protection of private property, it only does this though to a certain extent. Under libertarian ideal one can only hold private capital which they can make use of and maintain. Under lebertarian law, lets say talking about farm land as the private property in question, any land that is left un used or not tended to, the land in disuse can be claimed and awarded to a party that decides to inhabit and make use of that particular land section. This means that an individual can only claim what they can maintain resonably. Though there is a subclause that allows for outsourcing labour under contracted social agreements, the real libertarian thought outlines a model of sustainability that is rather difficult to monopolise like you suggest above. this video didnt mention the exceptions to certain rules and the strict criteria which it must meet. I hope Im being conversive and not arguementative with you. Happy to exhange contrary thoughtys
@@brianmcguire5175 Laissez-faire economics requires the self regulation of greed. What a joke. Most children can't even keep their hands out of a cookie jar without a prudent adult in the room.
Thanks for doing this video ( I suggested a couple of weeks ago) proof Dan listens to his viewers and is open to suggestions . I loved the video ! Thanks again Dan
Of course! I loved the suggestion and didn’t want to pass it up. Always open for more suggestions as well and will fit them in whenever possible. Thanks for watching and being a huge supporter!
Libertarianism is better than the first two parties.
Here in Argentina we have a libertarian president and in 8 months he did more so farr than what the other two traditional parties did.
If you care about natural rights and/or human flourishing, you should be a libertarian.
So you deny that free healthcare, housing, education, water, electricity and dentistry are human rights?
@@Anonymoose66G Correct, because they aren't. They are economic goods and they are never actually free, someone is always paying for them one way or another. Like other economic goods, they should be left to the market which will provide them more efficiently than central planning if you will actually let it.
@@Nanofuture87 So in a socialist society how are you paying for it? Time? Time that the people are willing to spend for socialization, humans like to work atleast in a safe, happy environment, therefore there's no real cost for this is an socialist society.
@@Anonymoose66G yes, a right is not something that should be given to you, because that then means that someone is obligated (enslaved) to provide it. Who are going to be the slaves in that society? Libertarians believe that rights are things that you can do naturally, that someone should not be allowed to stop you from doing, or take from you, such as speech or the ability to defend yourself. Look up the difference between positive an negative rights.
If you believe that rights are physical things that someone is obligated to give you, then you believe in threat of violence to achieve those things. That power is is going to become poisoned and corrupted. All of those things can be achieved, in greater quality and prosperity, without pointing a gun at someone.
@@Anonymoose66G All these things require labor and the use of scarce resources to provide. If people are voluntarily willing to do something, then you won't require the government to coerce them into doing it. Socialism is incapable of rational economic calculation, there is no way for the central planners to know the subjective preferences of individuals and how to allocate resources to meet them.
I must say that the video has really inspired some deeply thought-out opinions and conversations, both for and against. I congratulate you on this, likewise to everyone that has contributed so intelligently and coherently to this topic. 👍
As a libertarian, I can say I hate trump just as much as I hate biden
Socially conservative but economically libertarian Englishman.
So you hate individual freedom.
Doesn't seem too bad, just a few minor changes and it'll be a pretty good ideology.
Yes, remove government completely
@@zigoter2185 then you'll have a cyberpunk 2077 type of country
@@oyo4629 linking to a fictional world is absolutely not a bad faith argument.
@@zigoter2185well how I introduced you to the era before Teddy Roosevelt where oil, food, and railroad corporations eliminated small businesses and controlled everything they can control, + the extreme poor working conditions because the strict regulations didn't exist. Oh plus all of the corporate sabotage against each other, trying to stay on top.
@@observer4410 during the 19th and early 20th century in the US the concentration on the market was not much different from what its like today. Some markets were even more competitive, like markets that today are monopolised by 1 company because it is supposedely "a natural monopoly" actually used to be competitive before the government monopolized them. Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City … competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry … Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905. Prises for goods and services were contiunuosly FALLING, with the exception of wartime, were extra government spending and emission raised inflation during the times of war, still during 19th century twice, while experiencing sustained and significant economic growth, the American economy went through deflationary periods of 50 percent. Today, with central banks all around the world people cant even imagine the concept of continiously falling price levels.
Working conditions were worse than today, but they were improving even prior to any government intervention. And this is the inevitable result of economic growth. As the production of capital goods becomes more and more effiecient, labor becomes more and more scarse relative to capital, increasing the price levels (EI wages). Other metheds of non-price competition also come into use, work shift shrink and labor standarts go up without any need for government involvement.
Another fantastic and simple breakdown of a topic.
Thank you so much! I’m so glad you found it easy and simple to understand.
As a Libertarian thank you for getting us some air time at least. One day we shall change the world 💙
Absolutely!
It will never happen. Libertarianism is a fantasy world.
Thank you so much for this video. Super helpful and well-presented. Your time and effort is most appreciated!
Awesome video! Congratulations from Brazil.
Can you do a video on Anarcho-Capitalism? It is a radical variation of libertarianism created by Murray Rothbard.
Fascism. There ya go. History already showed the less regulation capitalism has the faster and more transparent fascism becomes. Won't work. Can't work. Historically never worked.
I genuinely feel like this is the most ethically and objectively correct political ideology but I can understand why some people don’t agree with the cons
The thing is. It's been tried. Republicans know it's too far right and results in transparent fascism and people revolt. It gives corporations to much power. Republicans effectively do the exact same thing, it's just less transparent. The end result is oligarchy via corporation, which in essence is the same thing as old imperialism.
Libertarian communism/anarchist communism is the most ethical & objectively correct ideology.
The people with money will own everything and of course they will control everything in their favor as have always been, do you really believe in that ethics and no harm BS? How old are you?
@@tedlee8277 It doesn't have to be total anarcho-capitalism, that is not what libertarianism is about, some forms of welfare should exist such as Free Edu ,Healthcare (to some degree), infrastructure, parks, etc. However it there should be a limit to what the government provides, and what the people have to provide for themselves, such as housing, clothes, food, electronics, since things like that shouldn't be the responsibility of someone else's wallet (taxes)
Maybe you could do Libertarianism vs Liberalism so we can see the differences
That’s an excellent idea. I’ve added it to my list of videos to do.
That helped allot I'm for a few libertarian beliefs but against some as well. Thanks for helping me understand I'm a simplified way
You’re welcome. Glad you found it to be helpful 👍🏼
All the cons listed about Libertarianism are the very problems we are suffering with right now: worsening gaps between the wealthy, middle class, and poor; increasing poverty, with people sleeping in tents in major cities; and an economy that is in very rough shape. I doubt things could get much worse under a Libertarian government.
Could you do a video on different factions of the Libertarian Party, like the Mises Cacus or the Classical Liberal Caucus?
All of my beliefs center around a rule I came up with as a young adult; Do whatever you want as long as you dont affect others negatively. Turns out thats a core Libertarian belief.
I'm not super political, but again, and again, every time I start thinking about this stuff... Libertarian Ideals seem to resonate hard with me.
With regard to negative social consequences... they're not heartless... there are things we can do, but I still would much rather overoptimize for autonomy.
Because of their stance on smaller individual or cluster autonomy (as outlined by this video)... it makes sense that we haven't had a strong libertarian candidate.
The parties right now are cliquish - super diverse, we gotta stick together, but we don't have much weirdos or super conserve what we have weirdos
Very clear explanation !!Thanks for sharing!!😊😊😊
My pleasure 😊 thanks for watching!
Conservative Libertarianism makes sense to me
That is an oxymoron
What happens if the people freely choose to abandon traditional values? Conservatives love state central planning, just on social and cultural issues instead of economics (although the return of protectionism & tariffs has led conservatives to engage in economic central planning again)
Libertarians can not be conservatives since they are pro abortion and pro free drugs use
@@amphibiousanimations7721 Cons and Libert can coexist, that is how most countries work, there is a government to control the economy from being overtaken by a Megacorp, while allowing other buisnesses to do their thing
2:48 -Inequality can be overcome if you are allowed to live by yourself without taxes who tie you to money or dead end jobs, it'd be a minor issue. Selfsubsistance would thrive.
-Government can still provide a role providing social services being instantly paid, they simply make you pay for what you use, not in a sudden but like when using loans, also they can provide workplaces where you directly work for them in case do you have no money, like community services or private businesses of their own. Giving you a job if you don't have it, by their own hand.
-Pollution is brought by needing vehicles so much, but giving people the chance of living off grid or simply allowing certain towns having laws against cars can do. About education, well, it's obvious how much useless crap they force you into as how little of it ends up being useful for real life. It needs never to be mandatory.
Thank you, this was very helpful for an essay that I am writing.
Glad it was helpful!
The best there is
My thoughts as a non American, just watching events from afar: Libertarianism sounds an awful lot like what the Republican party preaches on paper, with the exception of reproductive rights. In this regard, Libertarians are more self-consistent (individual rights lead to bodily autonomy). Are there any other differences, even subtle ones?
Excellent explainer btw 🙂
Edit / addendum: From the Libertarian perspective, should the US government NOT have bailed out the big companies during the 2008-2009 market crash? Thanks for any thoughtful answers.
Just speaking as one Libertarian, no the Government should NOT have bailed out the big corporates during the crash. This has led to companies, investors and consumers expecting to be bailed out so they don't take adequate precautions to avoid it happening in the future. If they were not bailed out, consumers and investors would be more wary of the financial stability of where they put their money. The market would then have a self-regulating effect.
Liberty and Justice for all. Thank you!
"If you want something done right, do it yourself"
Anyone whos had issues waiting for help when theyve needed it know that saying well.
If the people want social safety nets and a clean, safe environment, it is our own responsibility to demand and provide these things. We choose fair trade products and products which are not abusive to the environment, if that’s what we value. If that’s what we choose more, that is what the market shall provide for us, as it is driven to meet our demands.
If we want low income families to have more resources, then we create community based family resource centres. This is not done well, when left to governments that are made up of people with other objectives and motivations. These offered resources involve community members who consider their community’s well being, to be their purpose. This genuine human connection offers a far superior service than that provided by a cold, faceless, government bureaucracy.
If I ran a government as a libertarian I would follow most of these principles except I would impose alot of environmental regulations but that's just me, the rest sounds perfect
Privatize the environment and entrepreneurs will be willing to preserve its market value.
@@zigoter2185 Also make taxless to have some minimum land of your own to selfsubsist.
Yeah same
It’s not our responsibility to play God
"Environmental" regulation is exactly the number one thing that drives the endless legislative train in my country and goes against all principles of individual freedom and even against the environment itself most of the time ironically. If you really mean environment, as in surroundigs, and not "the climate" than yes, there should be some rules for forest and nature management,
laws against illegal logging, chemical waste dumping and hunting as a spare time activity.
But environmental laws nowadays are the most corrupt and easiest excuse for farmers to be expropiated because of a non-existing "nitrogencrisis", also everything is a crisis now... No nuclear energy but windmills on sea and land and solarfields, no natural gas but biomass, no diesel but electric drive. Making people financialy and mentaly poor; taxation on everything because "the climate", children with mental health disorders because "the climate" and no more fun at new years eve because no fireworks because "the climate"...
Please, this is not what you want for your country.
I'm curious how libertarians think the government will pay for things like the military and the justice system without taxes?
It points towards a looser government hold on taxpayers dollars, not an all out ban on taxing. Also, many libertarians do still believe that taxes should be collected, but in a progressive instead of regressive factor (higher taxes on higher incomes, much greater wealth equality). As for the military and justice systems themselves, the military eats away at half of US spending already and needs to be drastically cut. The justice system is completely out of wack and prejudiced so it needs to be rethought and renovated.
They would eliminate taxes for the 5 percent rich class but will tax the hell out of the poor and middle class same as conservative would do
the late, GREAT Babs Wilson from Baton Rouge accurately described the libertarians back in the 80's.
The meet, greet and eat club
thanks for so precise explanation
Glad it was helpful!
Yooo educate to illustrate, Can you make a video on classical libertarianism vs libertarianism?
what's the difference? don't they both advocate for minimal government i
With Democrats the base political unit is a demographic.
With libertarians the base political unit is the individual.
With Republicans the base political unit is the family.
I love the sentiment of Libertarianism, but I also believe basic human necessities like Healthcare, food, and water are a human right that can only be offered effectively by a government body.
In a libertarian society, people are free to start programs to help people acquire resources for survival like those you described without any form of government red tape.
In theory, it all sounds good until you start really thinking about the ways in which our government protects us pro-actively from various events. Let's say in libertarian US, there are no laws regarding your household waste. No government inference in what you can put in the trash every week, how much, and no laws about where the cans go and when they can be out there on the curb. Your libertarian neighbor throws away hazardous materials which leak from his can into your garden, damaging the environment and killing your prize tomatoes. Your other Libertarian neighbor puts his can out in the street and leaves it there all the time, never moving it. The wind blows his can, a car hits it and it splatters trash all over the streets. Others decide to do this too. The streets become filled with trash. Bears become attracted to the smells and soon, there is a bear plague. There are no laws against any of this. Soon, your nice, pretty cul-de-sac becomes a dirty ghetto.
I'm 41 and have just started making decent money, but I will never be able to afford a home unless the government steps in. Foreign investors and corporations are blocking people like me with a typical family of 4. People must recognize the government must step in.
The government heavily regulates the supply of housing now with restrictive planning laws.
When i think of libertarianism, i think of when homer simpson designed that silly looking car, it takes so many conflicting unorthodox and clashing aspects and mixes them together, it doesn’t really work, its like taking two things you really like, such as ice cream and pizza, and putting them in a bowl together with the expectation that the food will be twice as good. Every libertarian politician i have ever seen seem a little insane or severely confused.
38 seconds in and I see that the definition stated is wrog. The right definition is: "each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other". If you say "... they do not harm others" you go down a rabbit hole you cannot exit.
i understand that this video is about political libertarianism, but i would like to highlight two very important considerations: at it's core, libertarianism is the value of individual freedom above all else. This sounds great, until you realise that it has a direct contradiction with itself. Person X wants the liberty to do as they please, as does Person Z. Person Z wants to restrict the liberty of Person X, Person X has to either restrict the liberty of Person Z in order maintain their own liberty, or use their own liberty to grant Person Z the liberty to restrict the liberty of Person X.
Unfortunately, due to the very nature of existence in this universe, not to mention human nature, the use of force is literally the only way to ensure the liberty of yourself and of those you value the most. Sure you can try being diplomatic and attempt to dissuade opposition from restricting your liberty, but if for whatever reason they are not dissuaded, then you will have no choice but to use force, or accept the restriction of your liberty. The intrinsic anti libertarian nature of our reality means that to me, attempting to move away from a hierarchical system instead of embracing it, may perhaps do more harm to the pursuit of liberty than anything else. What we need is Jesus!
Ok... let's take it a step further. It is really an ideology for high character and high IQ winners. It is for people who choose to put in greater effort into life. That is probably the main reason people scoff at it.... because most people are average and don't have high levels of ambition or self-esteem. I think those people are the ones you're indirectly describing. The people who are true liberaltarians at heart would probably work such conflicts out in a reasonable way.
Cool channel! Would love to know your take on a technocracy. What would be wrong with this type of governance?
The best system
Do one on Libertarian Socialism
The people who everyone calls libertarians are not actually libertarian. They are corporatocratists. They believe in corporatocracy, the corporate state, not libertarianism.
Are there any explanations of how do libertarians plan to prevent it to (again) end up in failure or Cyberpunk-levels of dystopia?
I’m a libertarian and am disgusted with our 2 party system, I think they have failed the American people. I would love to see a strong libertarian party evolve in our nation. I think it’s principles would get our nation back on track.
I'd love to see independent also. I agree I'm over the tribalism it creates. I am guilty of it myself because I lean right. It's almost as if our government abused its power to become 2 party only and drown out anyone else
@@milkmanman I lean to the conservative side as well but the Republican Party use to be a quite a bit more fiscally responsible and they’re not anymore. Both parties are about re-election with zero principles, it makes me sick to see our country fall this far down the rabbit hole.
Hi good vid. Libertarianism could have worked in the past but if implemented now would cause immense suffering for 1 reason… AI
How are the future working class supposed to feed themselves when UBI cannot be guaranteed due to Non aggression principle.
I believe Left and Right leaning libertarianism in their own respects are the best alternatives for this terrible conservative/liberal two party state we have
Great video 👍could you make one on a resource based economy?
Great suggestion! I can definitely look into it and add it in the schedule where it makes sense. Thank you!
So if the government in libertarianism is meant to just protect individuals from harm, wouldn't that also mean they'd stop like for example Lead paint being sold, or not?
Consumers are to be aware of the risks of their purchases. People would stop buying lead paint because there's lead in it, so the paint companies would stop creating lead paint. You don't need the government to tell you that you probably shouldn't buy leaded paint.
@@chsi5420 Yes but isn’t an ingredients list on the back a regulation, i think that’d be pretty dangerous to not have one
I think that social services and taxes should be dealt with by the state and not the federal government.
Excellent video!!!. I disagree with regards the productive rights because even though you are free to choose, your rights ends when the others begins. Additionally the market failure in my opinion is not the fault of free market but when the government intervene.
Thank you for watching! I appreciate your input on libertarianism, and I think you bring up a lot of very valid arguments.
Market failure historically was always caused by speculators and greed. Government never intervened in this. Also historically, capitalism without regulation becomes fascism. Corporations get too much power. Like you said my rights end when the corporation begins. The very idea of protest goes against the ideals of libertarianism and free market. Libertarianism is a huge step backwards in American history. And other countries tried it as well long long ago. It resulted in enslavement, and a higher class ruling the lower class.
@@r3shap3r Your argument is a fallacy. For starter capitalism without regulation is not fascism, it's called anarchocapitalism. You also confused corporativism, I don't agree that a corporation should have limitless power. There hasn't being any system or government that practice libertarianism, the contrary history have been filled with regulations in the market. Libertarianism and free market is about competition. Market failure historically is cause by government intervention couple with speculation and greed as you said but not free market. The great depression was cause because the Federal Reserve fail to bail out the Bank of the United States as well as once again greed and speculators, there were regulations in place. With regards facism is basically government intervation with corporativism, there is not free market in that scenario. In contrast socialism and communism had fail every time is implemented internationally.
@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663 historically it leads to facism is what i said. i can cite sources and history for this. and no government intervention had almost nothing to do with market collapse, they don't step in until after the damage is already done by speculation and greed. can also cite sources and history for this. communism has historically NEVER been practiced. ever. only used in propaganda. Singapore currently runs very close to libertarianism, and has the freest market in the world. it also has some of the highest disparity. fascism doesnt mean the government has power. fascism by definiton is any interest group having control over the population without democratic forum. it can happen via corporate takeover, or government takeover. Social democracy HAS proven to be the best political economic system around the world.
@@maximilianogarciachirinos3663 Socialism and Communism have never been implemented in all reality. Only the temptation of equality, the mere fact that your only claims would be under authoritarian rule nullify the statement. It cannot be socialism or communism without open democracy. Secondly , countries like new Zealand and Denmark are very progressive and have some of the best economies and publicly funded social programs in the world. that's about as close and as good as it gets. anarchocapitalism is a theory, and in reality it results in disparity and corruption. Find me and example where libertarian policy has ever worked in history. You cant, it doesn't exist. There's no fallacy in what i said. One is a theory the other is the outcome in reality, and historically proven. fascism is defined by one interest group being in control without democracy. doesnt matter if its through authoritarian rule. doesnt matter if private sectors have been integrated into the government like Mussolini did. Even monarchy is a form of fascism. Royals, elite rich, dictator party, doesn't matter. Its ruling over the majority through coercion or force. Its not always completely malevolent or militant, those traits are just mostly associated with the most recent fascist regimes. Theyre not synonymous though
Apparently Margaret Thatcher was a libertarian. I am... Curious of the idea.
Giving more money to the government seems like a good strategy
Monopolies should be free to eliminate competition?
Non aggression principal. They can't eliminate anyone.
I believe in most of what libertarian believe, I am a concretive.
I believe in a social net but everything else is spot on
The cons: it only works in an idealized retorical island... it begins as a though experiment stays that way. It lacks historical context and the explanation of reality before the system.
It is a nice philosophy, if you prohibit all other branches of philosophy from being taught...
You just described every authoritarian ideology.
@@chsi5420 yeah... and that's exacly what happened in the US during the 60 and 70's. Mcartianism extirped left leaning ideologies from the academy. Professors were fearful of their carriers and were harassed if they ever mentioned marxism economics even in an academic context
In this definition, the US is also included in authoritarian regimes... just like any other it points its finger...
@@chsi5420 today the US sees "liberal economy theory" as just "economy theory" thanks mostly to mcartianism. Other economy theories are simply absent or barely mentioned.
US academy lacks context on other theories as researches were fearful for their carrer. A grand part of the understanding was lost... now They portrait strawman versions of unwanted theories and dismiss them without proper analisys.
@@marcelo55869 By not forcing people to use a single currency via taxation, people are able to take part in commerce in any way they want. Protectionist policies just end up stifling ambition and innovation. People who believe in these policies do so because "that's the way it is" rather than stating actual ways in which they work.
@@marcelo55869 Yes, and that's why every major educational institution in the modern day teaches liberal economics.
I like Libertarianism.
Chase Oliver 2024!!! 🇺🇸
I believe in Libertarian ideals except the social programs. They should have them but people who use them should have to do at minimum night school and be drug tested. That way if you want the assistance you have to be on a path to not need it in the future.
I also believe that large companies should actually pay taxes instead of writing off huge sums through political “donations” to manipulate politicians.
I see value in Liberaterianism, but I also see major problems with it as well.
The own choices... thing is very much important, but I also see how that follows eventual decay because behavior that is out of control counters true freedom, true individual responsibility and logically leads to needing a balance to mitigate anything counter to Liberaterianism's main objectives. Government is established by God Himself. When it functions right, it takes into its constitution, the will of the People. Since the will of the People is Liberaterian, policies form to reflects main objectives.
Once someone's rights to do as they please - which is for such people, to live free without the government dictating their personal way of life, bleeds into someone else's freedom, conflict ensues.
The people then must solve their own issues. The bigger of a bleeding into others' way of life, the bigger the problem until its a group against the one who interfered - bled - on their way of life.
Who arbitrates that - the People? The same ones who wanted limited government?
Because we are fallen and sinful, many of us will seek to emass power and influence. This automatically leads to those people controlling others.
There has to be some legal fairness to creat balance for everyone to live as they best can within the framework of their legal rights and way of life - individual rights and autonomy.
That's just creating a police force. Such unchecked freedom will lead into more issues where the government - the people will have to step in to maintain balance and order.
Non aggression principle
What are libertarian views on abortion?
It's a debatable area, but I would say most libertarians believe that abortion is killing an innocent baby, and thus a violation of the non-aggression principle.
A mix. It's probably the most highly debated topic in libertarianism, with a seemingly even split between pro-life and pro-choice. This is mainly because there is no current consensus among libertarians on whether an unborn child has rights.
The Libertarian Party, which is the largest organized group of libertarians in the US, has pro-choice as their official stance, as they consider it a person enough of a moral consideration that government ought not to be involved. Granted, the LP does not represent all libertarians, and there are to my knowledge many pro-life advocates in the LP.
Long story short, you can still reasonably consider yourself a libertarian, regardless of your views on abortion.
I think It's mixed.
All previous replies^ are accurate, IMO. I'll chime in with my 2 cents:
Pro-choice is technically the more libertarian viewpoint. That is... if you define libertarianism as minimal government intervention. That being said, some people view libertarianism through the "non-aggression principle," that leads to some libertarians being pro-life.
So, it sort of depends how you define libertarianism, IMO. Some libertarians draw a hard line on government intervention when harm is done to someone (hence, why "non-aggression" libertarians are pro-life). And other libertarians (more "fundamentalist" libertarians) believe that the government has no business drawing a hard line on any issue, so they tend to be pro-choice.
"each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other".
First we must decide if we consider the unborn living? Do we treat it as "other"?
We define life as:
A biological individual is any concrete whole having a structure which enables it, when placed in appropiate conditions, to continuously adjust its internal relations to external relations, so as to mentain the equilibrium of its functions.
This makes the unborn a biological individual. We must treat is as the "other".
You can compare it with a seed growing underground. Is it alive only when it breaches the surface? I don't think so.
So if the unborn is a living other, getting rid of it infringes on its freedom to be alive. The adult breaks the law of equal freedom if he does that.
But the unborn is also breaking the law of equal freedom because the adult is inhibited to do what it wills by the unborn.
So a choice has to be made on who is allowed to break the law of equal freedom. The adult or the unborn. It is a situation where the only exit is breaking the law.
One has to suffer...
And it is so because the ones who planted the "seed" had broken the law in the first place...
This is much more anarcho-capitalism than actual Libertarianism!
There is a very blurry line between both ideologies
Libertarians don't necessarily agree with free-market capitalism or social services. There is a large spectrum to Libertarianism. Social services can enable freedoms if they are optional programs or provide universal utility.
Programs such as universal basic healthcare and limited welfare can be justified.
Free-market economy with anti-monopoly and trust busting governmental agencies can also be justified.
While some Libertarians agree with your assertions, it has a philosophy and not a rigid set of beliefs.
What you described is closer to liberalism (classical liberalism)
If you (supposedly) support personal freedom, but want the government to control the economy, nowadays that's called being a "liberal".
@@zigoter2185 the specific position OP seems to support it neoclassical liberalism. But libertarianism is even more varied than that:
There are libertarians who believe in the state promoting traditional values (Paleolibertarians)
There are libertarians who want strict border control and for the state to promote patriotism (National libertarians)
There are libertarians who justify a single tax on land to fund welfare (Georgists)
There are libertarians who emphasise welfarism and the pursuit of social justice (Arizona School libertarians)
There are even libertarians who reject capitalism and want direct worker ownership of enterprise (libertarian socialists)
@@amphibiousanimations7721 national libertarians and paleolibertarians do not believe in state promoting patriotism/traditional values.
They believe in these ideas personally and seek to promote it without using the government.
@@zigoter2185 I personally doubt that, considering how many paleolibertarians and Hoppeans glorify the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet
I also doubt a national libertarian would permit mass immigration, and would seek to use the state to enforce national boundaries at the detriment of the right to free movement
Wow, lets go
I'm a libertarian, but I don't believe we shouldn't pay taxes on certain things. Property tax where the government does nothing for me is theft. Personal property tax on my things that sit on my land in west Virginia is like I'm paying rent. I still pay taxes for roads that gets me to my home and wherever, every time I buy gas. So that's fine. I don't mind paying taxes for fire and ambulance. These are things that serves the people. I stay in a country part time, where there no welfare and don't need a prescription to buy most medications. Theres less homeless and beggers and no one is overdosing on meds. malls and transportation system makes USA look bad. This is bangkok. Smaller government is better. They should be monitored and restricted from spending and earning too much money. The system isn't for the people. As a libertarian, I'm for the people. If we didn't have welfare, we would have a larger working class, as most people are just working the system. Social security and social security disability should be all we have. Doctors and dentists are scamming us. They make too much.
So you’re simply half-assed correct?
Great. 👍
What will happen to sick, disabled and homeless people?
His opening definition is totally opposite of how liberals act in the United States. Perhaps it’s appropriate to have a different name for what these people are in the United States.
Living in a tiny blue hell hole state on the shore of the Chesapeake Bay, where democrats levy high taxes to infringe upon my civil rights, I was faced with the reality that liberalism simply is not working in our nation. This is why crime and violence in our urban areas is so great, why our centers of education are failing, why manufacturing & business is going overseas, and why I need to exercise my second amendment. So naturally, I joined the Libertarian Party.
I'm 💯 libertarian except for the abortion issue. I believe a baby has individual rights. I also don't agree with open borders.
I always hated republican values, and I find democrats to be shady. Recently I discovered I am a libertarian! I just didn;t know I was.
The music is a distraction
What are Libertarians views on disability social security?
Against
A state could legitimately vote lib this election
Javier miley 2023
That terrible Musak is ruining my video educational experience (i.e. Your Background music Sux).
Apologies. It is too loud I agree.
The only main problem I have with libertarianism is the capitalist part of it but otherwise,it is a very nice ideology.
A free market is usually the best for economic freedom, efficiency, and overall quality of life. Most libertarians aren’t opposed to some level of regulation, as long as it’s minimally intrusive and under control. Libertarians aren’t categorically ancaps
If you don't like the capitalism in libertarianism then liberalism is for you.
Libertarian Socialism is a thing. The means of production are socially owned by the community but separated from the State.
Free markets have taken more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.
Maybe invest the time into learning economics.
@@jascrandom9855 i dont mean to burst your bubble here. but you just described communism. word for word
I have strong feelings about libertarian but once in a while I can be the right of Attila the Hun (like border control)
Read Hans-Hermann Hoppe & Rothbard
Absolutely MUST form a CENTRIST Party, most reasonable 1/3+ from both R's & D's - let the fringes rant! One better!!!
Dems run Kamala, Reps run Tulsi and we have to vote for a woman President by DESIGN!
So Libertarian is pretty much a mix of Democrat and Republican?
It's neither of those.
Republicans and democrats are basically the same in all issues except abortion and gun control. Oh, end republicans like to tell about markets, but then they actually get elected and start a trade war with China, while increasing government spending and debt.
Yes, and no. The vast majority of libertarians see Democrats and Republicans as being effectively the same ideology because both view the government as a tool for shaping society. Libertarians see themselves as an ideology completely separate from D's and R's because they believe that individuals should improve their societies through non-governmental means
No
But The GOP has a Right-Libertarian and a Conservative Libertarian faction
@Angel_559_ many people are mixtures
I'm sorry libertarians but under this type of economy we would essentially become serfs under either Walmart or Amazon
cool, waited for this video
It was definitely long overdue. Hope you enjoyed it!
Does anyone else feel like they don't want to subscribe when they're asked to/shown the button in a video (almost every video)?
I appreciate the feedback. I used to be super annoyed myself until I was looking into growing my channel. You’d be surprised that people won’t take action unless they’re reminded to. I try to keep my invitations less than a couple seconds. Other channels sometime go on and on and that’s a bit much.
Guess I’m late to the party
hellllll yeah
I didn't see any cons to libertarianism.
May I say,
ALL of your examples of "against libertarianism" are already in full tragic effect now. ...
Libertarian/"I consider myself Libertarian" = What a Social Media Grifter would say to keep some right-winger and some leftist audience...
Definitely would hate to drive on the roads of a Libertarian country. And I’m pretty sure Libertarians love the military. Those cardboard tanks probably wouldn’t do well against tax funded F-16s.
What a bunch of monkeys.
Actually, libertarians don't love the military very much.
Do libertarians believe they should pay taxes to defend private property? Or is this an every man for himself situation?
Libertarians believe that everyone has the right to defend their property, and that everyone has the ability to delegate that right to other people, so that, for example, I can hire (pay) someone to protect my property on my behalf.
So there is a chance that the answer to your question could be "yes", but it depends on your definition of the word "taxes".
@@BlackLibertarian what would your definition of taxes be? I noted you said you would pay to defend _your_ property but I asked in regards to defending private property in general.
@@regisglass5464 Defending private property "in general"? That sounds impossible! nobody can defend all private property in the entire world! Do you realize how big the world is? How much private property exists in the world?
You were the 1st person that used the word "taxes", so you provide the definition first. I'll show you mine if you show me yours! 😛
@@BlackLibertarian that's a weird response. Do you then believe the police only ever defend one specific piece of property forever? Also, why would "in general" mean everything?
And i did define taxes. That's why i asked about taxes financing the protection of property in general. However, it seems you disagree with that, so does that mean libertarians actually do consider it an "every man for himself" situation?
@@regisglass5464 ". Do you then believe the police only ever defend one specific piece of property forever? "
Well, that's what the current police groups in the world do. They only defend an EXTREMELY small area compared to the entire land area of the world. When was the last time you saw officers from the Los Angeles police department going over to Bangladesh to act as police over there?
"And i did define taxes." I scrolled all throughout your comments, and I didn't see your definition of the word "tax". Could you please humor me and repeat your definition?