The Philosophy Of Liberty

This isn't meant to endorse RP or anything about him or the american libertarian party. It is an excellent explanation of liberty though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n3h3_u6yOc"]YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty

 

Is freedom then just another word for nothing left to lose? I know there is no talking on the video but I found the sound of falling infrastructure and the rattling of money in the background to be distracting.

That's to say, I don't agree with your contention that the video provides a good explanation of liberty. What Rand Paul (and I'm not sure why you mention him... is he involved with this video?) doesn't understand, or chooses to ignore, is that the main application of force, here in the states, is done on the behalf of corporations. Do you think Wal*Mart, just to pick one case, backs away from force? Do you think the Koch brothers back away from force? Do you think that the government application of force is divorced from corporate pressure? Besides actual physical force, what is it when a company undercuts prices in order to cause smaller businesses to close up? I call it economic force, and there is no entity other than government that can realistically stand up to this bully of industry... and of course after the competition is destroyed the employees of Wal*Mart then have to compete with workers in China, India, and everywhere else, and it becomes clear that they are simply making too much money, demanding too many benefits, and are simply failing to realize how good they have it - everybody has to regress down to the level of the least prosperous group of workers in the world - economic slavery. If we were living in a somewhat ideal world, where everybody did for the most part act as an individual, and all individuals were relatively equal I would give libertarian philosophy a more favorable look. As it stands I consider it a plea for an even greater degree of corporatism than already exists and a choice made to ignore the bully of industry that has been taking an increasing control over our lives.

 

First off, learn to use the enter key.

As for the rest, why you choose to single out corps over the government is beyond me. Nowhere in that video did it advocate for either governements or for corporations or even for random groups, it even made clear it wasn't talking JUST about one such organization.

As for why I brought up RP, if you had bothered to check the video on youtube where it came from, you will see it IS an endorsement for him...

As I am not american and wouldn't consider him to be a good candidate even if I was, I wanted to make sure I pointed out that I wasn't endorsing him.

 

Thank you. I have the hang of it now.

You are incorrect here. 6:12 That's their whole schtick... of course it is going to mention government!

 

Sorry man but you have just proved part of the point of it all.

It isn't about the government (or corps) taking away our liberties, it is about us giving them away. Part of the way they (being those who exercise control over others) control the masses is by making the masses believe it doesn't matter and there is nothing that can be done.

You want to make it a focus on government control? The corporations will take the lead... you want to blame corps? the governement will help... if all else fails, the religions will step up and take the riegns... until we stop letting them, which is what the whole point of that video is.

 

I think the point of the video is that government needs to be made small enough to drown it in a bathtub. I just don't see the even-handed approach to the problem of the increasing degree of corporate and government control - or even the acknowledgment that there is actually a problem when it comes to corporations. Im just the opposite - i see the danger of corporations and I see government control as being a thing that has been weakening over the last 30 years. So yes it's a matter of both, corporations and government in cahoots with each other - but we have a direct say over who is in the government. it is easier to attack the problem through government than it is through corporations. But this video has the usual libertarian gummint bashing and the usual silence (and arguably, outright approval) when it comes to corporations gaining in influence. I see it as a typical libertarian propaganda piece. But we can agree to disagree on all this. I do agree that apathy is a symptom of the problem. Perhaps we're not so far apart... but like I said, libertarian philosophy is a noisy distraction for me. So if there is nothing else then I'll say it's been nice meeting you. If there is something else... well okay.

 

okay, lets see...

6:12- Problems in the world that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for the people of earth to stop asking governements to iniatiate force on their behalf.

How is that arguing for governments or corps?

The whole thing is about people accepting personal responsibility for thier own actions including stopping others from acting in their name by not ignoring it when it happens.

Just because the libertarian party and their supporters may also claim to beleive the things that are in that video, does not mean that video is about what they believe.

You asked why I would point out that it wasnt in support of him. it was to stop people like you attacking me for supporting a party I don't support.

Apparently I underestimated the desire of some to do so.

 

It is a straightforward argument for the libertarian view of limited government - which is an argument for the continuation of the influence grab by corporations and the wealthy. The video expressly mentions restricting government authority while completely ignoring the entities that have the greatest power over governments - and who would gain the most from the continuing deterioration of government authority - corporations. So it's a presentation of the classic argument of government authority vs personal liberty - and it's behind the times in that it fails to notice today's biggest player on the scene.

I disagree. And even if it was the case it still wouldn't make it an argument for "liberty" - it would make it an argument for personal responsibility. No, the whole thing is about people accepting their subservience: you're to accept that because so-and-so has his economic footprint on your face (to borrow a bit from Orwell here) it's only because he is better than you. this means that it's your fault for being financially ruined by Enron; it's your fault for having your beaches fouled by BP; it's your fault that Wall Street speculators nearly imploded the economic viability of the USA and so on... and in a way, it is, but it's due to exactly the opposite condition this video argues for - it's because not enough force was used to compel BP to safely drill for oil; it's because not enough force was used to stop the financial sector from bundling home loans to third parties; it's because not enough force was used to prevent Enron from cooking their books.

It's the same old line - hammer away at a limited view of personal responsibility - which in effect means the rich get richer while the poor get poorer - and ignore all aspects of social justice because after all, and as the video states, no population has the right to enforce its notions onto others. I disagree with this view of liberty. Has any nation actually tried the libertarian version of liberty?

Please. You're not under attack - your description of the video as presenting an excellent view of liberty is what's under attack.

 

You ideas are warped...

YOU are the one who keeps relating this to only government... the video, clearly, repeatedly points out that it is in regards to either individuals, groups, or even leaders with funny hats...

While you seem to believe that corporations are somehow not included in what they are talking about, it is only your own personal bias that is doing so.

As for once again you trying to say that this is the libertarian view, this once more, is a perfect example of your ideas having no merit...

Seems you have difficulty grasping the point let me try to clear it up for you. To claim that this video is just a liberterian dogma video, is like saying that someone saying you shouldn't kill, must be a christian seems that is part of the christian dogma...

The ideas in the video may be something that the libertarians CLAIM to beleive in... that does not make it so nor give them exclusivity to it. It also does not change the idea behind what is being said. Which is not as you seem to think, one of just smaller governments...

But hey, argue what you want, your ideas and the fact that you imagine things that aren't there, as being the main point tells me that I shouldn't waste any more time with you.

 

Is Charlie Sheen a libertarian, or is he seriously worried about the oil companies allowing the use of his car at reckless abandon?

I should send this on twitter.

This was Pink.

 

The reason for not mentioning individuals is because I don't think it's much of an open question whether or not it should be acceptable to hire out hit men of some kind to sway adversaries to a more agreeable way of thinking - - there has to be some starting point and this should be below it. As for officials with fine hats, well who exactly are they? Who else is it that is widely thought of as being something that can justly compel someone to do something they don't want to do?

From the video:
thus you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against against others on your behalf[...] the solution is for the people of the Earth to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf.

I believe the primary purpose of government is this exactly - to initiate force on your behalf. Liberty is an ethical principle rather than a statement of fact. By this I mean that what one person may regard as liberty may be regarded as being an act of suppression by another - and neither may be warped or suffering from ideas without merit. The video regards using governmental force to impose a vision on others to be intellectual sloth. It also regards government force as being something to be set against the liberty of the individual. It's an old idea... and one that I believe used to hold considerable merit. But I disagree with this viewpoint when it is applied to current times. I don't really care whether it's called a libertarian idea, or a teabagger, or a conservative one, or if it's given no label at all. It is the contention made that the video presents an excellent view of liberty I am arguing against.

~and yes, willwilled, charlie is a libertarian.

 

So, you think that it is liberty when a government imposes their will on others?

According to that then, right now, there are a whole bunch of people getting their liberty fed to them by the bulletful over in the middle east...

betcha they sure would be surprised to find out that they are experiencing liberty at it's finest....

 

I disagree. And even if it was the case it still wouldn't make it an argument for "liberty" - it would make it an argument for personal responsibility. No, the whole thing is about people accepting their subservience: you're to accept that because so-and-so has his economic footprint on your face (to borrow a bit from Orwell here) it's only because he is better than you. this means that it's your fault for being financially ruined by Enron; it's your fault for having your beaches fouled by BP; it's your fault that Wall Street speculators nearly imploded the economic viability of the USA and so on... and in a way, it is, but it's due to exactly the opposite condition this video argues for - it's because not enough force was used to compel BP to safely drill for oil; it's because not enough force was used to stop the financial sector from bundling home loans to third parties; it's because not enough force was used to prevent Enron from cooking their books.

;-D

 

Yeah, and the reason there are uprisings in the middle east right now is that the dictators didn't use enough force to stifle it....

See, I get your opinion... I just think it is fucking retardedly short sighted.

 

For me to say that the purpose of government is to impose force has lead you to conclude that I must be in favor all applications of force imposed by all government in the world - or at least, by every dictator who happens to be in the middle east? ~ this would be a straw man argument.

Wed be left with two alternatives, if we are to go along with the cartoonish all-or-nothing scenario: absolute dictatorships or absolute anarchy. I don't want either of these extremes. And thankfully there is actually a wide habitable middle ground between these two extremes! The video argues for us to be at a point closer to the anarchy part of the equation than I believe I'd like. It's a long way to go from advocating enforcing environmental regulations to gunning down individuals on the street! Really!

 

I think the video makes a good statement, and it is tailor made to appeal to those of us who are pacifists.

Actually, If we could take the best of the libertarian ideals, and mash them up with the best ideals of the progressive movement, we could flourish again as the "United" states. Somehow, the people need to be brought back together and regain control over our government, and reign in wall st. and the corporations.

We agree on legalizing drugs, and removing ourselves from foreign entanglements. Progressives could cooperate by allowing govt. to shink, and privatize in areas, and libertarians could allow some efficient business regulations. I don't see anything wrong with auditing, and perhaps abolishing the Federal Reserve bank either.

And I'm sorry, but all this crying poor mouth from the corporations is such a joke. They've been getting taxs cuts for DECADES and they still want more. It's common knowledge that the tax code is a sieve when you have teams of lawyers.

The bickering between Americans that is taking place right now is just a diversion from things that ARE taking our liberties, like the Citizen's United ruling. The one that makes corporations into We the People.

If there was only a way to tear them away from American Idol long enough to realize that workers are losing the gains of 100 years ago. Young Americans are soon going to be relegated to serfdom in a post modern Gilded Age. I'm boycotting parenthood just to deny them my fodder. no pun intended....

 

Is the jihad a concept of absolute animosity towards an enemy, because that person is of particularly reduced conscience to follow? Islam tells each other their Conscience? THis way the devil won't con you to follow temptation's defeat of your.... autonomous Ethos in participation with the .... Sect of food.

No, The Jihad is just the 5th pillar of Islam robbed of Mecca and livelihood.

 

Freedom is self.

So now what?

 

Mushroom tea

 

Until people stop sitting back and accepting that life is beyond their control, and they take responsibility for their own actions and the actions that they allow others to do in their name, we will never see liberty.

The fact that some wish to sit back and argue that it is all the fault of governments, corporations, churches or some unholy trinity amongst them and that there isn't anything that we can do about it, or instead waste their time listening to the noise put out for the very purpose of distracting them from taking personal responsibility, just goes to demonstrate how 'they' (whomever they are in each person's mind) have succeeded as well as they have.

The fact that there are some who think it is okay to initiate force to impose their values on others and call it 'right' is closer to the heart of the reason as to why we live in the world we do.