Give this video a good listen. pretty much describes exactly how I feel. I think it is a good starting video for debates, since this site seems to be so divided.
(6 votes)
Pretty based analysis by a comedian
Give this video a good listen. pretty much describes exactly how I feel. I think it is a good starting video for debates, since this site seems to be so divided.
Comments
(Old Spike)
YES! We need to understand what this is all headed towards. There is NO discussion here - no shared goals to move towards together. But it's like we've woken up and suddenly people whose ethics, logic, and goals are completely counter to the concept of liberty have insinuated themselves deep into the fabric of our society. Our technology and novelty are artificially buffering and delaying the inevitable conclusion here - war. There is no other outcome than war in terms of a conflict with radical marxists. If people wake up to that now, en masse, perhaps the war can be avoided.
(Old Spike)
trouble is both opposing sides think they are the ones championing liberty, and the others are the oppressors. both share the same goal - liberty - but have different opinions about what liberty actually is. to one side, being able to do and say what you want without having to censor yourself is liberty, and people who are against that concept are therefore against liberty. on the other side people think that being able to go wherever you want without worrying that someone might hurt your feelings is liberty, and people who think that shouldn't be considered are therefore against liberty.
just about every political debate revolves around how liberty is defined. take something as benign as fishing regulations. to some people if you can't catch what you want then that's not freedom, to others if we don't protect fish stocks by limiting the amount people can catch then the fish will be gone and that's not freedom.
(Old Spike)
you can't just "believe" market forces will work. when billions of people are affected you have to base your beliefs on evidence, and we have plenty. we used to depend entirely on market forces and it wnet terribly. we ended up with polluted rivers, polluted air, and people dying. that isn't an opinion, that's what happened, and people back then also realized that and that's why they created the EPA. when it was all up to market forces things went bad, and after environmental laws were enacted things improved to the state they are today. people no longer die of mercury poisoning not because market forces made companies stop using mercury, but because to do so was made illegal. more recently, market forces have been at work on renewable energy for decades, and there wasn't much result. this isn't surprising, since building the factories to make all the new turbines and panels is expensive, so market forces directly push against this change. some countries started using laws to help bridge the cost gap, and those countries have been the most successful at utilizing renewable energy. the ones that haven't - and so are still relying on market forces - are still just as reliant on coal and oil as they were before.
market forces have been at work in the past and produced no results, and market forces are still at work in places all around the world and are producing no results there either. beleiving they will doesn't change the fact they haven't, don't, and won't,
(Long Spike)
I am very much surprised at how many people don't know that we already gave Libertarianism a shot back in the 1880's through 1920's...companies utlized child labor to the fullest extent, they poisoned their workers to death as they handled volatile substances, and they would completely upend towns by just shutting down operations and moving on.
"The marketplace" will chew humans up and spit them out and we've already seen them do that which is why regulatory systems were put into place to stop market forces from throat-fucking Americans.
(Old Spike)
He addresses this directly - liberals and conservatives agree on the goal but differ on the route to get there. Leftists don't share our goals. It's that simple. If liberals have their way unopposed we end up with a welfare-state shithole, and if libertarians have their way unopposed we end up with a Mad Max shithole. So we talk it out and work out a compromise that we continuously seek to refine. Leftists are completely apart and separate from this dynamic because the foundational principles are incompatible. For leftists, it's about who has the power and how can I take it from them - all other considerations serve this end.
This means that right from outset the leftist's orientation to all non-leftists is to war with them. Any "discussion" with them is merely foreplay to the civil war.
(Long Spike)
If it's really about who has the power and how to remove it from them (without receiving that power yourself) then that's anarchism. Especially if they also criticize typically 'leftist' institutions like the Democrats or the liberal universities on top of criticizing the right. Though if it includes the notion of disenfranchising some, not just removing their power over others, then it's not anarchism but some form of tyranny. Which is a type of governmental organisation found on both sides of the us-me(left-right) spectrum.
(Long Spike)
Free market doesn't mean you get to pollute the earth. Not sure why you are connecting those two. They are not one in the same. What you are explaining sounds to me like coorporate irresponsibility. A free market is choice to choose between providers, obviously you and I share a sense of responsibilty to not ruin the environment over coorporate greed. On the other side there are stifiling regulations too, this is where the compromise comes in and hopefully a rule created is good for all, and not a rule created that singles out a company.
example: don't throw coorporate waste in the water - good
example: you can choose health insurance across statelines - good - competition!
(Long Spike)
Libertarianism absolutely *hates* and *rejects* any form of regulation upon market forces. In the 1880's through about the 1920's there was very little in the way of direct regulation rather than the United States government demanding tribute, which is why the EPA and FCC came about. Before those came around corporations made the most out of their freedom to treat humans like shit...which is why the United States had to come out and literally make it illegal to use children for 18+ hour work shifts. Libertarianism is all about corporate irresponsibility.
(Long Spike)
I beg to differ on that analysis and lean more torward what you are describing as Corporate greed at the expense of others. Libertarian is defined as do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt or interfere with others. At least that is my definition of it. Should have probably started with that, a lot of times I think arguements happen because definitions change over time or just mean different things to people. So as long as the corporation doesn't do harm to itself or the environment (within reason) then we should get along.
Perhaps, I need to read more about Libertarianism and the past.
(Old Spike)
The human condition: we are inately wired for aggression and dominance. When there are no enemies to fight, we will fight each other.
(Long Spike)
Every day I am surprised at how many well-off white guys seem to think they're somehow oppressed in America or that they're surrounded by people who want to hurt them. You are definitely correct: people will always find a reason to rebel and feel victimized.
(Old Spike)
They're not oppressed, but increasingly the culture is shifting against them, castigating them for the crimes of their grandfathers's grandfathers. Crimes for which the court of public opinion seems to be set out entirely against them, without the benefit of context or history. And any remediation for said crimes only emboldens their critics. "Blame Whitey" seems to be the pathos du jour.
It sucks, a lot of White people are assholes. But the majority aren't that bad. And there's increasingly Marxist language coming from the left, the kind of Marxist language that doesn't love poor people so much as it hates rich people. And as an Asian, I'm increasingly forced to defend Whitey, because if the liberals successfully take down White Heterosexual Males, Asians and Jews are next.
Put it this way: I'm Vietnamese. The Vietnamese government forgave the French, Japanese, and Americans in about two generations removed from the War and Occupation and normalized relationships. How come Liberals keep bringing up things that happened centuries ago??
(Long Spike)
Well, you can want your cake and try to eat it too but that doesn't work.
You can stay separate of the systems that make clean energy profitable(like the Paris accord) or you can try to get people to vote with their wallets between available for profit options while the rest of us fix your shit.
Having lots of guns means more people will shoot each other. Can't lower shootings that way.
If you want healthcare you need to put resources into it and you can either give a useless type of imagined safety product your money instead of paying for healthcare or you can do like the rest of the world and just pay for the healthcare. Socialize it or keep in in the hands of the insurers. Newsflash, nations with socialized healtcare also have health insurances but we don't let them gouge our healthcare system for the sake of their profits.
Your opinions aren't due to cruelty, they're due to stupidity. Believing in the magical concept that it's all black and white while believing that everything is true because surely 'I can't be wrong and my loved ones can't be wrong therefore we're all right?'. A citizen of the post-factual world. Not all roads lead to the same place.
What? It goes against your values to believe that a speaker has power over the listener and you're spreading your views through what is essentially a listen only form of sharing your thoughts? Where the only chance to question you is to post videos or write comments. No direct discussion or sharing of facts where the listener/talker situation is changed? Of course you believe there's nothing wrong with what you're doing.
Sheeesh. You wish for a level playing field for your children yet call yourself a libertarian? The only sure way to make sure the only 'playing markers' your kids have are what you gave them which I assume is going to be chump change and lackluster genes? Good job keeping yourself and your kids down for umpteen generations to come.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I hear what he's saying but some of his ideas just don't compute.
It is cheaper to pollute than to create green energy. What is the incentive here if the market makes up the rules? Sure people want to save the planet, but given the choice, most will opt the cheap and easy way which means more pollution. Majority of people are short-sighted and don't give a shit if it isn't an imminent danger to them.
Less gun control is pretty simple and there's tons of evidence to back it up. Easy access to guns and more people will die. What is the goal even here? Having the populous armed to the teeth? If it's about feeling safe / protecting your self, then you have a more fundamental problem in your society.
(Long Spike)
fun fact #1 In the last 50 years, no mass shooter was an NRA member.
fun fact #2 The last 5 mass shooting (probably more) were all leftists (democrats that scream at the sky)
We have a leftist problem. If you were on facebook talking about killing yourself or others if or when Trump became President, than you should be on the you can't have a gun list... no exceptions. You are mentally unstable and need pyschiatric help.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Who gives a shit if they were left or right, NRA member or chairman of the fucking bingo club.
It's about the amount of guns and ease of access to them.
And I agree crazy leftists shouldn't have guns. Or any crazy people for that matter, so I'd be glad if they implemented those restrictions.
Too bad Trump sees it differently
(Old Spike)
It's all about balance. If you're a poor country like China or India, you would tolerate increased pollution if there was commensurate rise in GDP. However, after a while, once the people are sufficiently wealthy, they would want cleaner forms of energy. Especially after enormous environmental disasters. There was a huge chemical factory explosion in India that forced the government of India to become more environmentally conscious.
Same with income inequality. The poor will tolerate the disparity so long as there are opportunities for advancement. However, when the disparity becomes too great, social unrest will foment.
Same with gun control. We will tolerate more mass shooting so long as the overall rate of crime is going down. People will compute the odds of dying in a mass shooting vs dying in a random crime, and weigh that against the freedom lost if the government controlled all the guns.