Is The Latest Video About Libertarianism or Anarchism?

[Akemrelax]

The comments under the video say that Leo is misrepresenting Libertarianism and that in actually he is describing anarchism or anarchy-capitalism. What are your thoughts on this?

I think the video applies to everyone who supports “small government”.

[TrustTheProcess]

@Akemrelax

lol, I think the video def applies on a broad scale to anyone who considers "big gubbermint" to be a problem... not just anarchists

[Leo Gura]

My examples were deliberately extreme to highlight the absurdity of people who argue for "freedom". But there is an enormous range of people who argue for it. Some people may be total anarchists while others might be pro military and even pro taxes, but still complain about things like regulation of car pollution or regulation of wild salmon fisheries in Alaska.

It doesn't really matter what size gov you're okay with because all sizes of government are relative. So even if some libertarian says that he is okay with some federal government, all my points from the video still apply to him. Because he will still be arguing for deregulation on the grounds that bureaucracy infringes on his personal freedoms.

A libertarian is one who complains about government regulation regardless of how big or small his government happens to be. He always feels oppressed and inconvenienced because he fundamentally doesn't understand the necessities of government.

I should have made this more clear in the video, since libertarians who are somewhat okay with federal government will now use this as an excuse to ignore all my points -- which still all apply to them.

[Lyubov]

 RIP Libertarianism 

[Akemrelax]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I should have made this more clear in the video, since libertarians who are somewhat okay with federal government will now use this as an excuse to ignore all my points -- which still all apply to them.

Yes.

[remember]

@Leo Gura well, if content counts more than structure in that case, you could cut in some more minutes - even if that might break your rules of not editing. i’m not sure if that’s the case, but it seems like you have a rule of not editing content except for maybe some visual aspects. i don’t care about that most of the time, blurting out what comes to mind and then editing a bit when i think it’s not clear enough. does not mean i’m a good example to make my point all the time - just means regardless of context or structure it’s more important sometimes to get the picture than to stick to the rules. in some sense liberty does not equal liberty. does editing or correcting myself give me more freedom or less freedom? is a good question. or maybe you need a second part to that. sth like “liberty vs freedom all differences explained”.

Edited July 5, 2020 by remember

[Leo Gura]

The biggest problem with debunking libertarians is anticipating their level of denial and foolishness.

It's hard to nail jello to the wall.

Libertarian philosophy is so abstract and idealistic that it's very hard to debunk.

[Rilles]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The biggest problem with debunking libertarians is anticipating their level of denial and foolishness.

It's hard to nail jello to the wall.

Libertarian philosophy is so abstract and idealistic that it's very hard to debunk.

I think all political ideologies have their problems, Conservatism is too rigid, Libertarianism is too free (when it suits them), Communism is too easily corruptable in a Stage Orange/Red climate. What we need is a Yellow type of politics that encompasses all the good stuff while not being too ideological about it. Guess this is nothing new but I think thats where we will be in 50-100 years. 

[Parththakkar12]

55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The biggest problem with debunking libertarians is anticipating their level of denial and foolishness.

It's hard to nail jello to the wall.

Libertarian philosophy is so abstract and idealistic that it's very hard to debunk.

I think you can't debunk any absolutist ideology. The reason is as follows:

Truth includes everything. Which means, if you say something is fundamentally true, it is true for you. Therefore, it isn't logically inconsistent to say 'The world was created by a bearded man in the clouds. This is absolutely true.' This includes morality, religion, atheism, idealism.

The whole notion of 'proof' or 'provability' becomes tenable only within the context of the materialist paradigm. The scientific materialist paradigm relies on experiments and 'physical evidence'. Therefore, science can be used to disprove superstitions within the context of the materialist paradigm. For example, if there's a materialistic superstition that says 'If you've broken a glass today, you'll lose your job in 2 days.', that can be disproved using science within the context of the materialist paradigm.

The moment you exit the materialist paradigm, you will lose all ability to prove anything. There are materialistic aspects to libertarianism which you do explain in your video. Things like how government came into being, why it's important, etc. However, you can't disprove the moralistic, idalistic, utopian aspects of it. Relative to the other stuff, you can only hope they see what you're showing them.

[commie]

13 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

The comments under the video say that Leo is misrepresenting Libertarianism and that in actually he is describing anarchism or anarchy-capitalism. What are your thoughts on this?

"Anarchism" is a word that has been used to mean many things and I've only watched the beginning of the long video... but that part at least is clearly not about what is generally called "anarchism". For one thing, its conception of oppression is actually based on what Leo might call an "identity" (though I wouldn't frame it in such an Anglo-liberal way) so it's not based on the objective conception of morality Leo argues against. I'd say it's trying to address a problem that comes along with the benefits of government rather than opposing it as such. The video seems to be about political individualism which would include some anarchist tendencies (indeed some people call themselves individualist anarchists in order to distinguish themselves from mainstream anarchism).

Disclaimer: I have no idea what "anarchy-capitalism" is supposed to be and I'm not an anarchist (but I'm sympathetic). I've not read anything by Leo or watched any other video of his and this is the only thread I've read here.

[commie]

13 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

I think the video applies to everyone who supports “small government”.

Now that I think about it, the issue of what gets called "government" might be worth commenting upon as well. For instance I (as someone who has been known to advocate for freedom) generally favor the monopoly-of-force government supporting agreements made between independent organizations (such as business associations and trade union confederations) as opposed to governing by fiat. This I would call "small government" even though it is arguably a way for society conceived as a whole to govern itself in greater detail than the monopoly-of-force government efficiently (and therefore sustainably) could without such devolution.

[BHKNB]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

A libertarian is one who complains about government regulation regardless of how big or small his government happens to be. He always feels oppressed and inconvenienced because he fundamentally doesn't understand the necessities of government.

I should have made this more clear in the video, since libertarians who are somewhat okay with federal government will now use this as an excuse to ignore all my points -- which still all apply to them.

And you believe this is true of all libertarians? That seems to be a very narrow take on an entire movement.

Many libertarians, such as myself, hold the view that it is simply wrong to initiate violence against peaceful people whether it be to further an economic or social agenda. The problems of society must be solved peacefully, not through the violence police powers of the state.

There is no objectively legitimate source of authority for one person to rule over another and hold a monopoly on justice. You've argued that libertarians "believe" that there is some universal source of right and wrong, which is a misguided view of what we hold as the source of rights. I'd love to see you argue for the right to rule as being anything other than some "universal source of right and wrong."

I conclude that your statism is a religion, and that you fundamentally believe that libertarians are the heretics and blasphemers who refuse to prostate themselves before that altar. You aren't any more "actualized" than a Born-Again Christian as you still proselytize for an authoritarian body to punish the wicked and reward the righteous and be the source of salvation for mankind.

 

 

[RareGodzilla]

@BHKNB In principle most of us would agree with your beliefs. Of course it would be really cool of nobody would initiate violence against everyone.  We all want that. But we need to think of a concrete way to get there. Just abolishing government power would pretty much leave you in the hands of the multinational corporations. For god's sake Google is already bigger than most small sized country governments are. The corporations are what you should be scared off not government. 

[commie]

Google is rich but pretty harmless. Lookup the East India Company for a better example of what corporations can do in a weak/failed state environment.

But yeah: as long as people do not agree on who initiates "violence" in every instance or indeed on how to define that in the first place, we're going to keep trying to live and prosper by any means necessary. Police powers simply dissuade some away from certain means.

[Leo Gura]

52 minutes ago, BHKNB said:

Many libertarians, such as myself, hold the view that it is simply wrong to initiate violence against peaceful people whether it be to further an economic or social agenda.

Of course you do. That's your personal morality which you naively expect others to obey -- which they won't. Why should they? Violence is a relative notion. But you don't understand that.

Quote

The problems of society must be solved peacefully, not through the violence police powers of the state.

There cannot be peace without violence.

The entire point of monopoly of force is that that is the only mechanism by which peace between humans is even remotely possible.

Like I said, if humans were angels then liberartianism could work and we wouldn't need monopoly of force.

And if my mother had balls, she'd be my father.

Quote

There is no objectively legitimate source of authority for one person to rule over another and hold a monopoly on justice.

Of course there isn't. Which is precisely why it must be decided by violent force.

Quote

I'd love to see you argue for the right to rule as being anything other than some "universal source of right and wrong."

The right to rule a pure fiction of the human mind.

The right to rule simply comes about when the ruler kills anyone who challenges his rule.

That's the free market at work. In a free market I get to kill you if you don't follow my rules. And if you don't like it, tough shit, there is no higher authority you can appeal to. You can either be my slave or you can fight me.

Quote

I conclude that your statism is a religion, and that you fundamentally believe that libertarians are the heretics and blasphemers who refuse to prostate themselves before that altar. You aren't any more "actualized" than a Born-Again Christian as you still proselytize for an authoritarian body to punish the wicked and reward the righteous and be the source of salvation for mankind.

Lol, nice gaslighting there, buddy.

[commie]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The entire point of monopoly of force is that that is the only mechanism by which peace between humans is even remotely possible.

Really? Enemies make peace, or indeed avoid war in the first place all the time.

The monopoly of force provides a kind of insurance against the cases where people do not manage to settle on an acceptable agreement. But it doesn't work every time either, and comes with a cost. And sometimes that cost has been exorbitant! The monopoly of force performed so well historically not through peace but through war. Indeed its main achievement has been the thorough mobilization of polities against outsiders rather than conflict resolution.

Edited July 5, 2020 by commie

[Akemrelax]

@Leo Gura There is something which doesn’t make sense to me.

So say in the beginning a group of friends created a gang/syndicate to oppress the people around them. Now they have monopoly of force in that community, and a hierarchy. Basically a tribe. 

Now the question is why would they give up that “privileged” position in the hierarchy? Because we see all societies democratize overtime.

It this where spiral dynamics comes in? Do they realize over time that a blue society simply works better for most amount of people than a red/purple society?

Also, you should do a video about Leadership. In your recent videos you mentioned some things about leadership which shattered a lot of my preconceived notions about it which I picked up from my culture. Now that I think about it leadership is not about being the most “moral” and “virtuous” person, it seems to be more about “selfishness”, at least at lower stages. 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, commie said:

Really?

Yes

Quote

Enemies make peace, or indeed avoid war in the first place all the time.

No they don't. They slaughter each other.

You assume they make peace all the time because everything you see around you is the peace created by monopoly of force.

Quote

The monopoly of force provides a kind of insurance against the cases where people do not manage to settle on an acceptable agreement. But it doesn't work every time either, and comes with a cost.

No one said it works every time. It doesn't have to. It just has to work more often than its alternative.

Of course everything comes with a cost. But the whole point is that the cost is outweighed by the peace and order it produces.

Quote

And sometimes that cost has been exorbitant!

The cost of libertarianism is worse. So your point is moot.

Quote

The monopoly of force performed so well historically not through peace but through war.

Peace and war are the same thing because there cannot be peace without war. If there could, war would not exist.

Quote

Indeed its main achievement has been the thorough mobilization of polities against outsiders rather than conflict resolution.

Again, those turn out to be the same thing.

War is conflict resolution. Inside/outside is also a relative and fluid distinction.

[Nak Khid]

Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism vs. American Libertarianism

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

@Leo Gura There is something which doesn’t make sense to me.

So say in the beginning a group of friends created a gang/syndicate to oppress the people around them. Now they have monopoly of force in that community, and a hierarchy. Basically a tribe. 

Now the question is why would they give up that “privileged” position in the hierarchy? Because we see all societies democratize overtime.

Well, just look at how it worked historically. The history books tell us what happened.

Kings unified warring tribes. People accepted it because as bad as a king might be, warring tribes are worse. But once all the tribes are unified under one banner and culture for some centuries, people start to wonder why they need a king. Why can't they rule themselves as one unified nation? The king also usually becomes corrupt with power by this point. And so they stage a revolution to overthrow the king and put in place some kind of legislature and constitution which distributes the power to more than one person at the top. Voting rights are eventually established. Then voting rights get expanded to more and more ordinary people, not just aristocrats.

Of course kings, aristocrats, and elites never give up their power willingly. They must be forced into to.

Look at the police protests right now. The police are not willing to give up their power, but the mob of people is stronger than them and will take away some of the police's power because the police have been using their power recklessly.

Quote

It this where spiral dynamics comes in? Do they realize over time that a blue society simply works better for most amount of people than a red/purple society?

Most kings, bosses, and dictators must be killed. They are rarely willing to step down peacefully due to some personal realization.

Quote

Also, you should do a video about Leadership. In your recent videos you mentioned some things about leadership which shattered a lot of my preconceived notions about it which I picked up from my culture. Now that I think about it leadership is not about being the most “moral” and “virtuous” person, it seems to be more about “selfishness”, at least at lower stages. 

There will be more leadership videos in the future.