Is The Latest Video About Libertarianism or Anarchism?

[commie]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

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

Even if an ill-defined fantasy is worse than the monopoly of force, how does that make my point moot? If that fantasy was the only alternative to the monopoly of force, then I have bad news for you about the consequence of these future space corporations you are so optimistic about: anything largish and fairly solid becomes a WMD when deorbited.

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, commie said:

Even if an ill-defined fantasy is worse than the monopoly of force, how does that make my point moot? If that fantasy was the only alternative to the monopoly of force, then I have bad news for you about the consequence of these future space corporations you are so optimistic about: anything largish and fairly solid becomes a WMD when deorbited.

Human society will always have a monopoly of force, at least for the next 500 years. Society evolves from and builds on top of monopoly of force.

There is no problem with space corporations because there will be an over-arching government body with a large military force which oversees those corporations and keeps them in check if they get out of hand. Thanks to Trump we already have a Space Force

We don't need fantasies when we have reality.

[Nak Khid]

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Liberalism

In 2012, anti-war and pro-drug liberalization presidential candidates such as Libertarian Republican Ron Paul and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson raised millions of dollars and garnered millions of votes despite opposition to their obtaining ballot access by both Democrats and Republicans.The 2012 Libertarian National Convention saw Johnson and Jim Gray being nominated as the 2012 presidential ticket for the Libertarian Party, resulting in the most successful result for a third-party presidential candidacy since 2000 and the best in the Libertarian Party's history by vote number. Johnson received 1% of the popular vote, amounting to more than 1.2 million votes.Johnson has expressed a desire to win at least 5 percent of the vote so that the Libertarian Party candidates could get equal ballot access and federal funding, thus subsequently ending the two-party system. The 2016 Libertarian National Convention saw Johnson and Bill Weld nominated as the 2016 presidential ticket and resulted in the most successful result for a third-party presidential candidacy since 1996 and the best in the Libertarian Party's history by vote number. Johnson received 3% of the popular vote, amounting to more than 4.3 million votes.

2016   "If I'm elected President of the United States and congress submits to me
 any legislation to abolish and agency I'm going to sign on to that.
A couple of agencies stick out,one would be Housing and Urban development another one would be the Department of Education. "

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Nak Khid

[Akemrelax]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

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.

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

There will be more leadership videos in the future.

But that doesn’t explain why a society will abolish slavery (if slaves make 15-20%). Slaves can’t fight because they are low in number and don’t have the means. What survival advantage would whites gain by freeing slaves?

Only reason I could think of is that because of affluence the whites moved up the spiral and their identity expanded, so they thought enslaving people was “wring”. 

[commie]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no problem with space corporations because there will be an over-arching government body with a large military force which oversees those corporations and keeps them in check if they get out of hand. Thanks to Trump we already have a Space Force

"A" large military force? "We"? How do you keep WMDs in check in the first place? This didn't work with nukes and yet nuclear war has been avoided so far. The age of monopoly is over.

The only novelty with these hypothetical space corporations is that only state actors have controlled sizable WMD arsenals so far.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

But that doesn’t explain why a society will abolish slavery (if slaves make 15-20%). Slaves can’t fight because they are low in number and don’t have the means. What survival advantage would whites gain by freeing slaves?

Only reason I could think of is that because of affluence the whites moved up the spiral and their identity expanded, so they thought enslaving people was “wring”. 

I see your question. Okay, yeah, in that case you need to factor in development psychology and the moral developmental line. Yes, as people become more educated and conscious thanks to the order and peace and technology afforded by the unification under monopoly of force, eventually they develop a higher sense of love and selflessness, which then leads to things like abolition of slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, police reform, etc.

5 minutes ago, commie said:

"A" large military force? "We"? How do you keep WMDs in check in the first place? This didn't work with nukes and yet nuclear war has been avoided so far. The age of monopoly is over.

The only novelty with these hypothetical space corporations is that only state actors have controlled sizable WMD arsenals so far.

There will be one world government, of course.

Take a look at how it works in Star Trek. They have a United Federation Of Planets which is the monopoly of force in the region.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

We talked about economic videos in the future, maybe we can get something about Marxist philosophy.

Yes, of course.

[commie]

Just now, Akemrelax said:

But that doesn’t explain why a society will abolish slavery (if slaves make 15-20%). Slaves can’t fight because they are low in number and don’t have the means. What survival advantage would whites gain by freeing slaves?

That was another problem with the video which brought up a moralistic account of the US civil war. White homesteaders were competing with slaveholders for land. Slaveholders could not win economically and so resorted to wanton violence. Freeing the slaves was simply a way to fight back against the slaveholders. Yes, this was simplistic but answers your question I think.

[Peter-Andre]

I think it's important to distinguish anarchism from anarcho-capitalism here. Anarchism is a far-left ideology that seeks to abolish all unjust hierarchies and abolish the state, but not laws or any system of governance. Anarcho-capitalism is much closer to the ideology that Leo described in his video. In fact, a lot of anarchists despise the term anarcho-capitalism because they believe that capitalism is inherently oppressive and hierarchical and is incompatible with anarchism.

I personally don't identify as an anarchist, and to be honest, I don't see exactly how one would actually go about abolishing the state and still maintain an organized society, but nonetheless, I feel that it's an ideology that often gets misrepresented and conflated with the idea of no laws or regulations in discussions like these. Many of Leo's critiques are also relevant to anarchism, but I still think it's important to make that distinction.

[commie]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There will be one world government, of course.

Take a look at how it works in Star Trek. They have a United Federation Of Planets which is the monopoly of force in the region.

I haven't seen Star Trek but this doesn't sound like the path we're on. For a little while during the collapse of the USSR it seemed (if you looked away from China and France) that the USA was gaining global supremacy but it has since lost ground and no other state has come anywhere near that amount of power since.

Some of the supranationals (the UN, the EU and so forth) have grown over the past decades but none has significant military force. They have a different kind of force which has grown more important over the decades. If a global state ever forms along those lines, it won't have a monopoly of force. And it won't need to.

Edited July 5, 2020 by commie

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, commie said:

I haven't seen Star Trek but this doesn't sound like the path we're on. For a little while during the collapse of the USSR it seemed (if you looked away from China and France) that the USA was gaining global supremacy but it has since lost ground and no other state and come anywhere near that amount of power since. Some of the supranationals (the UN, the EU and so forth) have grown pver the past decades but none has significant military force. They have a different kind of force which has grown more important over the decades. If a global state ever forms along those lines, it won't have a monopoly of force. And it won't need to.

Ah... okay, fair point.

So what I mean is NOT that one nation will become so powerful as to physically dominate all the others into one global empire. No! That cannot happen because we are too developmentally evolved as a species for that.

Global unification will happen along the lines of how the 13 colonies became the United States. There was no bloody war to force the colonies to unify. They did it peacefully and willingly.

So what will happen is that all the countries of the world will start to unify through a natural desire to do so rather than through domination. It will so be obvious that having a unified world government will be a net gain for all parities who join as it will bring great cohesion and peace and prosperity.

Another possibility is if there is an alien invasion. This will force nations to unify in self-defense. But I think most aliens are going to be far too conscious and selfless to invade us. An advanced alien species who can build fast ships will have to be extremely conscious and loving and shouldn't even has a desire to harm us.

[lmfao]

11 hours 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.

@Leo Gura  I've talked to libertarians and anarchists before, they are unbelievably dense. This guy sent me this when I was talking to him
 

Quote

I dont care about your conception. Your conception is arrived at thru axioms and subjective preferences, my conception is not. The ancap perception of human rights is arrived at thru logic. WHo wil build the roads? Are you seriously trying to insinuate that a system, which had lifted BILLIONS out of poverty, had enabled immense economic growth, will not be capable of putting fucking cement on the ground? This is logic 101, people = want profits, people = demand roads, demand = profits, therefore people will start companies and will invest in such infrastracture

Later then he tried to argue this point 
 

Quote

Violence being the antithesis of argumentation, you, therefore cannot argue in favor in it, since its the antithesis of arguing and arguments in general

Saying that violence being the antithesis of argumentation is a metaphysical, objective, universal law. I rebutted by saying that someone can argue in favour of violence or particular kinds of violence. He then said

Quote

Dude, do i have to repeat myself IF VIOLENCE IS ANTITHESIS OF ARGUMENTS ITS ILLOGICAL AND CONTRADICTORY TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF VIOLENCE JUST AS, arguing that "one cannot argue" is a contradiction

And I was defeated, destroyed : ( . Therefore I had to concede that existence of government is the metaphysical antithesis of argumentation.....

No matter how hard I pointed out this stupid logic, he never saw it. Here's another hilarious thing. If anarcho capitalism isn't possible, his second most desired state of society was literal Fascism. Full blown, authoriarians in uniforms fascism.

Edited July 5, 2020 by lmfao

[Akemrelax]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I see your question. Okay, yeah, in that case you need to factor in development psychology and the moral developmental line. Yes, as people become more educated and conscious thanks to the order and peace and technology afforded by the unification under monopoly of force, eventually they develop a higher sense of love and selflessness, which then leads to things like abolition of slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, police reform, etc.

Thanks, that’s what I was thinking.

20 minutes ago, commie said:

That was another problem with the video which brought up a moralistic account of the US civil war. White homesteaders were competing with slaveholders for land. Slaveholders could not win economically and so resorted to wanton violence. Freeing the slaves was simply a way to fight back against the slaveholders. Yes, this was simplistic but answers your question I think.

I’m not talking about USA civil war here. Leo answered it.

The question was why anyone would outlaw slavery in the first place. The answer is most people simply move up the spiral which expands their identity to include slaves. Of course the slave holders won’t move up, but most people in society will. 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, lmfao said:

@Leo Gura  I've talked to libertarians and anarchists before, they are unbelievably dense. This guy sent me this when I was talking to him
 

Later then he tried to argue this point 
 

Saying that violence being the antithesis of argumentation is a metaphysical, objective, universal law. I rebutted by saying that someone can argue in favour of violence or particular kinds of violence. He then said

And I was defeated, destroyed : ( . Therefore I had to concede that existence of government is the metaphysical antithesis of argumentation.....

No matter how hard I pointed out this stupid logic, he never saw it. 

Yeah, that's how most libertarians argue because they are stage Orange, which tends to get comically "rational" when it is threatened. The entire stage Orange worldview is grounded in a religious-like faith in logic, without realizing that logic can be misused by the ego-mind to justify any sort of nonsense.

Every deluded ideologue in the world feels that his worldview is logical. Case in point: Ben Shapiro.

Logic cannot ever be trusted to understand the nuances of reality.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

The question was why anyone would outlaw slavery in the first place.

The fundamental answer is: because when you see how horrific and ugly it is for long enough, you will want to end it.

Whenever consciousness looks at its own selfishness and ugliness long enough, it awakens, has a change of heart, and drops the selfishness in favor or selflessness and love.

Even if the North had not invaded the South. Eventually even the South itself would recognize that their slavery was too ugly and selfish to be sustained. It would have just taken a few hundred years longer.

[commie]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Global unification will happen along the lines of how the 13 colonies became the United States. There was no bloody war to force the colonies to unify. They did it peacefully and willingly.

There was effectively no monopoly of force until the US civil war, which was quite bloody.

While a global monopoly of force could in principle result from a sort of global civil war, it would require a monopoly of WMD arsenals which would be much harder to achieve. Before the nuclear age, if one party has overwhelming military force, it could not be opposed and was therefore in a position to disarm potential opponents. But you can't get rid of a decent WMD arsenal with threats.

 

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Another possibility is if there is an alien invasion. This will force nations to unify in self-defense.

This is similar to the reason the 13 colonies united, and doesn't require a monopoly of force. Alliances can wage war quite effectively without all parties effectively submitting to a single leader, as shown by the defeat of the Axis and its multipolar aftermath.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, commie said:

There was effectively no monopoly of force until the US civil war

Not true at all. Monopoly of force was established from the very beginning. It was used to defend against foreign powers and conquer the Native Americans.

The Civil War was simply a fracture in the monopoly and it only lasted for like 5 years.

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So what will happen is that all the countries of the world will start to unify through a natural desire to do so rather than through domination. It will so be obvious that having a unified world government will be a net gain for all parities who join as it will bring great cohesion and peace and prosperity.

Would you see this as alliances such as the E.U., WHO and the G7 improving, expanding and becoming more powerful and influential? . . . A country that doesn’t join in would be marginalized and at a disadvantage. For example, they may get sanctions by the global alliance or get denied access such as immediate testing kits for the next pandemic. 

I think even some U.S. nationalists can see that it probably would have been better to accept the testing kits from the WHO in the early stages of the pandemic. 

[commie]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not true at all. Monopoly of force was established from the very beginning. It was used to defend against foreign powers and conquer the Native Americans.

I think the first phase of the war belies quite eloquently the notion that the early USA had a monopoly of force over its territory. You talked about kings and so forth earlier but other non-monarchical polities in history had a similar makeup: common defense against outsiders but no monopoly of force internally.  Whatever libertarianism is, it has thankfully not been the only alternative to absolutism for quite a while.

edit: I forgot that the violence before the war also illustrates the weakness of the federal state

Edited July 5, 2020 by commie

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Would you see this as alliances such as the E.U., WHO and the G7 improving, expanding and becoming more powerful and influential? . . . A country that doesn’t join in would be marginalized and at a disadvantage. For example, they may get sanctions by the global alliance or get denied access such as immediate testing kits for the next pandemic. 

I think even some U.S. nationalists can see that it probably would have been better to accept the testing kits from the WHO in the early stages of the pandemic. 

The EU and the UN are both small tests in how a world gov might work. As we can see, people are seriously not ready for it yet. They need to grow up first. They need to be willing to surrender their nationalism.

20 minutes ago, commie said:

I think the first phase of the war belies quite eloquently the notion that the early USA had a monopoly of force over its territory. You talked about kings and so forth earlier but other non-monarchical polities in history had a similar makeup: common defense against outsiders but no monopoly of force internally.

A monopoly of force does not have to be perfect or absolute. Of course in the early days of the US things were somewhat loose. But still there were laws, courts, legislature, police, military, government agencies, etc.