Reminds me of what Jeff Deist said, paraphrasing, "I'm tired of trying to convert people to liberty, let's just find the ones who get it and create a place for us." I'm very partial to the idea that, libertarians aren't converted they are found.
To me, the idea that people who aren't libertarians just "have a different opinion" (as Kaufman implied) is absurd. Libertarianism isn't just the only objectively correct, consistent deductive philosophy. It is also the ONLY political philosphy that fundamentally allows other philosophies to coexist unmolested. The irony is that ANY culture that resolves to leave their neighbors alone and doesn't coerce anyone to comply with their practices is behaving as libertarians in at least that one regard. So it seems naive to claim that just someone's differing opinion is the meaningful distinction. NO! Their coercion is. A person's ACTION, or their intent to support or defend an action involuntarily against someone else, is what prodoundly defines the irrefutable immorality of their beliefs.
Reminds me of what Jeff Deist said, paraphrasing, "I'm tired of trying to convert people to liberty, let's just find the ones who get it and create a place for us." I'm very partial to the idea that, libertarians aren't converted they are found.
It's a matter of voluntarism- free will! Viva Mises.
I doubt Jeremy Kauffman could convert a starving man to eating a pizza.
fsp is the way.
Goddamn YES!
48:00 RFK will tell you himself: flu shot
Its unbelievable that Jeremy openly called for more experimentation on twins.
I love you both. And Gene too! Viva FSP!
1:01:28 The gayest question by the gayest questioner.
To me, the idea that people who aren't libertarians just "have a different opinion" (as Kaufman implied) is absurd.
Libertarianism isn't just the only objectively correct, consistent deductive philosophy. It is also the ONLY political philosphy that fundamentally allows other philosophies to coexist unmolested.
The irony is that ANY culture that resolves to leave their neighbors alone and doesn't coerce anyone to comply with their practices is behaving as libertarians in at least that one regard.
So it seems naive to claim that just someone's differing opinion is the meaningful distinction.
NO! Their coercion is. A person's ACTION, or their intent to support or defend an action involuntarily against someone else, is what prodoundly defines the irrefutable immorality of their beliefs.