I think it's a personality thing: we like saying things that make people think (to put it in a positive way), we are more likely to enjoy provoking and being provoked, and we are generally look at the world in a removed, bemused, tragicomic way that allows us to laugh at things others take more seriously. We also like to think we are smart and brave, two things associated with doing comedy
You know it's going to be a coherent debate when you are debating someone who starts off by saying Abe Lincoln should have just ended slavery by buying all of the slaves from southern slave owners.
@robinsss Do you know how an analogy works? Advising some behaviour does not imply we should commit violence against people who fail to engage in said behaviour.
Have to tip my hat to a professional philosopher like Ben even debating these charlatans like Molyneux and this clown here. They have no clue about the intellectual foundations Ben is trying to start from.
The Marxist/Neo-Bolshevik way is the untenable nature to argue for the pretext of war and conquest against peaceful voluntary economically autonomous communities, just as demagogic tyrants since time immemorial to gain power by appealing to the worst predatory parasitic instincts of the venal covetous mob.
Religious cult that is always repeating itself. They are sophists of our time. But it is important to dismantle charlatans. For example , in Croatia in last 5 years vulgar libertarianism become "common sense" ideology. Public space is becoming libertarian platform.
@@renatogaucho7810 Leftism/socialism is the religious cult, whose cultists resort to the logical fallacy of no-true-Scotsman applied to communism to deny it has ever been tried to explain away its destructiveness. The charlatan in this case is Neo-Bolshevik Ben as a sophist of our time repeating the pretext of war and conquest against peaceful voluntary economically autonomous communities, just as demagogic tyrants since time immemorial have to gain power by appealing to the worst predatory parasitic instincts of the venal covetous mob. Peaceful voluntarism is not exclusive to libertarians, but Neo-Bolshevism (neo-Marxism) is about empowering predatory parasites self-entitled to other people's work. As such, it is the will to power by war and conquest against, again, peaceful voluntary economically autonomous communities, just as demagogic tyrants have waged since time immemorial to gain power under the guise of "the public good" whilst appealing to the worst parasitic instincts of the venal, covetous mob.
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 Face it...rearranging the words of your incoherent screeds is never going to turn them into anything other than what they started as...garbage.
Ben: "That's not my argument" Other guy: "Let me finish responding to your argument" Ben: "That's not my argument" Other guy: "Just let me finish" Hard to watch
I saw you and this Mr. Kokesh at the end of what apparently was this debate the other night and he had said one of two things that had caught my attention so I wanted to hear more. Plus, for good or for bad, this man and myself not only share the same first name but he is the closest thing maybe to my doppelganger that I think I've encountered though I no longer have a beard and likely a much different voice. Ben, your a smart man, you say intelligent things and imo have a healthy world view. I'll just leave it at that.
Can you upload versions of these debates where it cuts out as much noise from your opponents as possible? My finger hurts from using the skip function on my phone during adam’s parts.
I usually say I'm libertarian, but I realize that "freedoms" are not easily defined and there are also necessary trade offs to be made between them. The main difference between me and a lot of US libertarians is on the "freedom" to keep every last dollar you "earn". That's way down at the bottom of my list. To me that's "freedom" in the way that dried mayo on the end of a dirty knife is "food". But it seems to be the most important thing for a lot of "my fellow" libertarians (if libertarians can have fellows). I'm all for free speech, drugs, sex, and checking out out of society if you want to. I'm against most regulations, but I'm willing to chip in for government agencies that can help me stay healthy and safe enough to enjoy freedoms, like the USDA and CDC, and even the FBI in some form.
A throat clearing would be, in reference to the libertarian, a land locked sovereign state is impossible. He lives in Arizona, that state wouldn't exist with out water contracts. Legisyically speaking getting a chainsaw, made in china, through 113 sovereign states to his finger is impossible without it costing a million dollars. Every sovereign state is going to just let material and products through their borders without 100 agreements compromising sovereignty in some way.
Seems to me Libertarianism RELIES on people NOT being evil. That’ll never happen. Greed, power and money will always trump those ideals. Unfortunately we need the government to protect us from capitalists. Like Chevron for example.
@@MarkStoverPiX that's true but what Kokesh is describing is not libertarianism it's anarchy we have solid proof that the two are separate would you like to hear it?
When a rational person is shown that their stated belief system would contradict something that’s obviously good, like the Civil Rights Act, they’re inclined to adjust their belief system accordingly or add nuance to it or accept that a belief system can’t account for everything. When that happens to Adam, he doubles down and compares the civil rights to teeth-brushing.
What strawman? How do you reconcile the anti-liberal authoritarian leftard's SUBJECTIVE relativism and solipsistic rationalizing away the import of logical inconsistency ("double standards," "might makes right") and lack of ethics of the left's anti-liberal authoritarian ideology of conquest and its violent nature of violating not only the NAP, BUT ALSO RECIPROCITY of the silver rule?
Absolutely! Slaves are WAYYY more profitable in long run than accepting a 1-time " buyout ". You'd have to be stupid to accept that deal as a slave owner.
The Marxist/Neo-Bolshevik way is the untenable nature to argue for the pretext of war and conquest against peaceful voluntary economically autonomous communities, just as demagogic tyrants since time immemorial to gain power by appealing to the worst predatory parasitic instincts of the venal covetous mob.
I'm sure there would have been more to "Gardenia" had they had time to get into it but I always respect the libertarian whose philosophy makes them want to move to the middle of the woods and interact with people as little as possible. That sounds like a dig (and it kind of is) but the whole "non-aggression, mind your business" thing only begins to make sense if you want to be a subsistence farmer somewhere and aren't using public roads and services. Problem is that you can't argue for a shift to the entire makeup of the country from that standpoint. Not everyone will (or can) be farmers somewhere or interact in micro-communities and the whole plan dissolves when you try to apply the same basic ideals to a country where corporations/the wealthy hold power over people.
To the contrary, libertarain philosophy only has meaning within rather than outside of a society. Libertarain law is merely that least set of rules best serving to prevent, and when necessary peacefully resolve disputes, disputes arising over the fact of scarce resources. Libertarian law, like language, evolves spontaneously. It is if you like discovered law, arrived at by trial and error as rules which minimize conflict. In sharp contrast is 'positivist' law, legislated law, law devised and deployed by a ruling political authority be it communist, fascist, socialist, etc. Where libertarian law functions to MINIMIZE conflict, positivist law tends to ceaselessly incite conflict.
@@robertcarpenter8077 So your "contrary" argument is that "libertarian philosophy" only works within the confines of an isolated, self-created dream world (no argument from me on that point) where rules are made up as situations arise...who goes first...who gets the most...who decides what game to play and by whose rules. Hmm...that seems familiar...why that's sort of like...no...that's exactly like the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes. What a wonderful fantasy (one of my favorites)...until you reach the age of reason around age 7 or 8...until then you and your teddy bear can just enjoy yourselves.
very big on freedom and rights and totally devoid on responsibility you cant have rights without responsibilities ! Bring on a "bill of responsibilities"
So many libertarians start off by saying things that sound very agreeable and uncontroversial, then a few minutes in they start saying freeing the slaves was and the civil rights act were bad. I was very sympathetic to libertarianism until I heard Ron Paul (who I considered voting for) argue that we don't need public healthcare because you can just rely on the local church to help you out. You really have to make some totally absurd claims for rationalize libertarianism
The function of taxation is regulatory. He doesn't understand how taxation works. I gave up on Rand and Tolkien at age 14 (you can Google famous quote yourself because I'm lazy).
Everyone in the middle class tax bracket understands how taxation works. It's people in the non-paying class bracket who do not. Now if the middle class knew how to avoid it lije the top and bottom ends of the wealth spectrum they wouldn't have to worry about retirement. What 99.9% of the world doesn't know but the extreme wealthy do know is how to create wealth using private placement programs. They are mostly tax free thanks to the same politicians crying out about taxing the rich.
I am gay and no business should have to associate with me if they don't want to. A person can choose to not associate with anyone for any reason no matter how lousey I think it is. Everyone has the same right.
When it comes to libertarians, Adam Kokesh is always a "wholesome" one. Most of the libertarians out there act in bad faith. Got to appreciate the few who are not dishonest.
Really? I am not a libertarian myself and find their ideology to simplicstic and abstract, but bad faith? Which libertarians do you think are bad faith actors?
Doesn’t a libertarian believe in maximum personal liberty without infringing on the liberty of others? I assume Adam believes black people are as worthy as whites. Doesn’t he see that slavery is the worst example of violating Libertarian principles? What do you do about groups who believe in slavery and won’t give it up absent force?
'''''' I assume Adam believes black people are as worthy as whites. Doesn’t he see that slavery is the worst example of violating Libertarian principles? '''' what did he say that makes you think he doesn't understand that?
He would say "do what you can to peacefully free the slaves" such as: 1. Help refugees (unlike the northern fugitive slave laws) 2. Buy the slaves freedom (he actually said this in the debate) 3. Underground railroads 4. Basically help the slaves towards freedom by any means besides mass murder.
@@noblephoenix6151 He said he wouldn't shoot someone "just for" wandering onto his property, implying that he does think it's okay to shoot them in defense of property and self at _some_ point, so he seems to be down with violent, even lethal forms of _self_ defense at a minimum. I'm gonna assume that he also wouldn't appreciate the wandering stranger violating the autonomy of his wife and kids, or even his neighbors, making mutual defense similarly moral. 🤔 Given this, wars to liberate slaves and other exploited workers are not just morally permissible, but _imperative._ 🤨
In conclusion, then, the debate between the two was not one concerning merely differing innocuous opinions, as with flavoured ice-cream. One advocated peaceful voluntarism, whilst the anti-liberal authoritarian neo-Bolshevik monster expressed the same unethical left-wing rationalizations to violate reciprocity as convenient to Nazis, socialists, fascists and communists alike to extort, enslave, and rape the peaceful voluntarists of their autonomy, labour, time, and their byproducts of property invested in their voluntarist community. As such, Adam was to a fault far too respectful and inappropriately friendly to the anti-liberal authoritarian monster, who admitted the same rationalizations for violating reciprocity as shared by Nazis and fascists! I’m sure that Adam would not have been so friendly and respectful to a self-declared neo-Nazi; so why was he to the commie with equally abhorrent unethical rationalizations?!
Maybe he recently read "How to win friends and influence people"? Minds are rarely changed through hostility. Maybe he's just trying to be the bigger person? Who knows?
"You have a property right to your own body..?" How is that evaluated exactly? Animals don't like being harmed, do they get the same consideration? There are 18-wheel tractor-semis that recognize when drivers frequently change lanes without signalling, or determine how long a driver has been on the road without sleeping... can they alert the police to be removed from the driver? How about Gorillas? Or dolphins? They can recognize themselves in a mirror, and are pretty smart, do they get self property rights? Who defines the criteria for granting "self-property" rights? A court? A board of psychologists? What if someone is killed, but the attacker only harms the brain? Is their criminal sentencing lighter, compared to an attacker who damages the victims liver, kidney, lungs, and other valuable organs? Less property damage, lighter sentence, right? It's not like the deceased gets to make a property claim, they're dead. Love a good Libertarian debate, lemme know if you ever find one. This was an interesting discussion, tho. :) He lives "peacefully, undisturbed" does he? So, he isn't married then? Sounds lonely. :)
Unorthodox position, you are born without earning anything you consist of as you have done no labor at that point, and after than even when you do manipulate matter to add to yourself (which describes anything you do to survive,) the process is nothing but your use of material you have borrowed from commons to take more material from commons and turn it into more of you. Honestly man, I think we still belong to the commons. I mean I'm not very into cannibalisms, but I read that conclusion as, that's why you have obligations towards others. You are obligated not to be racist, you are obligated to help others, you are obligated to love others and let them love you. While no one has a grater claim to you than you (in a way to own you,) you owe all you have taken to those who could have otherwise taken the resources you claimed.
14:45 lmao Ben points out that Adam got basic facts wrong about the lead-up to and motivations for the Civil War and Adam just totally fucking collapses and deflects, good lord
I think there is an interesting question about decentralization. Local control is also something the Left has traditionally cared about, that the people who live or work in a certain area know best how to run it. I don't know how to weigh this against the practical examples of decentralization being used to enforce really bad policies though. Maybe it's just that to have local control you need really strong democratic input.
if you think we need a federal government to manage the states then we must need a world government to manage the countries, and think to yourself why dont you want a world government and apply that to your thought on how small a state should be
but in the case of the federal government if it's clear that any state can secede and continued inclusion in the union is voluntary there would be nothing wrong with it the same with a world union
I mean... You have the right to secede if there's a legal process for it, mate. If the Constitution says no, then that's what it is. Unless you wanna fight for it, of course.
the civil rights act was unconstitutional because of public accommodations the south misinterpreted states rights when used as the founders intended it doesn't violate rights
This channel's audio issues are the main reason why i don't watch a lot more content. The issues in this video still persist today. People speak at a higher volume - you cant understand what they're saying. Two people speak at once - thd audio goes haywire. I'm not an audiophile elitist either. Poor quality doesnt bother me, as long as i can understand all the words and sentences and so on. It's actually really bad.
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 for those that don't like Kokesh he said that people should not be able to own a million aces of land so there's a small victory for you that idea goes against libertarian principles he said something that AOC would say like no one should be allowed to have a billion dollars
Buying all the slaves to free them seems like accepting the evil of slavery as a form of legitimate "property rights" The war was a statement that the state didn't tolerate bondage.
My thing is that there shouldn't be even localism because do you still have to pay taxes. If all relationships are voluntary which is how they should be you can still have things like militias. I don't want even local government you can have charity even without any kind of government.
There is always some ridiculous notion that libertarians like to try to gloss over and say "I only want to do this ridiculous thing. What's so bad about that?" Like it or not, people have built their lives based on this being one country. Does this mean that I need to get a passport to visit my family in West Virginia or they need a passport to visit me in Pennsylvania? What about these metro areas that cover multiple states (NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, etc.)? Will people who live in New Jersey need to get work visas?
Wait Ben, is this not consequentialist? Your example of consequentialism: Push the fat man under the trolley to save 5 others. Can't you replace "fat man" with "racist", pushing under trolley track with being forced to serve someone else, and the "5 others saved" with "those the racist would have wronged"? I'd assume the action of calling someone obligated to serve another, in general, would not be something you would support (unlike me.) So are you not suggesting the action becomes morally permissible only once it leads to the good consequence of those people not being wronged?
Horrid to listen to. Self ownership only works if there’s enough left for everyone and it also includes a factory worker combining his labor with the raw materials. The wage system is coercive and Therefore illegitimate. End of story.
There are already communities in the world where government doesn't enforce rights. Afghanistan comes to mind. If you don't have government, you don't eliminate violence or force- you have gangs and vigilante justice. You have the strong and ruthless taking advantage of the weak and the meek. I would love to see how this 'micronation' Kokesh advocates for does with property rights and personal rights. A child can extrapolate this out and predict what will happen in such a libertarian paradise. Without the official force of government, does he think people will just 'get along'? Will 'Gardenians' all be peace-loving rugged individualists disinterested in self-enrichment? Does he think the people who 'own' stuff won't become violent when others come along to 'peacefully' steal their stuff? Who even gets to decide whose stuff it is? No taxes/no services- I guess all the people will have to move back to the USA once they grow too old to build & repair their own roads, fetch their own water, work their land & protect their stuff.
@46:58 Kokesh: Do people have a right to secede or does gov have right to force union? Burgis: No, they don't have a right [to secede]. Ben, isn't this view anti-democratic? If people vote for referendum, peacefully, why don't they have that right? The legal and ethical right is born from the principle of democracy, which people are practicing.
Burgis has badly misunderstood Jim Crow law. The white owned Louisiana railroad at the center of the 1896 Plessy Ferguson case strenuously objected to the segregation diktats decreed by the Louisiana government. It cost the railroad an inordinate amount to have to run two sets of cars on their rail lines. The US Supreme Court however ruled AGAINST the private enterprise white owned railroad and upheld the right of the government of Louisiana to interfere in the business practices of private enterprise and forced the railroad to run two sets of rail cars. Jim Crow was only possible because of the existence of government, not at all mitigated by government. In a free market laissez faire anarcho capitalist society, Jim Crow would have never arisen.
@@FTJan To the contrary slavery would never have arisen either without the prior existence of government. The 1857 US Supreme Court case of Dred Scott affirmed the right of government to coerce private citizens to act on behalf of slaveholders in their efforts to recover runaway slaves. Governments publicly funded monopoly securito-legal apparatus functioned to subsidize the true costs of maintaining a slave system to the point that it could be profitable. In a true ancap society slavery would be prohibitively expensive. To paraphrase Michel Foucault, political rule is always a strategy of domination.
I think it's you who misunderstands the history. Yes Jim Crow was a government policy, and it was the government that repealed those measures as well during the end of the Civil Rights era in the 1960's. The reason that law existed in the first place requiring 'separate but equal' accommodations for potential black passengers is because white railroad owners were under no obligation to make them beforehand, many if not most white owned railroads had no desire to serve black patrons. Many of those "private enterprise" railroads were highly subsidized with states funds anyhow. Here is a source giving multiple noteworthy examples of this before Plessy vs. Ferguson: www.civilrightsteaching.org/desegregation/transportation-protests
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | เปิดใจ "อาจารย์ เบียร์ ฅนตื่นธรรม" นักสนทนาธรรมสายดุดัน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqaBI_mnoDk/mqdefault.jpg)
I think a potentially fruitful research project to explore is the apparent link between committed libertarians and their want to become comedians.
please introduce yourself
it all started 3000 years ago when earth and private property were created
@@landonech lol
Or socialists and dictators.
I think it's a personality thing: we like saying things that make people think (to put it in a positive way), we are more likely to enjoy provoking and being provoked, and we are generally look at the world in a removed, bemused, tragicomic way that allows us to laugh at things others take more seriously. We also like to think we are smart and brave, two things associated with doing comedy
@@nixpix814 that one's easy: any socialist leader is a dictator when you define socialism as lack of freedom
I don’t care that much for Adam’s arguments but he is absolutely the most charismatic libertarian I’ve ever seen
Ben immediately destroyed Adam's premise that decentralization necessarily leads to more freedom and Adam didn't even defend it.
You know it's going to be a coherent debate when you are debating someone who starts off by saying Abe Lincoln should have just ended slavery by buying all of the slaves from southern slave owners.
i bet Adam has a word doc for debates and its 80% quips and 20% arguments
What could be more annoying than a libertarian who thinks he's super funny and absolutely loves the sound of his own voice?
Libertarians are sophists of our time. Their world is - Fantasy land, "what if" land, image land.
Nobody:
Adam: wanna see my mangled finger?
LMFAO
That brushing your teeth analogy was priceless
No it was pretty appropriate
@@desertsand8778 why?
It's spot on
@robinsss Do you know how an analogy works? Advising some behaviour does not imply we should commit violence against people who fail to engage in said behaviour.
Hands webbed behind his head at the 50-minute mark, pit stains fully visible. Too perfect.
"Why wouldn't slavers sell out their own chosen industry like that? Everything's for sale!"
Yeah, I'm not sure why getting paid for all of their slaves would make them not want new ones. 😕
I just found this exhausting
Have to tip my hat to a professional philosopher like Ben even debating these charlatans like Molyneux and this clown here. They have no clue about the intellectual foundations Ben is trying to start from.
The Marxist/Neo-Bolshevik way is the untenable nature to argue for the pretext of war and conquest against peaceful voluntary economically autonomous communities, just as demagogic tyrants since time immemorial to gain power by appealing to the worst predatory parasitic instincts of the venal covetous mob.
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 You already copy pasted that here Adolf. Write some new materials at least. Jeez
Religious cult that is always repeating itself. They are sophists of our time. But it is important to dismantle charlatans. For example , in Croatia in last 5 years vulgar libertarianism become "common sense" ideology. Public space is becoming libertarian platform.
@@renatogaucho7810 Leftism/socialism is the religious cult, whose cultists resort to the logical fallacy of no-true-Scotsman applied to communism to deny it has ever been tried to explain away its destructiveness. The charlatan in this case is Neo-Bolshevik Ben as a sophist of our time repeating the pretext of war and conquest against peaceful voluntary economically autonomous communities, just as demagogic tyrants since time immemorial have to gain power by appealing to the worst predatory parasitic instincts of the venal covetous mob. Peaceful voluntarism is not exclusive to libertarians, but Neo-Bolshevism (neo-Marxism) is about empowering predatory parasites self-entitled to other people's work. As such, it is the will to power by war and conquest against, again, peaceful voluntary economically autonomous communities, just as demagogic tyrants have waged since time immemorial to gain power under the guise of "the public good" whilst appealing to the worst parasitic instincts of the venal, covetous mob.
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 Face it...rearranging the words of your incoherent screeds is never going to turn them into anything other than what they started as...garbage.
Ben: "That's not my argument"
Other guy: "Let me finish responding to your argument"
Ben: "That's not my argument"
Other guy: "Just let me finish"
Hard to watch
I saw you and this Mr. Kokesh at the end of what apparently was this debate the other night and he had said one of two things that had caught my attention so I wanted to hear more. Plus, for good or for bad, this man and myself not only share the same first name but he is the closest thing maybe to my doppelganger that I think I've encountered though I no longer have a beard and likely a much different voice. Ben, your a smart man, you say intelligent things and imo have a healthy world view. I'll just leave it at that.
There are plenty of libertarians that are more viscerally hate-able, but not may this damn annoying
lol true
he reminds me of some weird "work on yourself" type bros I went to highschool with
Definitely one of the more annoying people Ben has debated lol
Adam’s ideas are completely unrealistic and unworkable.
Can you upload versions of these debates where it cuts out as much noise from your opponents as possible? My finger hurts from using the skip function on my phone during adam’s parts.
I usually say I'm libertarian, but I realize that "freedoms" are not easily defined and there are also necessary trade offs to be made between them.
The main difference between me and a lot of US libertarians is on the "freedom" to keep every last dollar you "earn". That's way down at the bottom of my list. To me that's "freedom" in the way that dried mayo on the end of a dirty knife is "food". But it seems to be the most important thing for a lot of "my fellow" libertarians (if libertarians can have fellows). I'm all for free speech, drugs, sex, and checking out out of society if you want to. I'm against most regulations, but I'm willing to chip in for government agencies that can help me stay healthy and safe enough to enjoy freedoms, like the USDA and CDC, and even the FBI in some form.
I think every man needs to live two lifetimes to be completely right about everything.
A throat clearing would be, in reference to the libertarian, a land locked sovereign state is impossible. He lives in Arizona, that state wouldn't exist with out water contracts. Legisyically speaking getting a chainsaw, made in china, through 113 sovereign states to his finger is impossible without it costing a million dollars. Every sovereign state is going to just let material and products through their borders without 100 agreements compromising sovereignty in some way.
"self ownership"
Seems to me Libertarianism RELIES on people NOT being evil. That’ll never happen. Greed, power and money will always trump those ideals. Unfortunately we need the government to protect us from capitalists. Like Chevron for example.
@@MarkStoverPiX that's true
but what Kokesh is describing is not libertarianism
it's anarchy
we have solid proof that the two are separate
would you like to hear it?
Would love to hear Nathan Robinson in this mix again. Nice show Ben!
When a rational person is shown that their stated belief system would contradict something that’s obviously good, like the Civil Rights Act, they’re inclined to adjust their belief system accordingly or add nuance to it or accept that a belief system can’t account for everything. When that happens to Adam, he doubles down and compares the civil rights to teeth-brushing.
Adam: "WAIT WAIT HANG ON, let me finish arguing against a strawman."
What strawman? How do you reconcile the anti-liberal authoritarian leftard's SUBJECTIVE relativism and solipsistic rationalizing away the import of logical inconsistency ("double standards," "might makes right") and lack of ethics of the left's anti-liberal authoritarian ideology of conquest and its violent nature of violating not only the NAP, BUT ALSO RECIPROCITY of the silver rule?
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 Lol nice
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 damn all we leftists are crying in the corner rn.
.
*WITH PAPA STALIN'S PROPAGANDA PICTURE BOOOO*
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 Uhm.... Need a cookie, bro?
Well this hasn't been easy on my ears
Good God let him speak ben. If you wanted to just rant you shouldn't debate
That "buy the slaves" argument is hilariously bad
Absolutely! Slaves are WAYYY more profitable in long run than accepting a 1-time " buyout ". You'd have to be stupid to accept that deal as a slave owner.
@@forktailedDevilP-38J91 right exactly
Socialism and communism is more extensive as free range slavery, extorted servitude via tax extortion.
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 Welp. I'm convinced!
The Marxist/Neo-Bolshevik way is the untenable nature to argue for the pretext of war and conquest against peaceful voluntary economically autonomous communities, just as demagogic tyrants since time immemorial to gain power by appealing to the worst predatory parasitic instincts of the venal covetous mob.
I'm sure there would have been more to "Gardenia" had they had time to get into it but I always respect the libertarian whose philosophy makes them want to move to the middle of the woods and interact with people as little as possible. That sounds like a dig (and it kind of is) but the whole "non-aggression, mind your business" thing only begins to make sense if you want to be a subsistence farmer somewhere and aren't using public roads and services. Problem is that you can't argue for a shift to the entire makeup of the country from that standpoint. Not everyone will (or can) be farmers somewhere or interact in micro-communities and the whole plan dissolves when you try to apply the same basic ideals to a country where corporations/the wealthy hold power over people.
To the contrary, libertarain philosophy only has meaning within rather than outside of a society. Libertarain law is merely that least set of rules best serving to prevent, and when necessary peacefully resolve disputes, disputes arising over the fact of scarce resources. Libertarian law, like language, evolves spontaneously. It is if you like discovered law, arrived at by trial and error as rules which minimize conflict. In sharp contrast is 'positivist' law, legislated law, law devised and deployed by a ruling political authority be it communist, fascist, socialist, etc. Where libertarian law functions to MINIMIZE conflict, positivist law tends to ceaselessly incite conflict.
@@robertcarpenter8077 So your "contrary" argument is that "libertarian philosophy" only works within the confines of an isolated, self-created dream world (no argument from me on that point) where rules are made up as situations arise...who goes first...who gets the most...who decides what game to play and by whose rules. Hmm...that seems familiar...why that's sort of like...no...that's exactly like the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes.
What a wonderful fantasy (one of my favorites)...until you reach the age of reason around age 7 or 8...until then you and your teddy bear can just enjoy yourselves.
very big on freedom and rights and totally devoid on responsibility you cant have rights without responsibilities ! Bring on a "bill of responsibilities"
No, taking of the responsibility of oneself and one's family to be free of the tyranny you commies push is responsibility WRIT LARGE.
So many libertarians start off by saying things that sound very agreeable and uncontroversial, then a few minutes in they start saying freeing the slaves was and the civil rights act were bad. I was very sympathetic to libertarianism until I heard Ron Paul (who I considered voting for) argue that we don't need public healthcare because you can just rely on the local church to help you out. You really have to make some totally absurd claims for rationalize libertarianism
Hungover and about to argue with my libertarian friend..this was very helpful..great job Ben
Some offered to buy freedom, but the slaveholders refused.
The function of taxation is regulatory. He doesn't understand how taxation works.
I gave up on Rand and Tolkien at age 14 (you can Google famous quote yourself because I'm lazy).
what do you mean it's regulatory?
Everyone in the middle class tax bracket understands how taxation works. It's people in the non-paying class bracket who do not. Now if the middle class knew how to avoid it lije the top and bottom ends of the wealth spectrum they wouldn't have to worry about retirement. What 99.9% of the world doesn't know but the extreme wealthy do know is how to create wealth using private placement programs. They are mostly tax free thanks to the same politicians crying out about taxing the rich.
I am gay and no business should have to associate with me if they don't want to. A person can choose to not associate with anyone for any reason no matter how lousey I think it is. Everyone has the same right.
how did you get your property? I fought for it . Well i'll fight you !
Wait... Yeah... It's not like wherever slavery was abolished without war is now a libertarian paradise. What was the point of that?
When it comes to libertarians, Adam Kokesh is always a "wholesome" one. Most of the libertarians out there act in bad faith. Got to appreciate the few who are not dishonest.
Really? I am not a libertarian myself and find their ideology to simplicstic and abstract, but bad faith? Which libertarians do you think are bad faith actors?
@@tommyXBOX360 Dave Rubin has worn a variety of suits, including a libertarian one
You do not under any circumstances have to hand it to a libertarian
@@AL-op3ue Yeah gotta give you that one :P
@@mvrfxngshit4521 libertarians seem to be universally mocked here, which is fine. curious what philosophy you subscribe to
Very fun video xD Very well argued Ben!
USA communist? xddd that one got me laughing haha
Doesn’t a libertarian believe in maximum personal liberty without infringing on the liberty of others? I assume Adam believes black people are as worthy as whites. Doesn’t he see that slavery is the worst example of violating Libertarian principles? What do you do about groups who believe in slavery and won’t give it up absent force?
Especially if they want the libertarian for a slave too.
'''''' I assume Adam believes black people are as worthy as whites. Doesn’t he see that slavery is the worst example of violating Libertarian principles? ''''
what did he say that makes you think he doesn't understand that?
@@robinsss Sorry, I don't remember anymore.
He would say "do what you can to peacefully free the slaves" such as: 1. Help refugees (unlike the northern fugitive slave laws) 2. Buy the slaves freedom (he actually said this in the debate) 3. Underground railroads 4. Basically help the slaves towards freedom by any means besides mass murder.
@@noblephoenix6151 He said he wouldn't shoot someone "just for" wandering onto his property, implying that he does think it's okay to shoot them in defense of property and self at _some_ point, so he seems to be down with violent, even lethal forms of _self_ defense at a minimum. I'm gonna assume that he also wouldn't appreciate the wandering stranger violating the autonomy of his wife and kids, or even his neighbors, making mutual defense similarly moral. 🤔
Given this, wars to liberate slaves and other exploited workers are not just morally permissible, but _imperative._ 🤨
In conclusion, then, the debate between the two was not one concerning merely differing innocuous opinions, as with flavoured ice-cream. One advocated peaceful voluntarism, whilst the anti-liberal authoritarian neo-Bolshevik monster expressed the same unethical left-wing rationalizations to violate reciprocity as convenient to Nazis, socialists, fascists and communists alike to extort, enslave, and rape the peaceful voluntarists of their autonomy, labour, time, and their byproducts of property invested in their voluntarist community. As such, Adam was to a fault far too respectful and inappropriately friendly to the anti-liberal authoritarian monster, who admitted the same rationalizations for violating reciprocity as shared by Nazis and fascists! I’m sure that Adam would not have been so friendly and respectful to a self-declared neo-Nazi; so why was he to the commie with equally abhorrent unethical rationalizations?!
Maybe he recently read "How to win friends and influence people"? Minds are rarely changed through hostility. Maybe he's just trying to be the bigger person? Who knows?
"You have a property right to your own body..?" How is that evaluated exactly? Animals don't like being harmed, do they get the same consideration? There are 18-wheel tractor-semis that recognize when drivers frequently change lanes without signalling, or determine how long a driver has been on the road without sleeping... can they alert the police to be removed from the driver?
How about Gorillas? Or dolphins? They can recognize themselves in a mirror, and are pretty smart, do they get self property rights?
Who defines the criteria for granting "self-property" rights? A court? A board of psychologists?
What if someone is killed, but the attacker only harms the brain? Is their criminal sentencing lighter, compared to an attacker who damages the victims liver, kidney, lungs, and other valuable organs? Less property damage, lighter sentence, right? It's not like the deceased gets to make a property claim, they're dead.
Love a good Libertarian debate, lemme know if you ever find one. This was an interesting discussion, tho. :)
He lives "peacefully, undisturbed" does he? So, he isn't married then? Sounds lonely. :)
Unorthodox position, you are born without earning anything you consist of as you have done no labor at that point, and after than even when you do manipulate matter to add to yourself (which describes anything you do to survive,) the process is nothing but your use of material you have borrowed from commons to take more material from commons and turn it into more of you.
Honestly man, I think we still belong to the commons. I mean I'm not very into cannibalisms, but I read that conclusion as, that's why you have obligations towards others. You are obligated not to be racist, you are obligated to help others, you are obligated to love others and let them love you. While no one has a grater claim to you than you (in a way to own you,) you owe all you have taken to those who could have otherwise taken the resources you claimed.
Im in the mood for a good libertarian debate that doesn't feature Sam Seder. It's been a while
14:45 lmao Ben points out that Adam got basic facts wrong about the lead-up to and motivations for the Civil War and Adam just totally fucking collapses and deflects, good lord
the libertarian aurgument seems to fall down on its toleration of racism. Not good.
why shouldn't we tolerate racism?
don't people have the right to be racist?
Kokesh can't really deal with other frameworks it's quite embarassing
what do you mean?
@@robinsss he is unable or unwilling to get into the way of thinking his interlokutor.
@@daPawlak ''''interlokutor'''
what does that mean?
@@robinsss the person they are talking with,in this case Burgis, who shows in many instances that he can do it.
@@daPawlak to do what?
what does the term interlokutor mean?
I think there is an interesting question about decentralization. Local control is also something the Left has traditionally cared about, that the people who live or work in a certain area know best how to run it. I don't know how to weigh this against the practical examples of decentralization being used to enforce really bad policies though. Maybe it's just that to have local control you need really strong democratic input.
if you think we need a federal government to manage the states then we must need a world government to manage the countries, and think to yourself why dont you want a world government and apply that to your thought on how small a state should be
but in the case of the federal government if it's clear that any state can secede and continued inclusion in the union is voluntary there would be nothing wrong with it
the same with a world union
I mean... You have the right to secede if there's a legal process for it, mate. If the Constitution says no, then that's what it is. Unless you wanna fight for it, of course.
the civil rights act was unconstitutional because of public accommodations
the south misinterpreted states rights
when used as the founders intended it doesn't violate rights
why do you always have random people pop up in your videos on the bottom
This channel's audio issues are the main reason why i don't watch a lot more content. The issues in this video still persist today. People speak at a higher volume - you cant understand what they're saying. Two people speak at once - thd audio goes haywire. I'm not an audiophile elitist either. Poor quality doesnt bother me, as long as i can understand all the words and sentences and so on. It's actually really bad.
He is a Kooky one.. Lives in a fantasy land.
In what way?
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 It would be much easier to list the few ways where he is realistic.
@@love-voluntarismpeace4214 for those that don't like Kokesh he said that people should not be able to own a million aces of land
so there's a small victory for you
that idea goes against libertarian principles
he said something that AOC would say
like no one should be allowed to have a billion dollars
Buying all the slaves to free them seems like accepting the evil of slavery as a form of legitimate "property rights" The war was a statement that the state didn't tolerate bondage.
Man this guy is full of beans absentee property takes a hell of a lot of violence to enforce. The NAP is idiocy.
Say what you want about Libertarians...
My thing is that there shouldn't be even localism because do you still have to pay taxes. If all relationships are voluntary which is how they should be you can still have things like militias. I don't want even local government you can have charity even without any kind of government.
There is always some ridiculous notion that libertarians like to try to gloss over and say "I only want to do this ridiculous thing. What's so bad about that?" Like it or not, people have built their lives based on this being one country. Does this mean that I need to get a passport to visit my family in West Virginia or they need a passport to visit me in Pennsylvania? What about these metro areas that cover multiple states (NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, etc.)? Will people who live in New Jersey need to get work visas?
Wait Ben, is this not consequentialist?
Your example of consequentialism: Push the fat man under the trolley to save 5 others.
Can't you replace "fat man" with "racist", pushing under trolley track with being forced to serve someone else, and the "5 others saved" with "those the racist would have wronged"?
I'd assume the action of calling someone obligated to serve another, in general, would not be something you would support (unlike me.) So are you not suggesting the action becomes morally permissible only once it leads to the good consequence of those people not being wronged?
Libertarian 😬
I wanted to do the arbitrary and unnecessary "first" thing. Damn it.
Showing your chainsaw wound at the beginning of a debate is a power move
oh no doubt lol, right-wing ideology and insecure masculinity are like peanut butter and jelly
Wow a very promising crescendo of truth really crashed an burned at 1:35
Horrid to listen to. Self ownership only works if there’s enough left for everyone and it also includes a factory worker combining his labor with the raw materials. The wage system is coercive and Therefore illegitimate. End of story.
Adam's mic is too far away. Also seemed muffled some too.
Guy has become way more hyper since last time on Sam Seder :)
So Ben we still should be a part of the British empire?
Can anyone believe that someone married this guy?
There are already communities in the world where government doesn't enforce rights. Afghanistan comes to mind.
If you don't have government, you don't eliminate violence or force- you have gangs and vigilante justice. You have the strong and ruthless taking advantage of the weak and the meek.
I would love to see how this 'micronation' Kokesh advocates for does with property rights and personal rights. A child can extrapolate this out and predict what will happen in such a libertarian paradise.
Without the official force of government, does he think people will just 'get along'? Will 'Gardenians' all be peace-loving rugged individualists disinterested in self-enrichment? Does he think the people who 'own' stuff won't become violent when others come along to 'peacefully' steal their stuff? Who even gets to decide whose stuff it is?
No taxes/no services- I guess all the people will have to move back to the USA once they grow too old to build & repair their own roads, fetch their own water, work their land & protect their stuff.
What they always say in response is "you just don't believe that people can be good without being cooerced". They're idiots, of course.
it would be good for US, in it's present state to fall apart might be good for the world.. US bases ect..
Sweet guy. Dumb but sweet.
People aren't property lol not even their own
Pink Floyd rules.
Unwatchable. jfc
Libertarianism aka baby brain 🧠 🤪.
@46:58
Kokesh: Do people have a right to secede or does gov have right to force union?
Burgis: No, they don't have a right [to secede].
Ben, isn't this view anti-democratic? If people vote for referendum, peacefully, why don't they have that right?
The legal and ethical right is born from the principle of democracy, which people are practicing.
Burgis has badly misunderstood Jim Crow law. The white owned Louisiana railroad at the center of the 1896 Plessy Ferguson case strenuously objected to the segregation diktats decreed by the Louisiana government. It cost the railroad an inordinate amount to have to run two sets of cars on their rail lines. The US Supreme Court however ruled AGAINST the private enterprise white owned railroad and upheld the right of the government of Louisiana to interfere in the business practices of private enterprise and forced the railroad to run two sets of rail cars. Jim Crow was only possible because of the existence of government, not at all mitigated by government. In a free market laissez faire anarcho capitalist society, Jim Crow would have never arisen.
"In a free market, laissez-faire anarcho capitalist society, Jim Crow would never arisen."
Well, yeah, but only because slavery would still exist
@@FTJan lol get his ass
@@FTJan To the contrary slavery would never have arisen either without the prior existence of government. The 1857 US Supreme Court case of Dred Scott affirmed the right of government to coerce private citizens to act on behalf of slaveholders in their efforts to recover runaway slaves. Governments publicly funded monopoly securito-legal apparatus functioned to subsidize the true costs of maintaining a slave system to the point that it could be profitable. In a true ancap society slavery would be prohibitively expensive.
To paraphrase Michel Foucault, political rule is always a strategy of domination.
@@lellowranger Thank you, lellowranger, for your most insightful and important contribution to the debate.
I think it's you who misunderstands the history. Yes Jim Crow was a government policy, and it was the government that repealed those measures as well during the end of the Civil Rights era in the 1960's. The reason that law existed in the first place requiring 'separate but equal' accommodations for potential black passengers is because white railroad owners were under no obligation to make them beforehand, many if not most white owned railroads had no desire to serve black patrons. Many of those "private enterprise" railroads were highly subsidized with states funds anyhow.
Here is a source giving multiple noteworthy examples of this before Plessy vs. Ferguson: www.civilrightsteaching.org/desegregation/transportation-protests