The Problem With the Libertarian Right

[@robertjensen1438]

I don't mind following rules at work, but when my boss told me to stop impersonating flamingos. I had to put my foot down.

[@jessicaf8917]

😂

[@All-Fur-Coat_No-Trousers]

I'm a little disappointed in myself for laughing at this 😆

[@mikem5475]

What? How is this funny?

[@MiloTimberlake]

Nice buddy

[@jessicaf8917]

@@mikem5475 Flamingos like to rest standing with one foot up. Look at a picture of a flamingo.

[@OFilellinas]

I identify as a libertarian and 1) I believe rules are paramount to ensure society works well. Contracts must be respected, property must be protected, we must agree on what constitutes a crime etc. Obviously. and 2) I don't think an absolutely free market and a very small government that is only there to essentially ensure people's basic security will necessarily lead to everything working out for the best (although I do think it would probably be much better than whatever we have)... but I don't care. I'm not interested in creating an ideal society in the sense of "everything working out for the best". I just want to mind my own business and freely associate (or NOT associate) with whomever I want. Whether the collective outcome is better or worse is of no concern to me whatsoever. I'm not interested in trying to create a utopia. I just want to be fully in control of my life.

[@no_special_person]

jordan isnt like us, hes a neo fascist

[@supercal333]

Even if it means less safety and security for you and your family?

[@Nediac800]

@@supercal333how is it less safe for them if he can own a fully automatic firearm?

[@M42-Orion-Nebula]

​@@supercal333 NEVER trade freedom for security

[@josephpugh1331]

I agree. However, those rules should practical and minimal. Historically, all governments have leaned toward authoritarianism. It takes conscious effort to establish Liberty.

[@BennettDuncan-gx7ww]

You’re videos really have helped me think differently, thank you.

[@We-Do-NOT-Consent-303]

Just be carefull and use critical thinking and question everything and everyone. This guy is not who you think he is.

[@jameezybreezy9030]

@@We-Do-NOT-Consent-303 who do you think we think he is, and who is he according to you?

[@CGKA2020]

​@EvenStar303 Just be careful and use critical thinking and question everyone and everything. Who @BennettDuncan-gx7ww thinks Jordan Peterson is may not be what you think it is 😉

[@We-Do-NOT-Consent-303]

@@CGKA2020 I know it's not. Everyone has to make their own conclusions with their own mind powers.

[@We-Do-NOT-Consent-303]

@@jameezybreezy9030 You have to find it out for yourself! Use common sense and critical thinking! Considering every available data and intuition.

[@Joefrenomics]

Depends on whether the Libertarian justifies his Libertarianism deontologically or consequentially. The latter is what Peterson describes, those who believe it produces the best outcome. For the former, it’s a moral proposition: No coercion except to prevent coercion.

[@DerekS-kq3zh]

I've never once heard a consequentialist argument against libertarianism that doesn't boil down to "Well yeah but your system would also do [horrible thing that currently happens under our current system every single day], so therefore it won't work!"

[@PassDaMethod]

None of that matters. It doesn't work in practice due to human nature.

[@ronaldbronson1285]

​@@PassDaMethod As opposed to what? A strictly limited constitutional republic? How's that working out?

[@dougdow1287]

​@@ronaldbronson1285Hasn't been tried in generations. 😢

[@swingonthespiral]

Ok, but who decides what force really is? Who says what amount of force is necessary? Self defense could be force. A pep talk could be a choice and therefore a justification for the consequential action. You have to have a framework. There's nothing in nature that doesn't have binding rules, so why does man fall outside that schema?

[@pixiwix]

As a lifelong libertarian, this hit hard. As always, he's spot on.

[@liz9284]

I’m not really sure what kinds of “libertarians” he’s talking about. I consider myself libertarian, and I know the free market has a way of self correcting, but I’ve never once believed we could have “open borders”, for example, at least not in the way most ppl think we libertarians want “open borders”. These are open economic borders, and even that’s only possible when your government ISNT keeping the physical borders open to anyone and everyone. Myself and many other libertarians have said many many times: rights without responsibility is chaos. Rules are great, but they have to be set in good faith. We don’t have anything close to that right now.

[@rydyly1734]

My good sir, you have just given the definition of Conservatism

[@Fatherrrrrrr]

@@liz9284 I'm very curious of your libertarian stance on the open-draft bill, in relation to your view of rights vs responsibility. Do you believe women should belatedly accept the responsibility of conscription for the right to vote same as men?

[@leafster1337]

in the direction of fewer rules and fewer powers to enforce existing or non existing rules, goes towards ppl essentially trying to exert their force onto others stamping out their freedoms. u have to essentially believe ppl/groups are almost perfect and self correcting to some standard…like what even are ppl going towards anyways? theyll just choose anything and things may fall apart

[@mjbranch2109]

people will soon defend their own territories in a state of anarchy, we're already in a Nation-State based anarchy, the goal is to bring that to a more local scale

[@liz9284]

@@Fatherrrrrrr well, we don’t have the constitutional right to vote, although (as you pointed out) selective service has been tied to voting for men. I think it’s a good idea to force ppl to invest something into the country, as this influences what they vote for. However, I don’t believe women should be drafted into most combat roles. I’m sure there are many ways we can have women contribute some type of service in exchange for voting “rights”, but no, I do not believe they should be drafted into wars. The reason is simple-I don’t think most women are cut out for the job, and I’m not willing to sacrifice our military readiness and effectiveness to be “fair”, there are many other ways women can contribute. Of course, I’m not against it so much if women serve in other military roles. I also believe that anyone accepting long term assistance from government should not be allowed to vote. It’s too much of a moral hazard (clearly), and this is precisely why we end up with laws and policies that harm 97% of the country while 3% benefit. It’s absurd to think they should be permitted to vote for those who will keep their checks coming at our expense. Stopping long term welfare recipients from voting would also get rid of much of the corrupt bureaucracy running these programs. Those are my initial thoughts anyway (I’m at work, so I haven’t had much time to respond until now), but I’ll check back in later if I have an epiphany, LOL. To sum up, I have zero problem with all ppl having to contribute SOMETHING, but I think there should be options. I don’t know any man who wants to put his life in the hands of a woman drafted into combat, and I don’t want that either. But I would support some sort of contribution, yes.

[@ragnar.danneskjold]

Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians won't get their ideal societies unless everyone believes in individual rights.

[@Sun-ic7rq]

Don't we...? I thought we went to war and kxlled millions for exactly that...?

[@Rensune]

So, they have the same fallacy that literally every other political ideology has. Almost everyone believes that other people act and think the way that they do.

[@bosto23]

@@Sun-ic7rq We clearly don't all agree on individual rights

[@abelbabel8484]

That's a worthwhile pursuit

[@IlluminaZero]

@@Rensuneno. “Positive rights” require special rules. “Negative rights” can be universally applied at basically no cost. Libertarian Right tends to focus on “negative rights.” The exceptions are pretty much universally created to accommodate “positive rights” for such goals as “equity”

[@pedrosolermartinez6273]

Argentina is actually undergoing the first libertarian government with Milei, let’s see, it’s looking pretty promising at the moment.

[@jarrodjahnke8685]

I'm not sure that this is what they believe though. I consider myself a Libertarian and I fully appreciate that a strong national constitution is prerequisite to a functioning Libertarian society.

[@mikem5475]

Lol as if the armed thugs called govt care about your constitution anymore

[@tom4705]

I agree with you, but sadly the dominant strain of right wing libertarian thought in the US is anarcho-capitalism. They are the primary reason why libertarians have gotten essentially nowhere for decades now. They can't imagine that without laws protecting and guaranteeing freedom, untold hordes by the millions would absolutely prefer centralized control.

[@duderino6171]

Government is a substitute for morality, and a bad one at that. Not true Anarchist or Libertarian actually believes that you can get rid of government without a strong moral foundation. Peterson is out of his depth on this topic.

[@mikem5475]

@@duderino6171 exactly. And armed thugs we call govt don't care at all about a piece of paper called the "constitution"

[@mingus445_gaming]

@@duderino6171 i think you are out of your depth here far more than anyone else

[@sinkfaze]

That's not what they think. They think that people making their own choices has the best possibilities for the best outcomes, because they have the best information to make those choices. That doesn't mean that they'll always be the right choices.

[@trrosales]

He may be talking about a specific group with the term “libertarian right” instead of the actually libertarian philosophy. I hope JP understands that libertarianism does not be a lack of law and order, but instead the need for a state to dictate that law and order.

[@princeofexcess]

That really depends on how you define Libertarian Right. Are they the same as Libertarian Anarchist? The whole problem is to find out where the optimal solution is located. Market forces and personal interests play such a powerful role in human behavior that all truly free markets are more beneficial than governed markets. People in governing bodies will always form special interest groups that benefit those people, making distribution inefficient. This has a compounding effect where most special interest groups eventually end up poorer than they would be otherwise. With governance, significant resources are also wasted on enforcement and bureaucracy. The paradox here is that you do need a certain level of governance to have a truly free market. Therefore, you can not go without governance. However minimal governance to enforce free market is the point where benefits to society are maximized.

[@billstrasburg384]

If you have governance over the market by a government entity, then it is NOT a free market by definition. You are arguing that people are not intelligent enough or honest enough to HAVE a completely free market. That's a legitimate argument......but I totally disagree. Any government involvement is a perversion and skews the market with perverted incentives.

[@bryandyer5454]

So you're saying that anarchism goes too far, and the optimal solution would be more libertarian?

[@billstrasburg384]

@@bryandyer5454 That is a contradiction. Libertarian is moving away from government and socialism is moving towards it. Anarcho-Capitalism is the MOST Libertarian.

[@bryandyer5454]

@billstrasburg384 I was of the understanding that libertarianism and anarchism are separate things, but perhaps there isn't a clear distinction. If your definition is correct, I meant to say "less libertarian."

[@princeofexcess]

@@billstrasburg384We are arguing semantics here but i do think libertarian is more useful definition if it excludes anarchy. Since anarchy is already a definition of it's own. And even you say MOST libertarian which would suggest libertarian is a spectrum in your definition. This would mean that i do not believe in the MOST libertarian solution being the best solution. Most definitions of libertarian-ism do focus on minarchism not anarchy. Whichever definition you choose it doesn't matter since it doesnt really add to the argument. Anarchy is not a system that can exist for extended periods of time in a large area. This means it cannot be the optimal solution as it isnt a real solution at all.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

Inaccurate. We do not expect that it will be "for the best". It well may be terrible and violent, but it is the only moral choice.

[@CD-vb9fi]

You understand it correctly! I like Mr. Peterson, but he is still not here yet when it comes to morality. No real acceptance of Christ or God despite him talking about the bible a fair amount. I have been hoping he will make the final steps to understand but I don't think he will at this point. He is old and set and I believe he is now too afraid to mess with the formula that has given him such prominence. It's a shame really...

[@ricardokowalski1579]

@@CD-vb9fi 👍

[@Alexander-cj4ml]

Oh...Please.. delusional is being kind

[@ricardokowalski1579]

@@Alexander-cj4ml thank you for you kindness? 🤷

[@kmac6523]

If freedom is a terrible choice then I still intend to take it. I’ll take it over a government who derives its powers from coercion and theft.

[@tbobtbob330]

I was almost 50 before I figured this out. The last few years has made me realize that I'd greatly overestimated how far humans had evolved.

[@MariaZiskos]

Greetings Dr! My fave jacket from your vast wonderful collection of suits. AND Dr i have simply implemented this into daily life. A simple conversation i’m likely to be like “ hang on buddy, tell me the rules here before we even continue talking 🤭 something ofc i have learned from you, its all getting too too hard if i cant even participate in a straight convo. Wishing you continued blessings, success, health and waalth 😂 ❤😊

[@LtColwtf]

Spot on. If half, let alone more than half, of the participants in the “game” don’t want to play by a given set of rules then the game won’t be played, period.

[@michelleLCdiva98]

WHOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! I wish I could communicate these subjects as eloquently and intelligently while staying calm and collective the way JP does. The man is a master of his profession. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

[@paranoidandroid9511]

What is missing from Peterson's understanding is that private ownership allows the actual free and beneficial association of people and the removal of those who intend to misbehave. Contrary to public ownership where you are forced to tolerate intolerable and insufferable people who wish to do you harm.

[@IlluminaZero]

Maybe the real issue then is on the nature of these special rules? Only “positive rights” demand these exceptions to the rules. “Negative rights” do not require special rules.

[@juliebrown1394]

So what is ' positive' and what is 'negative'?

[@CloudWithoutASky]

@@juliebrown1394 positive rights would be individual freedom and rights or freedom, freedom to buy what you want legally and publically, freedom to say what you want publically. but the issue is that negative rights, like, negative rights are rights that are detrimental to people, so im assuming a right that is abused, like freedom to buy whatever you want? ok buy people and bodies. thats a negative part of the freedom of market.

[@IlluminaZero]

@@juliebrown1394 these are technical terms. You can actually google them with specific definitions.

[@IlluminaZero]

@@CloudWithoutASky this is inaccurate. As before these are technical terms. Pretty much all of what you consider "positive rights" are actually by definition "negative rights."

[@four-eight-zero5627]

Whoa.. No.. Negative rights describe what the government "shall not" do.

[@gabrielcruz2466]

Libertarianism already agrees on a set of rules that must be in place in order for a society to function. These are life, property and liberty.

[@gialuquin88XD]

That is the whole point Mr Peterson, Set a game where the rules are flexible and thought out in a way that you can’t cheat (you have to compete) and where individuals take responsibility of their own actions, Without being explicit about what they should or shouldn’t do. The rules are clear and delimited. That should be the point.

[@jayknable8398]

Libertarianisn doesn't advocate for anarcho anything. We believe an ideal government exists almost exclusively to protect people from other people, on an individual level, a political level, and an economic level. The more power you offer any group of humans over others, the more corruption you invite them to engage in. This is basic sense. The whole aim of the Constitution was to make a government that only had as much power as it needed and no more. We have since abandoned that approach and the "Libertarian right" (a category which includes some diverse opinions in itself) is the primary group advocating to restore this.

[@thecrow4597]

I don’t believe you understood the analysis. He’s not saying Libertarians explicitly advocate for the things that he’s proposing are the consequence of the philosophy. He’s saying that these things are the result of libertarian ideals despite what Libertarians believe about how a libertarian world might look. He’s correct. Without a moral frame work that is agreed upon and enforced upon people, you don’t have freedom. Freedom paradoxically results from constraint. The idea that people can just do whatever they want as long as there is consent, is absolutely idiocy and leads to complete degredation of society.

[@rs.matr1x]

@@thecrow4597 exactly .. its similar to how liberalism results in corruption and crime infested cities where criminals go free and store owners get arrested for defending themselves.

[@tulpasconstructor2711]

Shorts are analysis now lol Sheep want to be herded.

[@princeofexcess]

@@thecrow4597 he is arguing for governance. His idea of ideal governance simply maximizes freedom.

[@fancygiraffe3340]

@@thecrow4597 I'm pretty sure a government that enforces a 'moral framework' is by definition tyrannical. You can set the basic rules of society but if you start deciding you have the right to enforce morality on others 'for their own good' then you're right back to the worst human atrocities that have ever existed.

[@noahfrey.]

This is interesting because Jordan got this wrong. It doesn’t mean everything will work out for the best. It means people are allowed the ability to express freedom and sometimes there are negative outcomes. However, I will always accept the negative outcomes as a consequence of freedom over the negative outcomes of forced compliance.

[@jimmyv1753]

That’s why they are shuffling the rules. To cause chaos

[@kmac6523]

We don’t suffer any delusions. We are quite aware that with individual liberty will come individual responsibility.

[@TankedFarms5151]

As it should be

[@tom4705]

That has nothing to do with what he said. What happens when you're vastly outnumbered by people who don't value your precious "individual responsibility" code? Everyone (or at least most) have to agree with the legal/social fabric underpinning a society, especially a society as rigid and inflexible as a libertarian society would be. Otherwise, you have social unrest, which leads to political unrust, which leads to further government centralizion of some kind.

[@mingus445_gaming]

how has that worked out for you so far. seems we have a lot of freedoms and yet more and more responsibility on a group (fallacy) rather than individuals. In fact in some of these incredibly free liberal societies, drugs are free, drug paraphenalia is free, abortion is allowed, and yet more and more victims of violent crime are being prosecuted while the perpetrators roam free. Is that responsibility? "We don't suffer ANY delusions" only someone incredibly delusional would say that.

[@IlluminaZero]

@@mingus445_gaming these aren't examples of a free society. In a Democracy the majority voter gets their demands met. The majority is irresponsible. When you are FORCED to pay for a drug addict or obese person's medical bills that is not freedom.

[@tom4705]

@@mingus445_gaming Not really sure what you're getting at. Are you assuming I'm liberal? Because I'm not. I just recognize that a libertarian society can't work, at least not in the context of an indirect democracy if most people don't agree with its core tenants. That's how reality has played out. I'm far more sympathetic to minarchism or some right wing Ron Paul variant leaning in that direction, perhaps further to the right on immigration, but anarcho capitalism is delusional, full stop. Anarchy of any kind will lead to a power vacuum filled by less powerful, yet equally authoritarian militant groups that will reestablish government.

[@BitterTast3]

Someone get Michael Malice in here to straighten this boy out.

[@4seth]

Malice isn't a libertarian.

[@CurtHowland]

He has spoken to Malice, and Bob Murphy. Dr. Peterson continues to make the mistake of not realizing individual liberty comes with individual responsibility.

[@BitterTast3]

@@CurtHowland Yeah but it’s been awhile. He sounds like he needs another dose.

[@BitterTast3]

@@4seth No shit.

[@wacky3314]

​@@CurtHowlandyes even with best rules if everyone will behave bad than whole country will go to ashes and people behave well because of their culture, education etc and not becauee government told me so😂

[@DeadLemmy]

What conservatives don't understand about libertarians is, they don't care what they want. Libertarins are the perfect neighbor, you have your buisness we have ours and we both agree to mind your own buisness. You start ignoring that principal and the non agression pact is void, and then libertarians are forced to mind your buisness until you agree to leave them alone again.

[@mingus445_gaming]

it's a passive system of governance that only works in a system that allows it. Good luck being a libertarian in a dystopian state. The point is that certain allowances need to be made for their to be any libertarian entity - this isn't comprehendable for people in the US since they know no other way. But go to Communist China and try to live libertarian, with the idea that all that's required is this very passive belief

[@petereames3041]

What happens when you end up with terrible neighbours?

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Anarchist are the rightful prey of the collectivist.

[@bilbilly625]

@@petereames3041you most likely won’t get an answer to that common sense question.

[@CurtHowland]

@@petereames3041 As usual, that problem is solved through property rights. A "bad neighbor" is one that trespasses. So, prosecute that trespassing. Community standards, such as "quiet hours", evolved out of the necessity for people to live side by side. If you understand that "rights" are negative, it all makes perfect sense.

[@alessioatta762]

Let's see Peterson milei debate, we Need that :D

[@Scindere]

YES!

[@youwillneverguess]

Any ground not defended is surrendered.

[@TankedFarms5151]

This isn’t libertarian beliefs at all. Libertarian values are minimal government and extreme limit on taxes.

[@chaas013]

That's one way of thinking about it. Libertarian is means many things to many people... They are not a synced hive mind like Rs or Ds. It's a good thing, but libertarianism is a spectrum and some parts of that spectrum are dumb.

[@mobius4897]

​@@chaas013 your perception of dumb is on a spectrum

[@davidschaftenaar6530]

Those aren't beliefs or values, those are wishes; Desired outcomes. Peterson is talking about _why_ Libertarians want those things, aka their beliefs.

[@zerk813]

@@chaas013R and D are not a synced hive mind. That’s just hilarious if you think all R are working together

[@chaas013]

@@zerk813 the 2 major parties are much more homogeneous than the Libertarians are. Generally speaking if you are not a libertarian and you are pro life, I can guess which party you are. Or if you are in favor of tax cuts. Or foreign spending. Many issues you can guess a person's entire political philosophy based on one issue, as long as they are an R or D.

[@Youttubeuser20932]

No rules DOES equal freedom. It may be counterproductive, but it's still freedom.

[@daniel.s.stefanov]

Depends on your definition for "the best".

[@ericfurst6091]

Thats why the knowdledge of Natural Law is so important.

[@WoWisdeadtome]

Excellent phrasing of why I say I am not a Libertarian but I am as close as you can get without being one. This is more succinct than I have been able to put it however. I also argue that it lacks a mechanism to prevent the rise of a tyrant as people volunteer to serve one and is doomed to fall into that sort of nightmare. The leader needs rules on them too.

[@dustylewis3284]

Maybe we should be figuring out how to agree on the rules then?

[@JaxVideos]

Precisely. The /discovery/ of Good Law by market processes and its delivery by competitive legal and security enterprises would appear to be the analog of our multi-State approach to society. Privatized law and rule enforcement is neither far-fetched, nor ahistorical.

[@SneakyFatKid7]

The "choice" that we want is which set of rules to live under. The freedom to secede from the rules to join others or form your own. The "rules" would be much stricter in many places, especially those the government currently manages.

[@brotherzero]

Exactly. One of the things you can freely chose as an individual is to take away other individuals' freedom of choice. We see that in big tech censorship, big pharma etc

[@mariofox8377]

Counter productive caotic revolutionary anarchy 😅😅😅 Well said Jordan. He's such a wise man.

[@billstrasburg384]

Ha, something I actually disagree with Jordan Peterson about! The Free Market automatically establishes rules and enforces them more strictly than any government ever could. Buyers and sellers only engage when the transaction is mutually beneficial to both parties. It's completely voluntary, and hence, more inherently noble than any other system. Whenever government gets involved, the system is perverted into something other than a fully voluntary system of mutual benefit. Jordan Peterson grew up in Canada and was a member of the socialist party in his youth, and this problem may not have been completely eradicated from his psyche.

[@jamesconner3056]

The means in which one offers services/goods to the buyer is where the issue is, I believe. We look at the opium crisis in America and in the libertarian world how would this have been stopped? You can look at the trucking industry pre-regulation and ask how the libertarian would have stopped drivers going 30-40 hours at a time, overweight their trucks, not adequately securing their loads, etc.

[@jsan6967]

I think you missed the point a bit, if everyone wants to play soccer then everyone has to agree to the rules of soccer but if one person picks the ball up and runs it into the goal you are no longer playing soccer and will soon have anarchy. Similarly an unrestrained free market won't keep everyone free to play soccer.

[@GrasshopperKelly]

You just described agreeing with him… you just stated the free market established their own rules. When someone else wants to join that market, they typically abide by those same established rules. When they don’t they either fail or cause some level or anarchy. You described what Peterson said, in more words.

[@Jefferson76Archive]

You mean if we have total say over whatever rules affect the public, we have total accountability over them?

[@Satyrator_123-gy8vq]

Wow, never said that before, but totally agree with Mr. Peterson here 😁

[@herculanovalada2910]

Is true, all people need to know all the "rules" before playing the game

[@robertvondarth1730]

Well isn’t Dr Peterson being artfully vague here? Rules > Honor the non aggression principle Honor contracts Respect property rights Butt out of my business

[@mingus445_gaming]

Well what if you start a child sex trafficking ring? Does no one have the right to impede or execute a warrant to shut that down based off of universal moral qualities? Libertarianism is a great idea for those entering the mindstate of politics but it very quickly becomes unrealistic and immoral once certain realizations are made.

[@markheywood8236]

You call someone else vague...with the most non specific list of answers ever. Who decides what constitutes 'aggression'? You or me? Who ensures contracts aren't exploitative? Who enforces contracts? Who frames property rights and determines sanctions for, and enforcement of, any breach? What if your business encroaches or overlaps with mine...it's then my business, right?

[@WoWisdeadtome]

The problem is what happens when someone decides not to live to these standards? Especially as the losers form a communist mob with their standard talking points about you having more than them isn't fair and you stole it bollocks before deciding the violate the non-aggression principle and disrespecting your property rights. You're not strong enough to fight them yourself and your neighbors will think "better you than me" which will unfortunately lead to them being next. Now what? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, I just understand why it's not practical. This is why I'm as close to being a libertarian as it is possible to be without actually being one. The primary issue now is that the rules on the western leaders have not been enforced and they need to be. Left up to me I would also abolish the entire welfare state and nearly all taxes while I was at it.

[@MistaMagic52]

I agree. I think no matter how clearly outlined the rules are though, leftists will always try to twist them. The 2nd amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, so they try to redefine what counts as arms for example. They do this with everything. Redefining words to suit whatever they want at the time. I believe their goal isn't even to meet certain goals, it's to get people to bend to their will with each "redefining" they successfully pull. The right is oriented towards order, while the left's nature is chaos. They can't stand to see order (unless it's their own, which is always more tyrannical then what they claim they need to destroy is). That's why you see the right building and the left tearing down.

[@robertvondarth1730]

@@markheywood8236 A full treatise would be required here.

[@lucasdieguez1244]

Yup! Argentina is suffering from it right now, although it will be fervently denied by the 38% that STILL are not poor.

[@FriendlyYandere]

I think Dr. Peterson should talk more about psychology and less about politics. Because that's what I came to him for, just like how I go to Dr. Tyson for astronomy and astrophysics.

[@MissArdenUK]

I completely understand what Dr Peterson is saying here.

[@DJJ81]

Too many on the libertarian right, or left for that matter, seem to believe that being a libertarian means you can’t take a moral stand on anything. “Live and let live” can go too far and be a cop out, and it is used that way far too often nowadays.

[@CurtHowland]

Not at all. Every libertarian takes strong moral stands, such as the non-aggression principle, that it is wrong, on its face, to use force or fraud on innocent people.

[@1TakoyakiStore]

That and if a company actually "wins the competition against its competitors." The game needs to be perpetual in order to function as intended.

[@Gesu_Re_dei_re]

That suit though🔥🔥🔥

[@AbyssalManta]

Strawman. The context is that everyone is free to acquire guns and they are in wide circulation. There's an inherent incentive to come to an agreement on what acceptable interaction is, because everyone understands what the alternative will be. Contrast that situation, with a small contingent of humans hoarding all the guns and preventing everyone else from getting theirs. Which scenario do you recon will lead to more... equal, reasonable and non-abusive interaction?

[@kelvinlord8452]

Better quality information/education could help us make better decisions/choices. It's good to do what you want when you want the right things.

[@WellWater-Rural-life]

There is a difference in a Libertarian "rule" to stay on your side of the road when driving versus a government "rule" telling what road to take, and where to go. Its not an all or nothing IMO

[@cameronsbradley]

Peterson makes a valid point.

[@Post_and_Ghost]

Yeah a lot of the pundits and many others already know that. They understand trade offs and they just don’t care. Speaking into the void on this one.

[@CurtHowland]

Dr. Peterson doesn't comprehend what "libertarian" means. This is quite common. He has it confused with "license", or "libertine", choice without responsibility.

[@michaelhantz4142]

This is the truth right here, we need structure, a system of authority or there is chaos, people are animals, even with with the system we see it, just imagine without

[@dropbearchupacabra7683]

People should stop subscribing to any one ideology and take the best of what’s offered from each and find a way to make them work together.

[@POLOLOUS3]

Will never be an “ideal” government. As long as the majority of people are balanced/moral/good natured our style of governance lives on for the most people. We should always try to improve it but it will never be ideal.

[@RivetHead999]

Individual liberty as sought by libertarians can only be achieved in a society that truly lives by the true judeo-christian values. Where people truly respect one another, and equally respect the values of one another. There must be common grounds for values that are indisputable and respected to be that of a divine nature, with humility, and respect for one another. Only then can we grow as a society beyond a tribe.

[@allouttabubblegum1984]

It's called the Constitution 🙄

[@TankedFarms5151]

Right libertarians want minimum government and minimum taxes.

[@mikeoxlong3676]

This video makes me question if JP has ever met a Right wing Libertarian.

[@IcePhysicsGaming]

​​@@mikeoxlong3676 whenever he talks about "libertarians" it always sounds to me like he's actually referring to anarchists.

[@thomasfucillo]

More like the ten commandments. Even the constitution was designed in a Christian framework. The entire concept of the Constitution is that it is protecting natural human rights (granted by God) from government. If you stop believing in God given rights than you’re left with a system in which government is what is granting you your rights, and what government grants, government can and will take away.

[@wacky3314]

most rules are set by society naturally. If society thinks it is okay then it happends a rule. Islamic rules are for example completely different from other countries

[@____blank____]

Precisely because there are still people believing in the government can do you good that libertarians need to keep pushing for freedom. It also is a matter of degree, not black and white. The more choices there are the better our lives will be.

[@foosmonkey]

IDK, counterproductive chaotic revolutionary energy sounds dope.

[@MadFry46]

Anarchy is true freedom.

[@wes10gaard]

That’s not the libertarian claim at all. The claim is social behavior is productive, civilized behavior, and in the absence of arbitrary hierarchy (government) the anti-social actors will conform, starve or be exiled, as opposed to this system where antisocial ethics are codified

[@ca8944]

How will they conform , starve or be exiled? Who is going to make them?

[@rusaccord]

This requires that there is a critical mass of those who act in a productive and civilized manner and have the time and energy to devote to enforcing social consequences against bad actors. The cart corral at the grocery store argues otherwise.

[@sleepteam]

It only works if you have a virtuous society. Have you looked around lately?

[@TankedFarms5151]

@@rusaccordall of the Midwest and rural areas all follow this already it’s just worthless cities that would self implode

[@wes10gaard]

@@sleepteamthis is the type society every government bestows upon its people

[@RobbyNewbold]

Yet another example of the term “anarchy” being used improperly.

[@tulpasconstructor2711]

ALWAYS. Every single time. They will never get it right because self responsibility and freedom scare them to the core.

[@princeofexcess]

@tulpasconstructor2711 the problem is that anarchy will never be stable. Anarchy evolves into governance

[@Musicdudeyoutub]

"Princeofexcess" is exactly right. You're going to leave it to masses of people to split up land and resources fairly amongst themselves without a government? Dream on. The title and deed system alone blows up your idealism.

[@CD-vb9fi]

@@princeofexcess We are very far from anarchy and nothing is stable. If stability is your justification for anything then you are using bad metrics. Everything at all times is one bad day away from instability. Our day to day is all about keeping things as stable as possible, it's not something you get, it is something you work to produce.

[@princeofexcess]

@@CD-vb9fi You misunderstood. I am not arguing for stability. I simply state that anarchy cannot exist for extended periods of time. Pure anarchy will always turn into some organized system of governance. I am not arguing for the current system of governance either. I do believe government is way too large and powerful

[@hamnchee]

Libertarians don't think everything will just work out with no agreed upon rules with everyone just doing what they want. Jordan Peterson, as much as I like him, can just be so confidently dense sometimes.

[@mylifeuntilnow]

Libertarian freedom is about allowing society to make contracts between themselves, not choices. See how states constantly block consenting adults from making CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS with each other. Insurance itself is a market phenomenon the only way to bring insurance at scale to a wider audience is via pure free market forces, so we haven't seen a true free market for all of human history Free markets rules are organized by contracts, enforced by escrow commitments, and insured by interest earning insurers. This system was borne naturally around the great enlightenment period and has been blocked from expanding by state led economic policies since then, the types that have found us in chaotic tens of trillions types of debts and autocratic never ending wars and generational wealth destroying illusions.

[@LibertarianGalt]

Classical Liberalism was revolutionary.

[@Aliksander54]

He really sounds like he is describing the Libertarian LEFT rather than the Libertarian RIGHT.

[@markk34]

I’m libertarian “right” and I agree with him. But as a psychologist he should know that human nature doesn’t and will always eventually be “counterproductive”. The best a society can do is reinforce the idea of sovereignty and responsibility.

[@HaydenCharette-mr5ul]

To anyone who's never heard Jordan they'll hear this and think, "that doesn't sound like something someone on the right would say," wow, it's almost like people who aren't ideologs have developed perspectives on different things instead of just spouting an ideology

[@C_R_O_M________]

Rules are created spontaneously within a given set of moral values. If the latter are clear and precise, markets will work fine. I disagree with JP on this as the top down creation of rules is far more suspicious to corruption than the bottom-up version.

[@nikolatesla8508]

The rules are pretty simple. You are free to do what you want as long as you don't impede on someone else's freedom. Libertarianism is the most logical ideology. There is no utopia, but this is the best way.

[@timjones7009]

Thats why relgion is important with most ideologies. Im not arguing for a theocracy or anyone to worship any type of god but it makes the rules far more rigid and clear. We humans are just far too individualistic. The way we play this game never really changes, just different names and faces

[@jamescobb3037]

I’m gonna be honest what you just said happens if you’re not playing by the same rules just went over my head by a good bit

[@lawrencevandenberg7725]

Ha! I thought he was addressing an innovative liturgical papal bull -- the Libertarian Rite! 😂 Delusion rules!!

[@LordSantiagor]

The libertarian focus on consent and freedom is ESPECIALLY important when we cannot agree on basic rules.

[@VV1L]

As morality increases, freedom increases. As immorallity increases, freedom decreases.

[@kabootarkhanawala8271]

Be more specific. What should we not be free to do

[@dn7096_]

Closest person to Albus Dumbledore.

[@mirpanda1]

This is why, when people ask for a summary of my political views I tell them, "Id be a libertarian, but I believe that goodness is objective".

[@marvinlee3332]

Libertarian doesn't mean anarchy. I means having a good justice legal system, where basic rules like can't steal, can't defaurd, can't lie are in place. But you don't set rules on creating a gov department that now sets what can be sold, at what price, in what way, based on politics. You let the free market decide. If you're defrauding consumers, you get sued and you lose them. You never then say we need a gov body to regulate it. The legal system and the customer is the ultimate regulation. Not some gov official appointed by some president half the country didn't even vote for.

[@AsiandOOd]

yea thats why in a libertarian anarchy, people would have to be banished in order to maintain the order of society. those who are banished are allowrd to form their own society apart from the main group. thats under the assumption that there will be anarchy and a restructuring of the political order, otherwise libertarians are in favor of a night watchman state that minimally interferes with society.

[@samwillard5688]

Most are blind to any kind of long-term consequence.

[@eldritchpalmerable]

You cannot choose freely if you lack information about what each product does to you and the environment. Thalidomide is an extreme example. You cannot choose freely if the choice is made in a very short time span but the consequences are seen much later. That is why markets need to be regulated in some way.

[@LordSantiagor]

Libertarians acknowledge fraud and breach of contract should be against the law, because they violate consent.

[@jessicaf8917]

Also - we don't live in a bubble.

[@mingus445_gaming]

Yes, yes you do

[@monkeysaur4305]

There are two reasons why you have to let people make their own choices. First, because a central authority cannot have enough information to know what choices everyone should be making. Central planning in economics is like trying to control the weather. It's too dynamic and complicated a system, every "goal achieved" will inevitably result in unintended consequences. Nobody has enough information at any given moment to make "high resolution" economic decisions. What should the price of bread be? Without relying on the organic information coming out of the free decisions of individuals (which will tell you supply, demand and ultimately value), you will have to just "decide" and you a guaranteed to set the price too high or too low. Too high? Surplus of bread and poor people don't eat. Too low? Demand outstrips supply and a few people eat a lot very quickly then there is no bread. The other reason is simply ethics. Coercion, force and violence are not ever preferable to personal liberty and freedom. There is no belief that everything will be alright if people are free. Only the understanding that everything will go to hell if people are not. Surprised that needs explaining to you Jordan. Honestly, I've stopped listening to you. You've ventured into so many subjects which you don't have a proficient understanding of, and you have stretched yourself too thin. You're purpose, in my opinion, is sharing your understanding of the shadow, of the consequences of resentment, with those who are becoming monsters while believing they are fighting them. You've helped me a lot, you have something important to give, but you have lost your way Jordan.

[@JT-rx1eo]

Hmmmm. I would need Pederson to flesh that out a bit to know whether I fully agree with him. Maybe an extreme libertarian wouldn't believe in rules. Not sure.

[@jjemsnd7]

Mr Peterson, please define anarchy?

[@gabrielhowardMKE]

Amen I've been saying this for years

[@anilin6353]

He is right it should be illegal to do anything that isn't good.

[@CurtHowland]

In a free market, producers must provide what people want at a price they can afford. That includes you, the "worker", who must provide services your customer (employer) wants, at a rate they will pay. Anti-social people quickly find themselves isolated because no one wants them around. Or if they commit aggression, they quickly find out what individual responsibility means.

[@reeferfranklin]

You say, “I am allowed to do anything”-but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything”-but not everything is beneficial. - Saint Paul of Tarsus in 1st Corinthians 10:23

[@jccusell]

Jordan should talk to someone at Mises Institute. Tom woods would be great. Thisnis not what Libertatians want. They DO have rules. Otherwise they would be anarchists.

[@da33smith37]

In short, private property and the rule of law.

[@Mutorcsym1391]

Whatever he said feels like today.

[@itachir8290]

One of the biggest problems with Libertarianism is that people dont understand it or they only choose to slander it.

[@mds6387]

There's always the core rule of libertarianism that people are free to do as they wish as long as it has no actual impact on other's individual rights and liberties. For example, drunk driving has a major impact on the other motorist's right to travel safely. Therefore, drunk driving is rightfully illegal. All in all a libertarian's philosophy is rooted in the constitution, more specifically, the Bill of Rights. Both conservatives and leftist despise different parts of the Bill of Rights. Conservatism is rooted in tradition rather than individual rights and liberty. Leftism is rooted in uprooting white traditions to establish an anti-white culture. Libertarians are more of a "Hey, mind your business, and I'll mind my own business."

[@NoToobForYou]

John Adams told us this, just in a moral context.

[@gerilac86]

But we can agree on universal rules (which is basically the universal morality), and respect that. We don't need daddy government (regardless how big or small) to enforce it. Giving absolute power to anyone, and justifying it with "it is just a small government" is a recipe for a disaster, just pushed a bit down the road. Exactly what is happening in the USA for example.

[@ronaldbronson1285]

If you let people make choices everything will not work out for the best for everyone. It will work out best for the people that make the best choices. Whether or not that is moral is besides the point, as any coercive interference is inherently immoral, and lack of interference is maximally productive.