What It Means to Be A Libertarian

[@andrejtrotzki5592]

I thought I'm a liberal my whole life. Now I know I'm libertarian instead. I feel like a new born. I got the power right know.

[@Will-cj2zv]

You want an unregulated free market capitalist economy?

[@heathen637]

You sound like so many "reborn" Christians...it's annoying...stop it!

[@heathen637]

@@Will-cj2zv Why not? Explain please.

[@alfonsorivera8734]

I am a libertarian and it feels so good.

[@monsu8752]

@@adriant.6096 that’s my new favorite sentence “Like let a niggah be gay and pray to allah”. It makes no sense. I love it

[@hungrycharmy3876]

I agree what this man says but I'm still not sure if I'm libertarian. I like the part when he said it's about the people choose for themselves

[@PureLiberalWarrior]

Sadly, he seems to be the *only* openly libertarian professor at an Ivy League school. Still, I'm impressed that here's even *one* on this politically god-forsaken planet.

[@Bsliggs]

we need to end the two party system. NOW.

[@aunco]

Vote for Libertarian Party.

[@she_sings_delightful_things]

Oh, absolutely.

[@lukeskywalker8543]

How's that going for you

[@yeetdiscreet1278]

That’s… Odd. All my life I’ve grown up thinking I am mostly conservative on pretty much everything… Now I know that I am a mix of conservative and libertarian. Interesting…

[@patrickhansen9692]

Holy F...his words are like a revelation

[@skatelongboards]

Extreme libertarianism is wrong. same goes for extreme liberalism and conservatism. Follow the Constitution and ignore all these political agendas and parties

[@MyBloodyBear]

I just want to be left alone for the most part. As long as I'm not PHYSICALLY bothering someone, I think that my choices should be left alone by others. Especially government.

[@alexbc7493]

I'm an "independant" voter, but im definetly putting this in my favorites for reference.

[@PureLiberalWarrior]

A libertarian professor at Harvard. I LOVE it! :-)

[@roshansundar6618]

@-ᴀʟᴀᴋᴏʀᴀᴅɢᴏᴅ- Hello! To put it simply, they are not the same thing. Liberals advocate for personal freedom (excluding gun rights) and economic control. Libertarians advocate for personal freedom and economic freedom.

[@MIT2004]

this is freaking awesome and this was the first youtube ad i ever clicked on it. thats pretty cool

[@colin13194]

Proud young libertarian here! Thanks, doc!

[@LaunchpadGP]

It very well can be. The last words any libertarian ever wants to hear are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[@bball44j]

@Herimia Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean survive in terms of getting fed or taken care of. What I meant to say is that if the baby can stay alive without the mom's womb, then he/she is a person. For example, if you take out the baby/fetus at 4 or 5 months there is no way it could survive. However, at some later stage like 8 months, it might. Although this is not a black and white concept.

[@sofitocyn100]

I think i finally understood it. Thank you!

[@JosueTheBigot]

Abortion is not something that we libertarians agree upon. You should know better than that.

[@hornypervert3781]

Joshua Vig abortion is like murdering a sleeping person.

[@tracer740]

Joshua- More proof that "Libertarians' are full of their own bullshit! THEY don't even have a unified grasp of what 'Libertarian' actually means, nor ... is supposed to mean.

[@tracer740]

Horny Pervert- Your imagination is obviously more active than your intellect presently shows. Your analogy is almost as lame as your screen name. There may be hope for you though, keep thinking ...

[@scottrgood]

Liberty SeaOtter Rodgers Its because they hate God and don’t believe in the value of a human soul. They want you to go to prison for killing a Condor egg, but want to murder their own children on demand and claim it’s their “right.” Killing a another innocent human is not a human right. They think of themselves as gods where they can write their own reality and not have any real consequences unless they get in trouble with the law. They have very little logic, common sense, and morality.

[@moaxcp]

You are assuming that I said the government grants those rights when what I said is the contract grants those rights (the two people signing it). The government interest should be in enforcing the marriage contract when there is a dispute like any other contract.

[@StephenLandry]

A good post. I especially liked the discussion of why libertarians are socially tolerant. The discussion of why libertarians are economically conservative could have been better; its not just that government solutions interfere with individual choice, it is that they also tend to be inefficient, impede economic growth, and often exacerbate, rather than solve, the problems they're intended to address.

[@JohnHoulgate]

To understand why there are so many Christian denominations you have to look deeply into its history. Christianity began to divide itself almost as soon as Jesus ascended into Heaven. If a group of people look at a diamond, each person is going to see a different facet and believe what they see is the most important one. Attempts to bring it back to one viewpoint inevitably leads to strife and at worst bloodshed. We have to learn to get along despite our differences.

[@emmanueloluga9770]

Well put comment

[@chitownsuperfan]

I just found my new favorite channel

[@JudgeSabo]

@beeeefcurtains Just to help me out a bit, please also note whenever you split up your comments as well. Something like "1/3" at the top will do. 1/2 I never called it a crime. Murder being a crime is beside the point. My point is that even if someone benefits from the misdeeds of another indirectly, they are not responsible unless they took part in the misdeed. You're trying to make me responsible for the actions of others. I'm only responsible for my actions.

[@JudgeSabo]

@Bolgernow Admitting the existence of A does not deny the existence of B. I'm not ignoring those, but I think the bigger issue is racism within the law. The only things I have removed are when I wanted to add to what I had previously said. I don't think I have removed that. Of course equal rights are not immoral. But this isn't a matter of equal rights. All people, black and white, can choose who they want to interact with and do business with, and it IS immoral to break that right.

[@jowb63]

On the question of marriage. Marriages are contracts between two individuals. Because it is the government's job to enforce contracts it has some role in seeing to it that both parties hold to their end deal, bringing people to court if it comes to that. In this way government has a legitimate interest in marriage. As far as regulation of marriage, what do you mean by this? I'm serious, I just don't know how the government regulates marriage.

[@hornypervert3781]

jowb63 marriage can not exist without government or a church.

[@murrayroodbaard207]

Really? So you literally have never heard of the ways in which government dictates how marriages are dissolved (divorce) in terms of alimony, child support, custody, visitation rights, appointing large percentages of someone's personal property to an ex-spouse, etcetera etcetera? You actually don't think this is "regulation" that is tied to marriage and the dissolution of marriage?And as far as enforcing marriage "contracts" by government is concerned, do you care to enlighten us as to where in said contract it is determined what the alimony, custody, visitation rights, appointing large percentages of someone's personal property to an ex-spouse (etc etc) shall be in the case of a "breach of contract"?

[@murrayroodbaard207]

So are governments the same as churches? If not, how do you know that one OR the other is required, and not a third possibility, since apparently they don't need to be similar in nature at all?

[@TheMusiclvr18]

It made me super happy to be watching a video on youtube and have in interrupted by this advertisement. Go liberty!

[@TheMusiclvr18]

I said that I was HAPPY about seeing this ad. Why would I block them?

[@TheNonAntiAnarchist]

@donfolstar Clear, but not well thought out. Marriage is essentially a contractual arrangement. The freedom to enter into contracts as one pleases is a personal freedom, and an economic freedom... Precisely the point I tried to make in the first place. Now, even if it wasn't an economic freedom, that does nothing to counter the claim that many other of our personal freedoms are economic freedoms (liberty to buy the products we please, enter the professions we like, etc.).

[@stealthswimmer]

@SpookeyR lol, what's wrong with profit? The issue is incentives. If the way to make profit is by lobbying government to get special privileges(like to pollute or whatever else), then it will make those companies less responsive to customers. If the way to make profit is by satisfying customers, then you get an efficient outcome.

[@MerlinYoda]

@Mortonc3 Yes, scientific terminology, and mathematical and logical structures do not change over time. Language however *does*, especially in common usage! Propaganda can be for altruistic goals, but the word has a negative connotation. Also the term "hacker" was originally defined as "one who found inventive solutions to problems" (or similar definition). Now it's used in the common discourse as synonymous to "one who circumvents a computer's security and either copies or damages private data"

[@Phl3xable]

Because there are many other cars and people on the road with you, and safety measures have to be applied. People are free to do whatever they want on their property.

[@Wittgensteinism]

In a truly Libertarian society each individual would be their own police because the core principle of Libertarianism (which he failed to mention) is sole-proprietorship; the belief that we own ourselves completely and thus have fundamental, inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Not only does Libertarian ideology believe in abolishing taxes, which would make a police force impossible, but arresting someone for a law "imposed" on them from a government is a violation of self-liberty.

[@crazypants88]

@henleythecat Libertarians propose a free market, corporations are a result of corporatist market system. Corporations are businesses but not all businesses are corporations. In a fraud is deincentivized by third-party regulators who have actual incentive to properly regulate, unlike state regulators who get revenue regardless of actual competence. Also the fact there's no artificial barriers to entry ensures that there's always the risk of competition emerging.

[@zestotemp]

The reason libertarians are split over abortion (I suppose both perspectives can be valid) is because abortion falls under two of the natural rights. Some would say it is wrong to remove the life of a human being, others say the woman has the liberty to make choices about her own body. The second group would rebut the first group by saying that the early fetus isn't a legitimate human being. The first group would rebut the second by saying that the fetus is not indeed part of the woman's body.

[@Unclenate1000]

agree with basically everything on here except abortion. Logically, the right to Life, not the right to choose, is a more in line with libertarian individualism.

[@robertn4815]

libertarians are generally are against abortion, yes. Either partially or completely. I read an article "does abortion violate the non-aggression principle" and the answer was yes, unless the abortion is before "first consciousness". "first consciousness" does not start at first heartbeat. Apparently, "first consciousness" can start as early a 5 months (20th week), So as long as the abortion is before the 5th month, it does not violate the non-aggression principle. Once the infant reaches first consciousness, it is considered a human being and an abortion would be murder and a violation of the non aggression principle. The infant's ability to feel pain starts on the 26th week (6 and a half months). The problem is that we libertarians are pro-choice AND pro-life. We value right to choose and the right to life EQUALLY, so most libertarians have accepted the "first consciousness" idea. Some libertarians, especially christian libertarians, would be completely against abortion 100% no matter what (unless perhaps it was a rape). Personally, the Christian in me says that abortion is always wrong, but you won't see me trying to take away their right to choose, so I would encourage people to just focus more on being very careful. ... I realize I am responding to a year old comment.

[@dustinallen4142]

+Robert Anon finally someone speaking some sense about abortion in a non black and white matter!

[@MrUbister]

+Dustin Allen It's tough though, I'm an atheist libertarian against abortion but people tend to assume someone is against abortion for religious reasons, instead of moral ones.

[@Mas0o0n]

Both sides of the issue have great libertarian individualist arguments

[@nessy1387]

You are wrong

[@ShakuShingan]

@HammerOvThor That was not what I was disputing.

[@zibbitybibbitybop]

The thing about corporations is that they'd actually have a lot less power without all the government interference in the economy. Corporations are bulky, slow-moving, and don't innovate very well, but they're the only ones with the money to comply with a bazillion regulations. If you removed all the red tape, small businesses and startups would flourish and naturally keep corporations from getting so overgrown.

[@macintoshsmith4734]

I’m a bit perplexed about this gentleman’s definition of a Libertarian. Though I do recognize how both Republican and Democratic parties behave authoritative and manipulative with their policies, the Libertarian perspective still comes off a bit fuzzy to me. Perhaps this gentleman is giving the very short and sweet version. However I need to know Libertarian views on some specific issues that are prevalent in our nation. Such as… • Abortion • Gay Marriage • Civil Rights • Reparations (Black-Americans) • Taxation • marijuana commercialization • Immigration • Honoring land grants and treaties • Business development assistance • Educational development • Policies towards communist nations (Russia, China, Cuba) • Global Warming • The space race • Consumer protection • Government subsidies (Industries vs Communities) • Government regulations policies towards Wall St.

[@soldatna]

Just because you have small government does not always lend itself to more choices.

[@DP3mo24hofosho]

The focus of the abortion debate on whether or not the government has to protect human life, or human beings. I think all of us should agree on three things 1.no taxpayer funded abortions for non-medical reasons 2.support laws to outlaw late term abortions because the fetus has a nervous system and can feel pain. Only acception is when the health of the mother is at stake bacause it's a form of self-defence. 3. believe in parental consent before teens get abortions.

[@Willsturd]

Libertarians - As long as you don't harm somebody's life, liberty, and property..... do whatever THE FUCK you want to do.

[@crazypants88]

@donfolstar contd. The point of contention is how the funds are gathered, if it's through, coercion i.e. taxation, libertarians tend to have a problem with that, if it's on a consensual basis, there's no problem. It has nothing to do with with what frequency you pay someone.

[@JohnHoulgate]

Libertarians are split on abortion. Libertarianism not a monolithic block of people who all believe the same thing. It's a spectrum of beliefs. More anarachic, socially liberal libertarians are likely to respect a woman's right to choose. The more conservative-constitutionalist-minarchist libertarians believe in the right to life. Both views were represented in the 2012 election - Gary Johnson (choice) & Ron Paul (life).

[@theimmortalrain867]

I’ve recently discovered libertarianism and I don’t think I’m ever going back.

[@MrBabypuke]

I'm glad you agree with me on the gay marriage part, because that means you understand the concept of keeping government out of our lives. The problem is, basically everything government does, affects our lives (they control the damn money supply for fucks sake), because government itself is force and coercion.

[@gamemeister27]

So for an ideal Libertarian society, we would have to have equal opportunity among all citizens? So in theory, working towards this goal (which would have to be defined so as not to be vague) would be the first step on the road towards a society where an individual truly has the freedom to make choices about their lives.

[@crazypants88]

@donfolstar Privatization in no way precludes the type of payment I describe, not that I'm arguing for privatization, I'm arguing for free markets. Privatization implies the state letting selected business take over a function, a free market bars no one from entering the market. contd.

[@JudgeSabo]

@beeeefcurtains 2/2 Of course we can't wish it away, but using coercion to fix it will simply add to the problem. Once the company is no longer forced to judge people by the color of their skins, the companies who judge people by their skill will do better AND have better public relations, while the one judging by color will do worse and have a bad relation. This is the best possible solution! And also, please confirm with me that you do understand the "1/2" thing.

[@illmaticjesus]

@donfolstar I've seen many arguments by Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman to increase personal freedom from an economic standpoint. I think just because someone talks about libertarian economics doesn't mean they don't support personal freedom or there aren't videos out there for personal freedom.

[@BitcoinMotorist]

I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. I believe freedom is what made this country (U.S.) great, not government interference. I differ with some libertarians on abortion, gay marriage, and national defense. I have no problem with letting gays do whatever they want, but a child raised by a mother and a father is ideal to being raised by a same sex couple or a single parent. Government shouldn't interfere with the economy but it should spend on keeping us safe.

[@JamB9]

@IJUSTLOVETURTLES Unions- No one should be forced to join and/or pay union dues, but if people want to start and belong to a union then they can, it is up to the employees and employers to find what works best for both in a free market. It is none of the government's business and both need to find a deal that both can agree upon. The poor- In a free market more business is done, allowing for more jobs and therefore less poor. It is also the responsibility of friends, family, community to help

[@TheRainSnake]

@deathsagent1 you can be libertarian and support another conservative party member. the point of libertarians is that no one is telling you what to think, feel, or how to live your life.

[@ravenheartwraith]

@JackBlair2 I am a Libertarian and I fully place myself equally apart from both parties. I find equal amounts of common ground and complete disagreement with both sides. There are Libertarians who came from the left and still lean left, and there are those who came from the right and still lean right. Then there are those like myself who are the MOST Libertarian and were independents their whole lives and hate both sides with equal amounts of enmity :).

[@MerlinYoda]

@Mortonc3 They didn't remove it. They just voted it down so much that it's hidden by default; you can still see it if you click "show". The problem is, as @kingcherub points out , that the Progressive movement co-opted the term "liberal" so that "proper" liberals (in the classic, original sense) had to invent a term to separate them from the Progressive "liberals" ideology. It would have helped if he explicitly framed the discussion in the sphere of "American Politics" but it wasn't necessary.

[@noway63244]

The solution is to privatize the roads. The road owner can set his own policy. If you believe drunk drivers are dangerous (as I do) then you would not patronize those roads (as I wouldn't).

[@hobbit2245]

I'm aware. I'm just saying we want to keep it legal, which some people disagree with

[@HexTest]

@atmcfall - I think you're spot on. I personally would lean towards the safe side and assume life begins at conception (yes, it's not "viable" but then again, neither is a person on life support). But at the same time that's entirely different from saying we should try and prevent people from doing something they will end up doing anyway. Especially if it's our tax dollars "at work."

[@crazypants88]

@henleythecat Providers, retailers, consumers. It's obviously something people demand, otherwise it would never be provided, state or no state. Underwriter Laboratories, is a private regulator in the electronic industry. Even if there were no examples of private regulatory firms, that doesn't prove anything. By this logic no inventions or new ideas are valid since they've never been employed before.

[@crazypants88]

@soldatna Because the most common issues people have with big business are caused by government. They enable them to incorporate, subsidize them, erect artificial barriers to entry and bail them out when they're failing.

[@TheNonAntiAnarchist]

@donfolstar Economic freedom, that is, the ability to make economic decisions free from coercion, is a personal freedom.

[@raveash]

"What's called libertarianism in the United States is a significant deviation from traditional libertarian thought.Traditionally,say in Europe,"libertarian" meant the anti-state wing of the socialist party. In the United States,"libertarian" means ultra-capitalist; it means permitting capitalist institutions to function essentially without constraint, or virtually with no constraint.That's a recipe for one of the worst kinds of tyranny that exists: unaccountable corporate tyranny." -Chmosky

[@Wittgensteinism]

@BenoniStudio Jon Stewart? the hell are you talking about? Who's talking about Jon Stewart? Do you realize the incredible irony of your comment telling me to "try reading for a change" when obviously you're the only one who gets their ideas from TV. The fact is, not only did your comment (falsely) assume that i got my information from The Daily Show, but it amounts to nothing more than a personal attack rather than actually saying anything about what was wrong with my claims. Try again pal

[@StateOfChaos]

Libertarians get to decide for themselves. It doesn't matter if there is life yet or not; simply what the individual wants to do with it.

[@moaxcp]

If marriage is a contract between two people granting certain rights the government should be "interested."

[@dlane0308]

@Reu360 What you said was that if a fetus is allowed to be born it will *become* a person, implying that a fetus is a potential person. Look at your post. "No action must be taken to maintain the life of the child after the sperm has fertilized the egg." What?? What do you think a pregnancy is if not action on the part of the mother's body? Do you not think that women should have control over their bodies?

[@DP3mo24hofosho]

I think that would be better than what we have now, but there needs to be an exception for when the mother's health is at risk.

[@dlane0308]

@Reu360 ...cont. Pregnancy is an active process in that it requires the mother's body. To say that it is simply passive in the sense that the woman doesn't have to input any mental effort is to miss the point. It involves and requires active input from her body, so she should have a choice in the matter. It doesn't matter that in some primitive state women had no active choice in the matter, now they do, and I think they should, at the least up to the point of viability.

[@JosephIvy116]

He is describing a very particular, secular version of libertarianism. Libertarianism is fundamentally about maximizing individual freedoms. Pro-lifers believe that abortion limits the freedom of the unborn. The proper libertarian view regarding marriage should be to have less government intervention, but he indicates that libertarians want to add gay marriages to the marriages that are regulated. Why should the government be interested in marriage at all?

[@roymarshall_]

"while libertarians think that individuals should be able to live their own lives as they see fit" except, you know, when libertarians work within the system.

[@davandstudios]

There are stats that show most people who drink and drive get home fine. Very few get into accidents or hurt anyone.

[@jknewcastlelol]

Not quite. He's saying it's not an individual's responsibility to help the poor, if they don't want to.

[@LaunchpadGP]

I don't recall him ever saying that. What he DID say is that liberals and conservatives are authoritarians. Both liberals and conservatives may advocate for more autonomy in SOME issues, but in other issues they do just the opposite.

[@itz4kix]

i] Who would be responsible for writing the constitution. ii] Would the gov't be democratically elected? iii] If elected, what would be the consequences of the people empowering a gov't [with a popular mandate] to enact a non-libertarian agenda?

[@opadennis]

So I "liked" this video not because I agreed with it but because if offered a definition of Libertarian that I could process. I see our liberties at times overlapping other people's liberties, so I pause before I'm ready to accept what appears to be Libertarian philosophy. When do my freedoms impact others and whose takes priority? I am free to smoke but when does my smoke impact the freedom of others to not breathe smoke? The questions are endless. Does government have to be authoritarian?

[@genecornojr.2275]

I think that was put rather clearly and is very helpful. I never quite looked at republicans that way, I suppose because I WAS ONE. Too often Libertarians get the rap of wanting anarchy, I never believed that about Libertarians. Well I'm done with the R & D and I believe that if I need to be some label it would be Libertarian. Of course there are degrees there as well, and right and left.

[@diskpanic]

@darksungames Though someone already responded to you, I'd like to reinforce it. Read the preamble of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Constitution is very Libertarian.

[@Mortonc3]

@MerlinYoda In science the definition for potassium does not change with time. Nor does 2+2 ever become 5. Definitions can not change over time if we are to approach any social theory as a philosophy. The change in connotation of words through our history is evidence of people subverting language to suite their world view.

[@megaminxmaster]

@Cannedscourge why, because he knows his history? the word libertarian was first used by anarchists in the late 1850's and then again in the 1880's and 90's.

[@JudgeSabo]

@Bolgernow It's not a blindspot! Have I ever denied it's existence? I'm simply offering a different solution to it that doesn't require a violation of anyone's property rights.

[@MrJahka]

@stormspottter Ron Paul is a constitutionalist conservative. He's pro-life, he's against gay-marriage. He just wants the states to do it. That being said, I like most of his policy ideas. go Ron Paul!

[@clifftotten7609]

FANTASTIC explanation!!!

[@SpankyBebo]

I was just talking about the ones in power & all of the pop culture icons. Sorry for putting most rather than individually naming them. Also, that really is what egalitarianism is & always has been.

[@GameJames-Arkveveen]

Wow, I thought Liberals and Libertarians were the same... but now I KNOW the truth of the matter. I'm so glad great videos like this are on KZbin. I'm going to change my political leanings from Liberal to Libertarian right away, because that's what I really am. :D

[@MrBabypuke]

Actually he just says that Libertarians are "tolerant of gay marriage". Which has to technically be true if their perspective is to allow people to make their own decisions and go about their lives. Having tolerance and "liking" something are not the same. I'll agree he may have worded it oddly, but he's not really wrong.

[@Wittgensteinism]

@ValeriyaAviva Exactly my point. People i.e. Republicans want to tout Libertarian ideas only when it serves their Republican agenda e.g. abolishing taxes, reducing the size of federal government. But when it comes to laws banning drug use and homosexual marriage, suddenly those same people lose their Libertarian slant. It comes down to this: you either believe in the core principle of sole-proprietorship or not. We're either completely free individuals or we belong at least partially to society

[@52000rightwing]

Jeff Miron for the win.

[@shannonkendrick2561]

Just registered for San Juan County NM. I hope Libertarianism builds like a snowball rolling downhill in our country.

[@manor1730]

This is a great summary of what libertarians believe.

[@WalterBurn]

@Reu360 While I'm not a supporter of abortion, I have to say that saying a fetus 'will become' a human being isn't really valid. Your choice to not have copious amounts of sex right now is preventing life from being created. What you have to do to argue this case is to argue why the fetus itself should have rights, not why it will become so, otherwise you need to differentiated between the fetus that will become a human and the act of sex that could create one. The difference isn't in chance.

[@imaginativelads]

It is still a choice because it is impossible to distinguish between an act of free will and an act of neccessity in regards to the 2nd ammendment, in that, you would have to ban all guns in order to prevent either from happening. That is totalitarianism, not Liberatarianism. I am a Liberatarian because I believe that people must wrestle with their own conscience when it comes to the CHOICES that they make.

[@markarmage3776]

Now this is why people don't care whether you're from Harvard. This PhD man is trying to specify the criteria of something that is so general. Unfortunately, all of them are based on false statements. He ignored how individual choices needs to be bound in the range of individual and straight out saying that the right to liberty includes killing a baby He ignored how without order formed by government, there can't be any "freedom", because freedom can only exist if it's protected and regulated. Seriously, pal. the guy published doctrines on how people should legalize all drugs. Get a better presenter.

[@gmichael5506]

We need to get going!

[@MerlinYoda]

@Mortonc3 I agree with the sentiment that words would serve us better if we'd set one definition and a specific connotation for a word and be done with it. It would certainly clear up a lot of "if-by-whiskey" style of arguments (and a heck of a lot of confusion!). Unfortunately it's easier said than done this, again, is apparent in the push a while back (though not a large one) to get "hacker" used in the proper sense in the media ... or at least one that doesn't presuppose criminal activity.

[@Phl3xable]

Interesting point. I'm not sure tbh. I know we have blood-alcohol limits to distinguish between those who can drive and those who can't, but I'm not sure how effective that it. I'm also not sure how much the law actually deters people from drink-driving, cause alcohol does increase risk-taking behaviour. What's your opinion?

[@8479mike]

For me, I would not be OK with my wife getting an abortion. Does that mean that I should be able to impose my feelings on others? To take away their ability to decide what is best for them? To save them from themselves? While you may feel it does, that is in fact, very much in opposition to the fundamental concept of libertarianism.

[@RevoltingMass]

Exactly, so these big corporations simply buy up these small start up companies for so many millions of dollars or whatever, as they have the capital to do so. So all the time these new businesses start up, get bought out, and the mega machine of big business gets larger and larger (even if it is sub-divided into tons of smaller parts)

[@JudgeSabo]

@Bolgernow Slavery is the law. If you don't like it, tough luck. The fact that it's the law doesn't change it's moral standing or whether it's right or not. All those unalienable rights are derived from property rights. You own your life, no one else does. It's your stuff, so no one else has the right to tell you what to do with it (liberty). And you are allowed to do whatever you want with it, so long as the rights of others are not infringed. Private discrimination does not do that alone.

[@JudgeSabo]

@Bolgernow Yes there is a difference, but you just said that I was evil for tolerating racist feelings, and that I was not a rational person for doing so. I simply hold that our business is just as a private matter as our feelings, and the government has no place in it, and any attempt to regulate private business against racism will work just as well as regulating racist feelings. And for God's sake, start ending your replies in a period or some form of punctuation.

[@TheBalancedAmerican]

We all want the same goals,but we differ on how to achieve them. Libertarians advocate for their positions because we believe that our policies deliver the greatest utilitarian result. All political persuasions believe they have the path to Utopia but the truth is probably found outside a rigid ideology. Indeed,search for what is"sacred" to people and you'll find where they are unreasonable. The free-market is sacred to Libertarians; that's were they become unreasonable. And I'm a libertarian ;)

[@FreakyKing2]

Can someone tell me the difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, and is Neo-classical Liberalism the same as modern liberalism? Thank You.

[@crazypants88]

@Navywxman contd. , indeed the explicitely say the opposite, it's not dependent on the idea that competition will only come about if businesses want it. The only thing it's dependent on is the fact that people are profit seeking, they seek to increase their wealth. The most effective way to do that in a free market is to serve the demands of people, i.e. entering the market.

[@JosephIvy116]

Actually, I was assuming that you meant rights as opposed to simple contractual obligations. Enforcing contractual obligations between individuals doesn't require government recognition of marriage. The government doesn't simply treat marriage as a contract. It gives marriage a special legal and social status. That special status is what the gay rights advocates are fighting for.