Another thought-provoking article from Professor Schwartz.

I mostly agree with his position and think of myself as a small-“l” or classical liberal. I agree as well that libertarianism doesn’t fit neatly in left-right political labels on issues such as gay marriage.

But as with all ideologies, the key question – which the article alludes to – is where the boundaries lie. What, if any, are the limits to free speech? Should government leave poor or sick children without free education or free healthcare? And most free-market economists accept that there are situations where the market doesn’t deliver the best outcome, and regulation or other government is in society’s interests –monopolies and polluting industries, for example.

And many exponents of so-called Libertarianism see it as a justification for preserving their own rights and interests even when these harm others – which classical liberals would not support. In the USA, libertarian arguments are often used to oppose gun tighter controls despite the massive death toll that results. On these pages, David Leyonhjelm has used them to argue for fewer speed limits on public roads.

As the humourist PJ O’Rourke said, half seriously – “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”

Extreme Libertarianism, like extreme any other “ism”, can be ugly.

can be ugly.
Rhian,
It is & worse. It is a destroyer of healthy mentality that's why more & more fail to realise it !

Reading my views here over the years, many would identify me as a libertarian as my views often coincide with those of libertarians, and indeed come elections, I often preference libertarian parties as I find them the lesser evil, but -

WHY I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN:

As nicely presented by the author, the foundation of libertarianism is essentially utilitarian as it presumably produces better results, especially economic results.

Thus the underlying principle behind libertarianism is success - not freedom!
Thus libertarianism is not (as the article claims) a philosophy - but a strategy!

Where I come from, on the other hand, is the principle of Ahimsa - non-violence, a primary tenet of Hinduism and other philosophies such as Hillel's "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow".

Taking away someone else's freedom without their consent, is a form of violence and therefore it should be avoided - and in the context of politics, if a state takes away the freedom of others "in my name", in order to presumably "protect" or "benefit" me, while I remain silent and complicit because I like to enjoy that protection or any other benefits, then I become a party to that state's violence - which is morally wrong.

Once an individual truly consents to become part of a society, without coercion, then the question of violence (due to the restriction of freedom) does not arise. Should the mutually-agreed constitution of that society allow the restriction of the liberty of its members, then so be it, then let that society be socialist, capitalist, communist, conservative, libertarian - whatever, because consent was given.

- But that is not presently the case for any existing state, not even libertarian Argentina under President Javier Milei. True liberty is only in one's free choice to join a society such as a state, or not. One ought never to be automatically considered part of a society (and violently expected to follow its rules and norms) only because they happen to live in a particular geographic region.

[continued...]

[...continued]

I disagree with the author claiming that there are "natural rights" such as "life, liberty, and property" - we all know that nature does not work like that, that predators, thieves and robbers are the norm in the animal world, not to speak of stars, galaxies and black holes. Thus Ahimsa is not about being natural, but about rising morally above nature!

In the field of economics, I actually prefer social order, moderation and stability over success, expansion and progress. I believe that unchecked wild corporations can often cause more harm than governments, I believe that all advertisement for example should be heavily restricted, and that new technologies should be publicly and properly scrutinised before being allowed on the market. I also believe that reasonable taxes should be levied to ensure the peace and reduce everyone's stress due to economic anxieties: that is the kind of society I personally like to live in - BUT I would never impose this on others against their will, I will never do it violently at the expense of others who disagree with me, prefer otherwise and never consented to belong to my particular kind of society in the first place.

Thank you for reading this.

Schwartz seems to confuse Libertarianism with Liberalism- perhaps because of political bias- but a lot of what he says seems to be correct.

Libertarianism is free trade. Loosely speaking libertarianism is vote of the dollar. This is one dimension of the Liberal philosophy the other being free society.

Liberalism is based on JSM's paper "On Liberty" and John Locke's Principles Of Democracy- basically you should be free to do as you like as long as it doesn't affect the freedoms of others- this is called "negative freedom/ liberty" (as opposed to Aristotle's positive freedom by virtue). Liberalism contains both free trade and free society. Many believe in free trade but not free society or the other way around. John Locke is seen as the father of liberal democracy

____________

John Stuart Mill recognised towards the end of his paper "On Liberty" that the fact that 'everything affects everyone' provides a paradox for the concept of liberty and liberalism. I suppose since the 1900's, liberty is considered mainly based on first order effects, rather than second and third order effects, in order to manage this paradox. However the effects of this paradox become more pronounced in mass societies.

Patrick Deneen similar to the above paradox, sees faults in liberalism, and using Alexis de Touqueville's insight's, suggests a return to localised forms of society. Perhaps this localised society sub-structure could be achieved within larger super-structures.

Some futurists following Hebrew Author "Isaac Asimov's" idea Psycho-History, (or more scientifically 'Cliodynamics') have also talked about 'systemic societies' (parallel experimental societies), as being the next logical evolution in seven stages of civilization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliodynamics

Interestingly the libertarian Ayn Rand prefers Aristotelian Freedom (Virtue Based) over Mill Freedom.

Nietzsche also makes philosophical contributions to stoic/ libertarian/ existentialist/ logos/ telos like ideas. His knightly and priestly code positions are similar to the libertarian vs free society positions.

http://youtu.be/iU4VHgTlaKc

Freedom is an unreliable bitch, not suitable to the security of the human spirit which must be contained for peace of mind.
Freedom is not a promise in the next life either.

Free as a bird is a misnomer. Birds are not free!

The concept of Libertarianism is a ruse for capture.

Thanks Diver Dan.

Aristotle argues that doing what you want isn't freedom, because you are a slave to your hormones and emotions. The paradox is that in order to be free you need to have some control.

Schoepenhauer also talked about human nature blinding itself, to the freedom, to discover abstract truth. He advocated living in a cave with limited distractions from their perceptions and society so that they could see the truth of the universe

Libertarianism as a brand hasn't done too well in Australia. It has had less affect than other minor parties, and nothing at all federally. Their 'leader' is skulking in state politics, gabbling a lot of BS about everybody being allowed to do anything they want. Can't stand the man.

Despite what some amateur commentators claim, there is the Left and the Right in Australian politics: the Left represented by
Green Labor - and increasingly, the Coalition - and the Right by One Nation and the UAP. As long as we have compulsory voting and compulsory preferential voting, Australia will remain a political joke.

ttbn,
How do think opposing idea people can find common ground unless they adhere to rules acceptable for all who strive for better harmony ? How do you suggest should the reculcitrants be dealt with ? Should those who don't believe in so-called work be left to their ideas & if they intrude or impose on others for help be told to just go away & form their own society ?
I don't think that can be done but I sure would like to hear some ideas !

ttbn-

The Liberal Party are essentially libertarian's of course. Which is a little confusing in terms of terminology.

I've said many times that the Left-Right terminology is also problematic and plays into Woke/ Marxist propaganda that Traditionalist's are extreme right- but sometimes perhaps this is the best way to explain things. Even Foxy has submitted articles to this effect.

To make things simple I sometimes use the Marxist/ Capitalist (Profligate Mill Freedom) spectrum and say that Traditionalism is on a different dimension that has a different conception of freedom (Virtue Based Aristotle Freedom). It isn't that simple but much more accurate.

I think political parties when they call themselves "Libertarian" are very much styled after Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand said that taxes should only be used for military defense of the nation and courts- everything else should be privatized. One of the leaders of the US Libertarian Party said that the Libertarian Movement wouldn't exist without Ayn Rand.

Rand talks a lot about cause and effect...

If your nation has bad principles, it will result in a sick nation, some say so called European colonialism was about attempting to instill good principles into other nations.

Rand also talks about cultures that survive on theft rather than production of durable goods.

Some such as Dickens criticised the work houses that produced the durable goods that pulled Britain out of poverty. But Dickens redeems himself when he referred to "the best of times and the worst of times" in comparing the work houses of London with the guillotine of Paris. The Industrial vs Democratic Revolutions

I admire your feeble attempts to explain away the very basic instincts of man to dominate

There are two basic personality types; sadistic and masochistic. The former is ambitious the latter lazy, but both are driven from the strong human instincts of either sadistic domination or submission: Inbuilt is an innate need to be dominated in conformity to a hierarchy applicable to all fellow travellers.
Modern man is engaged in a war of the hierarchy: Universal freedom is a myth

If you tell people that you are going to give them free stuff it's easy to convince them to vote for you, and they won't notice that you are taking even more stuff away from them with the other hand. Because you want something for your efforts, and if you don't create wealth it's a zero sum situation.

ie. ReductionInYourStuff = ThePromisedStuff + Politician'sCut

Do you think politican's that promise more wealth, will actually create more wealth, without some reputation to back it up?

Shuffling the stuff, will actually reduce overall wealth, for a couple of reasons.

Another argument for some to get more stuff, is to move it from one part of society to another, but often the result is not as expected, as sub-societies are a dynamic moving target, and you might be undermining the source of stuff.

How can we produce more, waste less, and increase the work hours- all while treating society well. We can waste less by reducing food waste for example by using powdered milk rather than fresh milk (in the UK 50% of food is wasted). Increase work hours by reducing barriers to employment, and allowing those that want to work to work. These are "the low hanging fruit" that increase "the size of the pie". Maybe there can be more fruit and pie for everyone.

There are evil people that create scarcity for desperate people

http://img.offers-cdn.net/assets/uploads/offers/au/27881879/australian-washed-white-potatoes-2-kg-pack-normal.jpeg

Ad says potato's staples down from $7.50 for 2 kgs. I've seen them as high as $6 per kg. Hence I don't buy fruit and vegetables from Woolworths or Coles anymore. Sometimes I don't buy potato's at all.

What's happening- are Australian produce being shipped overseas, are there issues with labour supplies on farms, would it be better not to rely on backpackers but rather local workers for harvest looking at the barriers, are the potato's rotting in transport to market, what else could be happening??

Could we convert potato's to powder on the farms and ship as a bulk dried durable product so people could always have potato's in the pantry.

The same goes for other fruits and vegetables. With a bit of leadership we could have cheaper food, the producers could make more money, and the nation could be healthier.

All that is required is a bit of thought.

Dear Canem Malum,

«Aristotle argues that doing what you want isn't freedom»

The phrase "doing what you want" could mean practically anything until you clarify what you mean by "you".

Do you mean what your physical body wants?
Do you mean what your energetic body wants?
Do you mean what your mind wants?
Do you mean what your intellect wants?
Do you mean what deeper unconscious aspects of your psyche want?
Or do you mean what YOU really want?

Which of the above is to be truly free?
Possibly by limiting the freedom of the others?
According to you? according to Aristotle?

---

Dear Indyvidual,

Re: your question to Ttbn.

«How do think opposing idea people can find common ground unless they adhere to rules acceptable for all who strive for better harmony?»

Either there is a common ground or there isn't,
trying to fake it would not help and will not bring you happiness: not everyone is striving for harmony - and why indeed should they?

«How do you suggest should the reculcitrants be dealt with?»

They neither want to belong to your society, nor have to.

We still relate with others who do not belong to our society, just differently, same as we commonly relate to animals other than with people.

«Should those who don't believe in so-called work be left to their ideas & if they intrude or impose on others for help be told to just go away & form their own society?
I don't think that can be done but I sure would like to hear some ideas!»

Think "animals".

What ought you do with harmless animals that live around us?
What may you legitimately choose to do with harmful animals?
Would you ever demand that animals abide by the laws of your society?
Do you even instruct them to form their own society(s)?
Then why should that be different if they happen to be Homo Sapiens?

Share the earth!
(and don't be such a hog to fill it up yourself with as many of your kind, not leaving space for others as well)

I admire your feeble attempts to explain away the very basic instincts of man to dominate

There are two basic personality types; sadistic and masochistic. The former is ambitious the latter lazy, but both are driven from the strong human instincts of either sadistic domination or submission: Inbuilt is an innate need to be dominated in conformity to a hierarchy applicable to all fellow travellers.
Modern man is engaged in a war of the hierarchy: Universal freedom is a myth
Posted by diver dan

Thanks Diver Dan-

There's much truth in what you say.
I'm sure I'm very feeble, as we all are, but I'm not sure whether I'm sadistic or masochistic.
Thomas Hobbes talked about "Bellum omnium contra omnes"- the condition of man is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.
Julius Evola wrote "Revolt against the modern world" and " Ride The Tiger" both about the fallacies of modern man.

I like to think that some civilizations are better than others at finding and fixing the fallacies.

CM

You really need to think for yourself.

Hobbesian/Lockean social contract, is as dead as a dodo.
All power of underlings such as you and I, has been surrendered to fabulously wealthy elitists.

We live in a modern world of horizontal hierarchy; a world where the devil himself rules from its highest elevation adjacent the Dead Sea! God is dead! Libertarianism is a pup, stop fooling yourself!

The rulers of the modern world are divorced from any form of Democracy. Money is power; all power: A power dominating all Western cultures.

The winners, it’s not hard to predict, are religious Authoritarian structures with a traditional hierarchy where sits at the top, a totally transcendent God, underneath which are layers of fanatical believers in vertical hierarchy, taking orders (with rewards), from the Devils own missal, the Koran.

The creame de menthe of Western intelligentsia has succumbed to the lure of power, and rolled over to orders from the elite.
IslamicJihadists have become their shock troops. God, morality and sanity are all buried.

So…what will be the outcome for the West, in the midst of the civil war. Hopefully Trump will prevail, but not without an Authoritarian Putsch I predict.

Thanks Diver Dan there's some interesting content in your post. Kudos.

I agree "Hobbesian/ Lockean social contract, is as dead as a dodo". But we need to have some lever to bring the people to the truth. Politics is downstream of culture.

I hope this won't become a war against the wealthy, but certain groups of wealthy are responsible.

There are a few different types of authoritarianism and traditionalism. Some traditionalist's are not expansionist, they just want their historical lands and works and a ethno-cultural future. But as Socrates says those that don't seek power, need to seek power, otherwise the wrong people get power.

"Hopefully Trump will prevail"- It's difficult to enslave an armed population. We need to re-arm those that have lost their future.

"I hope this won't become a war against the wealthy, but certain groups of wealthy are responsible."

The free market economy...

The west made a decision to get more profits by moving their industry, their capacity to produce, our 'industrial capacity'; moving it to China because they had cheap labor in large amounts and it made tremendous profit and it dramatically hurt the working class. Now they say and China is evil and they must be stopped.

How are you going to stop them - well they're setting up for war with China which would stop everybody because it's going to end in nuclear
conflict and kill us all number one, but number two they are doing all of these tariffs which will again hurt the working class.
They're doing it to hurt China, but China is their own creation.
They moved everything there because of the culture that says we must get as as high a profits as we possibly can - and it worked.

The West is stupid.
They drove Russia and China together.
Russia is generations ahead of the U.S. in military technology, specifically missiles, and they've won the arms race.
What happens when Russia combines their military technology with China's industrial capacity?

One Chinese automated cruise missile factory has the capacity to produce the components for 1,000 missiles/day if running 24/7. They can build 200 naval destroyers a year. What happens when China starts pumping out Oreshniks, S500's? The West can't even wage a war on the Houthis, Saudi Arabia spend hundreds of billions in U.S weapons trying to beat them but can't, and you want to fight China and Russia, it's madness, all our economies rely on trade with China. We may as well use all our own weapons on ourselves, it'll be less painful.

Just a few days back the Houthi's fired JUST ONE hypersonic missile at Israel, and the Iron dome supposed to be the best air defense in the world, well even it couldn't take down that one single missile.

BRICS Grows, Russian Seizure, China Retaliation; FOUR Economic Shocks That Will Dominate 2025
http://youtu.be/trzr0RwFVYM

Armchair Critic-

Thanks for the new video.

The commentator raises a few interesting points, plainly very pro-China. I will need to watch it a few more times to extract all the value. It does seem to indicate that the nation the commentator hails from, may not be friendly with the West, in private.

At some point in the conflict between the West and China we will need to decide whether we are on the side of The West (and help it fight) or on the side of China (and go to gaol or the front as shock troops). Libertarian gatekeepers can only stare down and defy gravity for so long, before they have to admit that they can't keep giving China money, and assume that they won't build weapons to attack us with. As the Hebrew Warner Bros "Private Snafu" movies say "Loose Lips Sink Ships". Libertarian's that refuse to admit their mistake can go to the front too in my view.

Sadly the Chinese Communist Party has been playing "keep away", with the wealth generated by trade with the US, from the Chinese people.

Hopefully the Chinese people don't think this policy will suddenly change.

I hope that the Chinese people see what the authoritarian CCP is doing and will act against it at the critical time.

Some are investing into a more arbitrary authoritarian world, rather than trying to understand the sources of instability, pretty dumb really.

I expect to see Twiggy Forrest in gaol at some point, along with the vast majority of ABC Journalists and University Academics especially from the Arts. I hope that someone is drawing up lists now, so that when the time is right they can be collected, for everyone's safety.

It's important for society to have a long memory.

Some groups are particularly adept at making each way bets

It seems that the CCP really doesn't want the US to increase tariffs, that is probably as good a reason as any to do it. It's better than going to war to address our different viewpoints.

I'd suggest stockpiling and mass producing durable foodstuffs and housing- this should help to insulate against price spikes. A side benefit will be that it will tend to make people more self-sufficient and less subject to the scarcity that governments can create, to manipulate the public. A durable goods policy will help protect governments from public backlash from scarcity and rising prices. This way GNP can decline concurrently with increasing living standards.

Within Western nations we need to stop investing into enemy economies- such as Woke Marxist unionized labour- that are sponsoring nihilist policies.

I suspect that this a what Nikita Kruschev meant when he said- "we will bury you"

CM.

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur.
Don't you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?
Axel Oxenstierna L/- to his son, a peace negotiator to end thirty year war 1648.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia ;that left behind a death toll of eight million.

Well CM, if the world is governed by those with little wisdom, the question must be (I would think), who are the wise so absent from governance!…what are they up to that has more importance than governing. It’s a good question: Maybe that’s what we need, viz better control by the people (the masses), over who governs. Look for example at the incendiary mess Obama gifted the world. The West will be very lucky to recover from his total lack of wisdom.

Hi CM,
I'm not well versed on many of the things you often talk about, but I have main content creators I follow on youtube, and then there's a few others I watch now and again.

For example, much of my last comment was from here one of my regular shows:
http://www.youtube.com/live/18-2U2PIEkk
And the discussion about the attack by Yemen on Israel was from here:
http://youtu.be/szQbpFy080E
(You'll have to skip forward to the 50 min mark where they discuss Israel being unable to shoot down a single Palestine 2 missile from Yemen)

You'll get a lot out of that first video if you watch it.
Take note that Putin has an 86% approval rating and Xi has a 90+% approval rating, they both pulled many of their people from poverty.
Garland Nixon has a really great way of explaining things.

I have a couple of Youtube / X content creators who live in China that I look at now and again:

http://www.youtube.com/@CyrusJanssen/videos
http://x.com/angeloinchina

I don't wish to be ruled by any foreign power, but I see the U.S. as being the one hell-bent on global domination and war provocation.
I can't see the U.S. losing their hegemonic position to China without dropping a nuke tbh, and at the same time I don't think America can compete either economically or militarily.

The economic video content creator Sean Foo, I'm not sure where he's from, it might be Singapore, he puts out video content more or less daily.
http://www.youtube.com/@SeanFooGold
His wikipedia page I just looked at states he lives in Singapore, is gay (didn't know that until just now) and that he graduated from Monash University in Melbourne, where he earned a double degree in Arts and Accounting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Foo
I honestly don't mind his economic take on things, regardless of his sexuality.

I also watch Brian Berletic sometimes, mhaze hates him, but I don't mind his content.

US War on China is a War on the Entire World
http://youtu.be/nHYSkm9Jl-g

There's plenty there to dig into.
Have a look from my side of the fence and let me know what you think.

Thanks Diver Dan and Armchair Critic.

The Treaty Of Westphalia is interesting it seemed to be a multidimensional conflict with Catholicism/ Protestantism and Naval Power on the different dimensions.

Armchair Critic- You're given a lot of information. I'll try to offer a perspective. Remember the picture of the young and old woman.
http://annex.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/postcard_illusions/

Well CM, old Alex opined away to his son back in 1648 about the lack of integrity of the political movers of the time, who prevaricated through thirty years of bloody war amounting to the loss of eight million lives; there is nothing new under the sun says the wise Bible.

So is Libertarianism a solution to a political problem of integrity?
There are definite paths to riches for those of us floundering around on the ground and underneath the weight of political corruption and self interest of politicians; the most obvious path, is to follow their lead to riches by cheating, lying and dealing in the most corrupt and underhanded way possible, to increase our disproportionate share of the dwindling pie: That’s the negative view, and seems to me from my experience in business dealings through life, the wide wide road to destruction, the same wise Bible warns the mortals against; the lazy options!

We are in the midst of a massive con-game. The modus operandi of the divorced from the crowd, movers and groovers of those we recognise as elite and all powerful, inclusive of political leaders and their maintenance crew of courtiers, AKA bureaucracy, is to maintain the high ground of the PR pitch; the broadcasters of myth trumpeted out 24/7 the ABC perform their subtle capture of the weak minded, and turn them away from clear thinkers of our time, who harbour dreams of an inclusive society.

Here is some material I've found on your links Armchair Critic...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Foo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_love

"While the term shōnen-ai historically connoted ephebophilia or pederasty, beginning in the 1970s it was used to describe a new genre of shōjo manga (girls' manga) featuring romance between bishōnen (lit. "beautiful boys"), a term for androgynous or effeminate male characters."

Looking at Sean Foo's room in the video may indicate something about his belief's in relation to the above information.
______

It is important to be careful of jumping to conclusions here. And often subtleties in peoples way of thinking may be difficult to decypher.

Woke Marxist's seem to be more patient with pederasty than some, perhaps because of it's destructive nihilistic effect on Anglo society, and it's overall goal of blank slatism 'tabula rasa' burn and rebuild (Trotsky seems to believe in 'burn and burn again forever').

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/x6k579/cmv_influencers_like_cyrus_janssen_are/
https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/Brian_Berletic
https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/tony-cartalucci
https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/
https://journal-neo.su/2024/09/07/us-war-on-china-is-a-war-on-the-entire-world/

Thanks Diver Dan for your reply... I might need to think some more... but see below as a start...

(DD) Q- So is Libertarianism a solution to a political problem of integrity?

A- I think it's more about business skills/ money/ resources always being critical for every project mutually exclusive of integrity. I suspect you are implying that there is a culture problem with Libertarianism, caused by an over focus on profit, that compromises integrity and trust, in that I think you are correct. Remember that trust and integrity could be different things.

Gustav Le Bon wrote a paper called The Crowd- paraphrasing "wealthy people don't rely on stability or government but on opportunity and themselves" "Working people vote for stability through politicians but end up being enslaved over and over again". It's an interesting and perhaps uncomfortable observation.

(DD) Comment- con-game of the divorced from the crowd, elite, inclusive of political leaders and their bureaucracy, is to maintain the high ground of the PR pitch; the broadcasters of myth, the ABC perform capture of the weak minded, and turn them away from clear thinkers of our time

A- Yes, bait and switch.

(DD) Comment- clear thinkers of our time, who harbour dreams of an inclusive society

A- There are different ideas about what "fair society" means, so it's important to be careful how you define your terms. Inclusive seems to often be used as a Woke/ Marxist weasel word- and is part of DEI/ DIE and ESG corporate policy that has infiltrated our companies and institutions. I suspect it will be necessary to go after the propagandist's of these anti-existence ideologies. Some talk about equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. I believe that loyalty to the civilization is a multigenerational phenomena, that needs a much more multigenerational approach. Families can climb the ladder of society when they are loyal, but it will take generations. Some consider this as a form of group punishment that should be decried. There are issues with this approach that need to be factored into a stable civilization.