Comments by "" (@TentaclePentacle) on "Classical Liberal or Libertarian? (Pt. 2) | Sargon of Akkad | YOUTUBERS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. +Sean Thomson again you try to pass off an economic philosophy as liberalism. Not everything is about trade, not everything is about economics. Those people that forced King or prince John to sign the Magna Carta are liberals. They could be considered one of the classical liberals, It is about citizen rights, nothing to do with economics.
    3
  2. +Sean Thomson classical just means original, before all the progressivism seep into it. There is a lot overlap between libertarianism vs liberalism. But one fundamental difference is that libertarians have a disdain for government while the original liberals seek to create a new government out of the old monarchy, so liberals actual like government.
    2
  3. +Sean Thomson did you just use an economic philosophy to describe liberalism? Liberalism is philosophy about how to govern, how a society should function. Sure economics is part of governance, part of society, but its not the only thing. This is the problem I have with you libertarians. You have blinders on, all you see is the free market, the holy market. The market is not the end all and be all of society. Liberals understand that, libertarians don't.
    2
  4. +Sean Thomson The magna carta is about individual rights, its about what a king may, or may not do to a subject. The regressive left believes in group rights not individual rights. The regressive left is perfectly happy to use the state to crush individual rights. So no the regressive left don't support the magna carta. And you are correct about western culture and philosophy, at least what can be considered the modern west is based on liberalism. On the difference between what separates a libertarian and a classical liberal. I have already told you, libertarians have a disdain for government, while liberals love government, they want to improve it. Hence the transition from monarchy to a democracy. A libertarian would like to opt out of government, they believe taxation is theft, while a liberal does not. A libertarian believes you are born with certain rights. A liberal position is that your rights are given to you by a government. That is why they forced king John to sign the magna carta, guaranteeing those rights. I have watched Sargon's debate with libertarians on the issue of rights, Sargon intuitively understands this, but he couldn't quiet spell it out, to put it in those words. That's why Sargon have so much trouble distinguishing himself with librarians. I believe that inability to think of rights as given to you by the government is a relic and hold back from a religious backgrounds for most of the western liberals. Most of those early liberals are christians after all. They think of rights as something god given, but in reality rights are given to you by the state, or society at large.
    2
  5. a community of one is an individual, a community of 100 becomes a state.
    1
  6. +max larsen a town has a mayor, a mayor represents a government a state. So the community you speak of eventually becomes a state if it gets large enough.
    1
  7. +max larsen So you think a big state is inefficient, you would like to have alot of smaller states. So basically you want to go back to the time of city state nations. One thing you should consider if you have alot of states everywhere there will be tons of overlap in terms of services, and administrations, that's way more inefficient than a bigger coordinated state.
    1
  8. +max larsen Those small states can also be tyrannical. There could be a dictator running a town, and there is nothing you can do about it.
    1
  9. well the classical liberals are the ones that dismantled the monarchy, separate church from state. Started the industrial revolution. That kind of classical liberals, the beginning of liberalism.
    1
  10. +Sean Thomson I don't think Locke is against a progressive tax system. And Locke's idea of right to life, right to liberty and right to one's own property just means the government can't come and kill you for no reason. The government can't come and lock you up for no reason, and the government can't come and take your property for no reason. He wasn't talking about taxes. Now lets go back to the time of magna carta, even back then the barons who forced king John to sign the magna carta pay a lot more in taxes than the peasants. Back then only the land owners pay taxes, your average serfs don't even pay taxes. You can say that's a progressive tax system when poor's tax rates were 0. The progressive tax system was done for practical reasons, you can't ask the poor to pay when they have no money. If you ask the poor to pay the same rate as the rich they were starve to death, and that's the government depriving the poor's right to life. Another reason for the progressive tax system and for having wealthfare is that so the poor don't revolt. You can see it as protection money to the poor, there will always be more poor than rich, if you don't pay them, they are going to want communism. Or you can see it as the government's way of giving every citizen their right to life. Now the regressives they might say they respect the magna carta the same way they say they are for free speech. Its just lip service, in action don't don't respect the magna carta, they are perfectly happy to take away a man's freedom for saying the wrong things, or take their property in the form of a fine for saying the wrong things. You got feminists who says we should do away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in rape cases, take away the right to a trial. That's against the spirit of magna carta and the very letter of it. Applying a progressive tax system is not the same as applying an asymmetrical economics to different groups. When you are in a group that the progressive deem, for example you are black, you can't not be unblacked, when you are white, you can not be unwhite. When you are rich you can be poor, so when you become poor, you pay less. When you are poor, you can also be rich, when you are rich you pay more. Its taxes according to means. Its not like the system saying oh you are a aristocrat, we are going to tax aristocrats at this rate, and you are a peasant, we tax peasants at this rate. Having more money or less money doesn't make you belong to a group. As for libertarian. I don't really know what libertarianism means. I can only go by what those people who claim to be libertarians tell me what they believe. What I describe of libertarians are what I see. No one can tell me definitively what a true libertarian is. But the libertarians that I know are not classical liberals in the sense that liberals want government, they want to improve it. While those people don't seem to want any form of government, or at the very least grudgingly accepts a very small government.
    1
  11. +Nightbob yeah yeah, tax is theft, you don't want to pay taxes, you don't want to be part of a society. Well leave.
    1
  12. +Sean Thomson wait what? classical economics. So to be call a classical liberal one must endorse classical economic? Well classical economics means trading with gold, no banks, no stock market, no paper money, no investments, no insurance, no interest. Blood hell to be a classical liberal we must all want to go live in the 16th century.
    1
  13. +Sean Thomson Again I don't accept your definition, classic just means original values, on citizen rights. Using your locke example, a classical liberal are interested in right to life, right to liberty, and right to property. Life being the first concert, then liberty and property last. Not everything is about economics, you have to way too narrow focus on economics. Liberalism's main focus is not on economics, but on rights.
    1
  14. +Sean Thomson Classical liberals focus on rights, and there are other philosophies that can also focus on rights. So... what? How does that dispute the definition of classical liberals? You keep providing articles on economics, economics is a very small part of liberalism. Economics wasn't even a concern when liberalism started. It feels like we are talking over each other. You ask for a definition of classical liberals I gave you one. But you don't accept it and you pull out some economic theory, to debunk my definition. Does not compute.
    1
  15. +Sean Thomson Again you are cherry picking on economics again. Economics is not the whole part of liberalism. if you want to go by wiki's definition of classical liberalism. Here is what it says. "Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism." I don't see much difference from what I described to you. You want to focus on the economic part of that definition. There is a reason why its only at the end economics is brought up, because its not the most important part. The most important part is civil liberty and political freedom and a respect for democracy under the rule of law. What you and evangelical is trying to do is muddy the waters between libertarians and classical liberals, you are trying to say that libertarians are the classical liberals. Which is utter nonesense. I have already explain the difference between libertarians and classical liberals. But if you want to change the definition of libertarians, well then you are gonna have to convince libertarians to stop hating government.
    1
  16. +Eric21ND not if you don't come back genius. leave don't come back.
    1
  17. +Eric21ND move to somalia don't come back take everything you own with you, see if the US government can still tax you or not. genius.
    1