Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Free Speech: Hypocrisy of Antifa & the Radical Left | Brendan O’Neill | FREE SPEECH | Rubin Report" video.

  1. Yup. And I'm all in favor of "Intentional Family" and all that jazz, if that's what if people of like minds want to do. A good family IS Marxist. And if you COULD extend that notion from coast to coast, we'd be a perfect Marxist utopia. Trouble is, the only libertarian way to do that would be from the ground up. The minute it's handed down from on high, it's at the point of a gun, and the NAP is violated, which few, if any, of the liberals I know, can wrap their minds around. I'm 90% Libertarian, with a tithe for national defense. I used to go 15%, figuring the King's at least handy for building roads, but I'm 5% more purist, nowadays, looking at our history and how we'd've been WAY more respectful of the natives if we'd been libertarian about roads. If the locals wanna pool their money for a better road, let 'em. If a guy wants to build a toll road and he can make it happen thru free exchanges with others, let 'em. Otherwise, let nature take its course.
    1
  2. A group of individuals could decide to live as an Intentional Family, and, in effect, live communally. You see it all the time in families of all types, here and there. So he's quite correct. Thing about the guy who didn't want to give up his property is he wouldn't be a member of that family. As long as it's not imposed from above, it's not counter to NAP. The irony, to me, is that those who want to live that way and see the whole world join hands and live that way, are going about it in exactly the wrong way. To get where they want, they need to SHRINK government, and the planet-killing excesses too MUCH participation by government invariably lead to.
    1
  3. Interesting take. The oligarchy never goes away.
    1
  4. Depends on what you mean by "Christianity." Are you talking the subversive followers of Jesus fed to the lions at the Coliseum, or the government-integrated Roman Catholic Church (or Lutherans or Church-of-Englanders)? By the time Rome got ahold of Christianity, it was pretty much not Christian, any more, imho. Still, a sincere Christian, coming up in almost ANY sect, with a good heart and a good mind, is going to be very OK with Enlightenment ideals. Of course, that kind of Christian ends up rejecting much of what any organized Christian church is pushing, settling towards a semi-agnostic view that Jesus was a great dude and the lesson is Reason + Love = Heaven on Earth.
    1
  5. Liberalism has its roots in common sense and the notion that maybe a flogging for a minor infraction is a bit excessive. It's evolved over time from small rejections of aspects of monarchy, but still clove to monarchy for quite a while...
    1
  6. Good grasp of some of the larger questions. Might argue left-vs-right with him on the margins, but yeah, absolutely. I hate the PC mobs going after non-conformist views/ideas in violent ways. But I hate even MORE the government stepping in and saying you can't form a mob. OK. As he defines "left," in its historical context, when it got its big start in rejecting the whole absolute authority vested in a divinely ordained King. Yes. The left left you. I can see myself that way, only the left was so much pro-government and identity politicized by the time I came up that I NEVER saw myself on "that side."
    1
  7. Here's the thing about "leftism" and "liberalism," to me: The left believes in redistribution at its core. And this puts the left on an illiberal philosophical path, because the only way to redistribute is to water down what individual rights ARE. We forget, every time that government does ANYthing FOR us, that we're opening ourselves up to JUST the kind of illiberal liberalism that you guys so clearly see, but which Brendan (and every liberal I know) fails to see is the LOGICAL consequence of their belief that government is good for anything but defending our soil and defending our BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, which do NOT include a full belly or roof over our heads or medical care out of somebody else's pocket. And I don't wanna get too mystical on y'all, but there's a yin and yang thing going on, here, where the more successful the left is in making everyone economically secure, the more resentment builds up on the part of those putting in more than they get out. And it's dangerous to just lump everybody (all those Atlases shrugging out there) as right-wing idiots, but the (so-called) left INVITES Hitler to rule, by ginning-up the (so-called) right to DO something about all the parasites living off their hard work (in their view). Government is like Sauron's Ring of Power. Oh, the GOOD you can do by use of compulsion, but it destroys both compeller and compelled, in the long run, every... bleedin'... time. I could go on (obviously) just drivelizing, but if you want a compassionate society, YOU be compassionate. Redistribution by force DESTROYS liberal values on the street. "That's what we pay taxes for. It's our gov't's fault that guy's livin' in a cardboard box."
    1