Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "When A Libertarian Sees the Light" video.

@whyamimrpink78 The vaccine was largely developed faster because it used a totally new method for creating vaccines, that didn't require years of growing virus cultures to be used in the vaccine itself. The vaccines all went through the same 3 trial phases the government required before. Trial phases ... safety testing ... that Libertarians wouldn't want. The government did provide funding for some of them, which they do for a lot of R&D. R&D funding that Libertarians wouldn't want. The government has also paid for producing and distributing enough to vaccinate every American. Payments Libertarians wouldn't want. The Libertarian way would be to have a vaccine, with no enforced safety testing, distributed and paid for privately. Maybe hope that some charity would vaccinate poor people.
3
Lowercase libertarians can be either. The term, as well as anarchism, was initially used by non authoritarian leftists. Uppercase Libertarians (Ayn Rand Objectivists, "classical liberals", or whatever they call themselves) are economically about as far right as you can get. Aside from a very minimal government, justice system, and military, they want the economy 100% privately owned and operated. They're just supposed to be less authoritarian than Republican types. Ancappers don't even want that minimalist government.
3
I'll address it. There's no such thing as natural "rights". Hope that helps.
3
@whyamimrpink78 They haven't had this specific virus for years, dumb dumb. They didn't pop out some generic coronavirus vaccine. It's specifically a covid 19 vaccine. They were able to do it so quickly because the method, that they've been researching for years, that was used is much quicker than previous vaccines. They went through all 3 trials phases. Nothing was sped up except the formality of waiting for approval, which came after development and the trials. You're just lying. A 1% mortality rate is 10x deadlier than the flu, dumb dumb. Letting it spread to 300m people would be 3m dead. All states already have some vaccine mandates, so wtf are you even talking about? It's not some new power.
2
@Nanofuture87 Rofl. Pretty sure a government doesn't have to pretend a right is natural, just to assign something a right. People believed in the institution of slavery for thousands of years, believing certain people didn't have natural rights. Men didn't accept that women had natural rights for thousands of years. Humans haven't believed that other animals were magically handed natural rights, for thousands of years. There's no actual evidence that people have acted as if they actually believed natural rights exist, for thousands of years. They've cherry picked what they've considered a right and who is deserving of them, to suit their pleasure. Without an organized society, people have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want, just like any animal. Not all freedoms are good. "Rights" protect freedoms that society, or societies, have deemed good. "Laws" restrict freedoms that society, or societies, have deemed bad.
2
@Nanofuture87 What kind of gibberish "analogy" is that? No. It's like saying there are no laws, unless society creates laws, which is just a statement of fact. You're arguing as if an action can break a law, even if the society in question doesn't have a law against said action, which is nonsense. Again, aside from opinions, there was zero evidence that Libertarians, "classic liberals", or what not, believed others had natural rights. There's no evidence of your centuries of claimed philosophy in action. Can you, or can't you, claim a piece of property, that already has an apple tree on it? You seem to have to add qualifiers to make your argument. When did the fence come into play? Can you not claim property without building a fence?
2
@Dnmac69420 Just keep "right left" to economics, and it works fine.
1
@Nanofuture87 Yes, it does mean that some people had zero rights in the societies that didn't recognize them as having rights. That's exactly why they had to fight to get rights. They did not come naturally, and society did not act as if they believed in some centuries old philosophy that those people had natural rights. You were originally talking about societies based on centuries of believing in such a philosophy, and now you're denying societies can have philosophies. Again, without a society deciding what is a right, and what isn't, all you have is a bunch of individuals with freedoms. Claiming land, which Libertarians believe in, violates other people's ability to freely access said land. Claiming resources, which Libertarians believe in, violates other people's ability to freely access said resources. Even Libertarians don't believe that freedoms equate to rights, cherypick which freedoms they think is a right, which they don't, and who is deserving of them. Societies have done Libertarianism, and it sucked. Only kids with money were educated. Only poor people who could find a rich sponsor could get healthcare. Landlords could charge whatever the hell they wanted. Employers could pay whatever the hell they wanted. People could claim lands that natives used to freely travel and live upon. Businesses were free to discriminate, pollute, destroy the environment, smash unions. Etc. Etc. Etc. And, no, the market didn't self police itself. There was zero indication of any widespread belief in natural rights, unless greed, making money, and shitting on the poor, is some keystone to natural rights. In an environment where property is privately owned, and almost all property is already claimed, how is being forced to abide by the rules of all the property owners, and business owners, to make a living to survive, complete ownership over yourself? Sure, you have the "right" to not deal with them, and go off and die somewhere. Big woop.
1
@Nanofuture87 I am distinguishing. That there are no rights without the recognition of rights, is evidenced by thousands of years of history. You could blather all day long about about slavery violating your rights, as you toiled in the cotton fields, but you clearly wouldn't have any rights, until they were recognized by society. Even you are requiring a group of like minded people to recognize "natural rights", to have a society based on them. Sucked, according to the natives. Sucked, according to the poor and uneducated. Sucked, according to the poor and unhealthy. Sucked, according to massive labor movements and rioting. Sucked, according to massive protests by minorities and women against discrimination. I did not mention simply that it sucked, but that there was no indication of a belief in natural rights, other than the "right" to screw people over. Are you arguing for anarcho-capitalism, or Libertarianism? The later could still have a government that sides with business owners, land owners, corporations, etc. Still have a justice system that sides with their "right" to bust unions, sides with their "right" to use children as labor, sides with their property "rights", etc. Yes, Libertarians do pick and choose which freedoms they consider rights, and which they don't. Can't you claim the property the entire apple tree is on, and deny everyone else an apple, not just your singular apple, and force them to pay for an apple if they want it? Can't you claim a water source, and force everyone else in the area to pay for water?
1