I'm politically libertarian but privately conservative. Many things disgust me, but I believe that social pressure and persuasion is a better way to achieve moral behaviour than coercion and force.

@abhimanyukarnawat7441

7 жыл бұрын

Not a White Supremacist Fuck yeah!

@jsgehrke

6 жыл бұрын

“People who are low in disgust sensitivity tend to be attracted to liberalism. People who are high in disgust sensitivity tend to be homophobic.” That is a loaded statement. Why not say: “People who are high in disgust sensitivity tend to oppose...and then list the things homosexuals actually do, in explicit and descriptive language. I daresay most people today have an ignorant, antiseptic, whitewashed understanding of what homosexuality involves; its affect on lifespan, and its morbidity generally.

@yeahyeah9856

6 жыл бұрын

Mr Jenkins same here, wanna be friends lol? I label myself as libertarian conservative, who values tradition and family values and responsibility but resent government coersion.

@pedrohack2869

5 жыл бұрын

So you're a a paleolibertarian

@fakename9500

5 жыл бұрын

@@greynearing4822 sounds like you'd be ok with mass murder of those you disagree with

Johnathan Haidt is always very interesting to listen.

"I have a whole collection of sex manuals..." - I'm impressed at the lack of murmuring from the audience, because I laughed out loud 😆

@SantaClaauz

Жыл бұрын

When did he say that

btw Simon Baron Cohen, a researcher referenced in this video by Haidt is actually Sasha Baron Cohen's cousin. FUN FACT.

@josephsvennson5694

5 жыл бұрын

Fun Fact: read Sacha's college thesis 👌📖🎓

@dmonarredmonarre3076

5 жыл бұрын

Ve..very nice!

I'm not sure Mr Hardt quite understands libertarians may have the whole wide range of values on personal and social issues, but they clearly make a distinction between what values they hold personally vs the values the government should enforce. Minimizing force and thereby encouraging personal responsibility that comes with free choices - those are far more directly in focus for libertarians than for the political left and right - who are always talking and fighting what policies (I.e. Governmental interventions) should be added to manipulate or force society or the economy to go one way or the other. Libertarians on the other hand would rather leave all but a precious few things up to a free society to sort out. Libertarians are the direct opposite of Authoritarians.

@clementdedadelsen4065

Жыл бұрын

Very well said.

As a Libertarian, I can't be phased by anything except for someone dying slowly.

@smorrow

3 жыл бұрын

Fazed.

I could listen to this stuff all day

I keep expecting him to tell a punch line, this feels like a stand-up act for some reason.

@iamagi

7 жыл бұрын

Perhaps because he is on a stand-up scene...

@sungod9797

3 жыл бұрын

He also mentioned stand up at the beginning and said this was his version

31:00 - I agree that most people who are on the other side of the spectrum would feel unconstrained and disoriented in a libertarian society, but what Ayn Rand said was that people would adjust. They would learn that just because something is legal doesn't mean they should do it, that legality is not license, in terms of our well-being. The whole point of libertarianism is to get away from the notion that the state is taking care of you, preventing you from doing things that will harm you, because we assume you can figure that out for yourselves, assuming you're adults. The reason we say that is those constraints prevent people from trying things that are risky, but may ultimately lead to a benefit for themselves and society. They won't necessarily do what most people would do with those risks. They may come up with a cure for a horrible disease instead, or whatnot. The thing that bugs me about Haidt's proposition, and I'm not blaming him for bringing it up, is that more than 100 years ago, Americans more or less lived in a libertarian society, at least at the federal level (the state level was a lot more varied on that score), and people managed to do okay with that. In fact, we did more than okay, in terms of the technological, financial, and social progress we made. So, the fact that people would feel uncomfortable makes sense, and it helps me understand why we (Americans) don't want to go in the direction of libertarianism, but it seems like what's going on is that Americans will feel uncomfortable when restraints are put on us, but we feel more comfortable with that than taking the restraints off. So we put up with it, and we get used to it. What I say is that if we took the restraints off, yes, there would be discomfort, but people would get used to that as well. I reflect on the fact that we had less regulation 20-30 years ago than we have now. Were people freaking out and feeling disoriented, because there weren't enough restraints then? I guess, but look at what people are freaking out about today. I don't see how putting more restraints on has the effect of making people feel more comfortable. In fact, in Haidt's own analysis of how SJWs behave, about how they freak out at the slightest thing, it would seem that restraints have made them more fragile, and more unable to deal with the world. So, it would seem if we look at them as the "canaries in the coal mine," we still don't have enough restraints, by Haidt's proposition. I see this going to a very dark place. What I think is going on is people use the restraints as crutches. They come to rely on them, and they feel very uncertain about what they're going to have to do without them, and so they resist getting rid of them. He said that people are healthier if they are rooted more in their communities, and he equates that to legal constraints. I think that's a false equation. What being rooted in your community means is that you feel at home in whatever group of people you're with, and the social attachments you've made. No conceivable regulation would give people that.

@Arkylie

6 жыл бұрын

Did you see the thing about the Oregonians having to adjust to the possibility of pumping their own gas? Freedom Toons has a video on the outpouring of horror that came with the idea of not having your gas pumped for you... and then he pointed out that each state has some government-controlled thing that we take for granted and are generally afraid of losing and having to do for ourselves.

@DavidJeromePutnam

5 жыл бұрын

At the moment, I have a stronger aversion towards the left with their uncreative, childish protests against Trump, but in the 90s I sided with the lefties who were protesting against the Iraq war or the drug war. It seems that because of the success of Obama, the left has been so spoilt and brainwashed that they are unable to see the conservative perspective.

@bsmith6784

3 жыл бұрын

@@Arkylie Ikr, that was _hilarious!_ 🤣🤣🤣

@deanwong2186

3 жыл бұрын

Good point! I guess that's why Rand insists that her branch of thought is Objectivism, not Libertarianism.

@mmille10

3 жыл бұрын

@@deanwong2186 - This is the best video I've seen on why Objectivists distinguish between themselves and Libertarians, by Brandon Cropper. kzread.info/dash/bejne/l6at1sWpidPggs4.html I don't think he discussed specifically what I talked about here, but I guess it fits generally. When I've talked to most Libertarians, they say the same thing I've written. In short, Brandon said Libertarians don't know what they mean by freedom, and they don't want to define it, because they find that too exclusive. They say just "pursue freedom," whatever that means to you. Objectivists point out that's a terrible path, because even people who promote authoritarian ideologies market themselves as pursuing the people's "freedom" from various oppressions.

30:53 "But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." - Murray Rothbard

Great point about how we use the notion of disgust -- seemingly just a bodily thing -- also in our moral appraisal of things.

"Was it fair trade Styrofoam?" - Ha ha ha ha ha! Welcome to Portlandia!

I'm rarely disgusted by actions and more by the people who do them expecting a different outcome and expecting others to pick up after them.

I'm of the opinion that being rational is being compassionate. Hysterical people talk all about how much they "care" while sucking the very life and sanity out of anything.

@DavidJeromePutnam

5 жыл бұрын

Sinuous Sausage But I could agree that the hysterical lefties are more spontaneously compassionate especially towards minorities or animals (so many are vegans), while libertarians are compassionate towards the majority (human kind, all races) and see things more long-term, so they are able to control their instincts.

@clementdedadelsen4065

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely. Very well said.

this makes sense after listening to Jordan Peterson

@LeafGreen906

4 жыл бұрын

he references johnathan haidt a lot in his lectures

@CurtHowland

3 жыл бұрын

Haidt and Peterson have a wonderful long discussion about the failing of the universities. Highly recommended.

@smorrow

3 жыл бұрын

@@CurtHowland Haven't seen it but I already know 50% of it is going to be "universities bad because it's a breeding ground for SJWs". Bryan Caplan's work on higher education is what you really (also) want to be looking at.

I'm a libertarian that finds just about everything revolting

@nonmagicmike723

4 жыл бұрын

Then how do you tolerate things like pornography, inequality, or people not affording health insurance? Don't those things "revolt" you?

@Chewy427

4 жыл бұрын

@@nonmagicmike723 because there's no aggrieved party

@Chewy427

4 жыл бұрын

@@nonmagicmike723 and actually none of those things revolt me. I view those things respectively as, pleasure delivered to those who cannot get laid, the mere existence of wealth, and people yet to acquire wealth.

@nonmagicmike723

4 жыл бұрын

@@Chewy427 Okay, cool. Then you're a straight-out libertarian just like me. It just sounded weird that you found so many things around you revolting, because as I know it, the only things libertarians find revolting are government/societal overreach into people's peaceful business, theft, and when people feel entitled to other people's property, labor, etc.

@bsmith6784

3 жыл бұрын

@@nonmagicmike723 Well, socialism is revolting. Stupidity is revolting. ... But I repeat myself.

I will only eat my breakfast out of fair-trade styrofoam.

@abhimanyukarnawat7441

7 жыл бұрын

Bad Hair Man but my dick doesn't come from Styrofoam.

I read "The Happiness Hypothesis" a few years ago and it changed the way I have been thinking forever! I guess I should read this book as well.

we are not low on compassion. we just have compassion for the people footing the bill for the people you have compassion for that you don't want to be supported from out of your own pocket.

@jastrckl

4 жыл бұрын

We’re more compassionate for future generations yet to be born

"How do they treat the workers?" BA-DUM-TSSSS ---- The most telling thing about the 'libertarian' mindset came right at the end there.

Jonathan Haidt is a a true genius!

You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it. - G.K. Chesterton

@arthurobrien7424

7 жыл бұрын

You can't even language without logic.

@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017

5 жыл бұрын

Sam Harris has a point about the Is/Ought divide to some extent. You can't do a whole lot of factual analysis without having a whole set of implicit values in place already.

@libertariantranslator1929

Жыл бұрын

Chesterton the mystic? 🤣

Awesome discussion!!!

I was mentally drafting a comment about the limits of libertarian thought as applied to the general population - i.e., the need by many people for boundaries such as disgust. But then at 30:40 to 31:30 Haidt addressed the issue very nicely.

I'm pretty sure that Sam Harris quote had "well-being" not "happiness" in it

@SebiSthlm

7 жыл бұрын

They are usually interchangable concepts within moral philosophy I think.

@ThePacemaker45

7 жыл бұрын

actually they're very much not the same thing. Sam even makes it a point to state that well-being has much more to it than just happiness

@SebiSthlm

7 жыл бұрын

ThePacemaker45 I remember when reading philosophy at university that they used the terms interchangably, which I think is why Haidt used the word. What exacly was Harris' point?

@arthurobrien7424

7 жыл бұрын

Actually, I remeber discussing in philosophy class how Anglo-Sachsen even contemplate the concept, having such vocabular. "Happiness". lol.

@matthewrevell2706

7 жыл бұрын

That an objective moral system can be approximated by a submission that it is possible to conceive of a state of absolute well-being, and one of absolute torture, and any action that moves collective conscious experience to a state of collective well-being is objectively better than an action that would bring collective conscious experience to a state of torture.

Fascinating- have ordered his book

How about this. What if a wealthy surgeon were to pay a mother to temporarily remove a young fetus and perform a sex act with it before returning it to the womb to continue development until natural brith. What would the crime be? If it is not murder to terminate the fetus, how can a sex act on that same fetus at that stage be a crime? I used to discuss a similar idea with a fellow coworker of mine. Is it wrong to eat an aborted fetus? The underlying point being this, if it is legal to kill a fetus, how can anything else we do to that fetus not also be legal.

@kling3376

7 жыл бұрын

Ryan P Would it depend on whether the sex act has an detrimental effect on the human that will become of the foetus?

@wood9670

7 жыл бұрын

If Professor X had all his mutant student girls grind naked on his lap and blow him, are they really harmed if he wipes their minds of the shenanigans?

@Lidorzaruk

6 жыл бұрын

I guess the question is - did he force them? If he forced himself on their minds, they shoul've felt being controlled and forced to blow him, so at this moments he made them suffer - even if he made them forget about it afterwards. If their minds were shut down and he was basically just controlling their bodies (and blowing himself basically, aiming their mouths on his penis), he still forced them out of using their bodies at this moments, so it's still wrong. But If it wasn't forced, because they couldn't care if they were not conscious (mind's shut down) and/or would've forgotten about it anyway, who am I to tell them it's forbidden.

@Puro_Sol_

Жыл бұрын

Man’s law dictating morality?

18:10 The problem is this: try to extend this logic to something analogous. Is it fine for someone to be brutally murdered, as long as they are anesthetized first and never experience any conscious fear or suffering (assuming they have no family or dependents or someone else harmed by this)? Clearly there is something beyond just conscious suffering (especially beyond just pain) that ought to be the metric. Conservatives always lose the culture war, unless something happens to scare people and create cultural unity (i.e. 9/11)

Libertarians are awesome.

@libertariantranslator1929

Жыл бұрын

Libertarians try to solve problems while minimizing the initiation of force. Engineers set up minimax solutions for making a tin can with more volume and less steel using math that converges on but does not divide by zero. Anarchists prefer to go ahead and divide by zero. ☮

Consent is an arbitrary standard for determining whether a behavior is acceptable. I realize that its YOUR standard so you take it for granted. But that's no different than someone taking their religion for granted because they were born into it.

WE are not less compassionate...we are dispassionate about everything except responsibility and freedom and you cannot have one without the other. That doesn't mean that some libertarians are not nuts. At the core is the principle of non-aggression.

I would love to have my personality checked because I wonder if I fit this. I feel very high in compassion and that is a big part of why I am pro free markets - they are what is best for everyone by far. I used to be on the left, but learning more about economics and political science showed me that my compassion alone was useless if it wasn't based on the facts - true compassion would actually care about results! And I get disgusted pretty easily too. I find rights violations disgusting, for instance, and I think it is because I am so compassionate! The idea of forcing people to do things against their will seems decidedly lacking in compassion and quite the evil thing to do.

@libertariantranslator1929

Жыл бұрын

People who recite "the left" or "the right" invariably are communo-fascist socialists referring to other, slightly different communo-fascist socialists. 🤣

This explains so much. Particularly why SWJ's consider their own disgust as being a virtue. And why their disgust is so "enhanced." And personally, why I think their moral structures are so insignificant and solipsistic.

Is there more video to this talk? It feels like it kinda gets cut off at the end, and if there's more I'd like to see it.

This is so interesting because I personally am super libertarian - always have been - but I am sensitive to disgust to the point where it debilitates me in some areas of life

@howiefelterup329

Жыл бұрын

Cuz you probably have the psychological temperament of a liberal. I bet there are a number of things you would vote left on.

Peace, good sir. May your aim never waver.

That was a great discussion. But I have to take issue with one thing he said. I don't see why pro(or anti) gay arguments should change based on the number of people that are gay. If only a handful of people were gay and 5% wanted to have sex with sheep I don't think that should affect the legal status of either one.

@wingingninja

7 жыл бұрын

Exactly Grim! And in writing to show the pig has given informed choice!

@ryanp1922

7 жыл бұрын

GrimL0gic I am not sure if consent is required. Do animals consent to us killing and eating them? Do horses consent to be used for transportation? Side note. I saw a story on Vice news. They went to a village in northern Colombia where teenage boys have sex with donkeys as a right of passage. They openly talk about it. They showed one guy in the act. The donkey did not seem to mind. :)

@griml0gic420

7 жыл бұрын

Ryan P I see your point and it is a challenging one. Thee only rebuke I can think of is that consent of consumption is given by the natural world and is a productive act. Coitus with a donkey doesn't provide quite the same productive outcome. As a side note, SOO many feminists keep telling me that even if she likes it, rape is still wrong.

@Astronopolis

7 жыл бұрын

where do you put the border of legal and illegal activity in a society then? the law has sharp edges, thats why its useful. should all behavior be legal? whats the point o enforcing any law at all?

@lightgray2082

7 жыл бұрын

Ryan P I

I feel like he is conflating libertarian ideology with Benthiam (dont know how to spell it), but arguably abortion is a violation no the NAP. Whether pain is perceived is irrelevant, the act of aggression is what matters, so if you conside and embryo a human being, abortion is a violation of the NAP. There are many other holes in this Benthiam ideology. Such as: Is murdering a person morally OK so long as you make sure they feel no pain? Because that is certainly an act of aggression, pain or not.

@Arkylie

6 жыл бұрын

Suppose it depends firstly on whether you assume that zygotes/embryos/fetuses (whichever stage you're discussing) is of full rights comparable to other humans, or if there's some level of lower rights at that stage. I mean, you can be aggressive toward a toddler to keep them from getting hurt/killed, or restrict their freedoms to teach them how to comport themselves, right? (I haven't looked up the NAP yet.) And you might require that a human be of a certain age/development before they can make decisions about their own body. So some fully born humans have fewer rights than other fully born humans. I don't know where the line might be. Murdering a person is depriving them of the freedom to do other things with their lives. It's not merely a matter of pain, but of taking away what is rightfully theirs. The question is whether this right also applies in the case of embryos etc.

@DiscipleOfChristDV

6 жыл бұрын

Strasser Gang Unless you're arguing that potentiality alone is enough of a determinant, which is very dubious from a purely biological pov, then there must be some crossover point where a non-human collection of cells (or whatever criteria you choose to differentiate between human and non-human) gains human status. Thus it logically follows that abortion before said crossover point does not violate the non-aggression principle.

Where is the uncut version of this?

"Are you free or not is a yes or no question - not a question of degree. I am either free or I am not." Yes, the PRESENCE of a tax is yes or no, but the SEVERITY of a tax is critical as to determining how free a society is, among other factors. If there is only free and not free, with no other distinguishing feature, then North Korea, Mao's China and Stalinist USSR are equal to New Zealand or the Canada.

Why is the rest of @2:56 being cut ? I wanna hear the complete response to his hypothetical case lol

It's not illegal to pick your nose in public, but the fact that it is not illegal has not made it 'acceptable'. It is not the case that everything you personally find disgusting necessarily has to be forced upon absolutely everyone else at the point of a gun. Societal norms, peer pressure and the fear of ostracism is what keeps things morally acceptable or not, not the legality.

Society would be better if disgust were great again. Not to the point of genocide, but yeah. I used to be more exploratory than most, and now I can't avoid people and things well enough. People low in disgust have little in the way of conscious. Degrading sex, death, no big deal to them so they cause harm everywhere they go. Infect the minds and bodies of others. We all suffer as a result.

Greg: He makes his living researching, writing, and teaching about these topics. If you want the support, pick up one of his books. He has scads of evidence to prove these ideas.

Robbery isn't compassion. ☮

Would've have been nice to a hear that last point developed further.

Really interesting talk. I'm constantly questioning what I believe and my own limits and this gives me an "average" base to measure against.

I never said animals, children and adults had the same understanding. I said consent was an arbitrary standard.And that it was inconsistent to prohibit bestiality due to lack of consent while slaughtering animals for food. When do animals consent to be eaten?

With this topic I think is important to remember, that even though we libertarians, and liberals in some extent, don't see "divinity", it still is a part of our reality. Even if it is just a figment of some republican's imagination, through him it actually becomes reality, a force with real life implications. So we should definitely take that into account in our policies. Just playing like the whole divinity thing doesn't exist in the world will still create suffering like doing anything that's silly or bad.

@christpebbles

5 жыл бұрын

Riku Soikkeli good insight. I think we all have an ideal for ourselves and that ideal our personal God. To me, God is the person you wish to become most like...like using Jesus as a role model. It is who you admire or want to become

@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah with all the research that shows religious people are happier, more productive and make better communities, I'd say let's go with it. I used to be anti-theist, and I still am wrt Islam, but Christianity seems to me to be a net good.

This was a nice video.

I'm very much a libertarian when it comes to politics but lean more conservative privately due to high disgust sensitivity. I think where hardcore libertarians fall flat is exactly where Haidt implied in one of the answers to a question - empathy. Within libertarian circles there seems to be an almost aggressive attitude torwards conservatives in particular and that just doesn't help anyone (something like *we need total freedom, fuck anyone who thinks otherwise*). People need to learn to negociate better and respect each other (this probably applies to everyone though, not just libertarians).

@differous01

3 жыл бұрын

How do you feel about Bentham's mummy? Is it empathy that makes it feel creepy? or is that feeling a utilitarian disgust at wasted food (as R.A.Heinlein suggests in his Stranger in a Strange Land)?

20:55 "well, how can it be wrong if it feels so right?" HAHAHa goddamn

he made a good point about most ppl not being libertarians and wanting constraints.

Most people would prefer to preserve their culture. It's not just "white racists". I've dated plenty of foreigners and brown people. Families called me "the white girl" or "crazy American" (you can't marry).

This explains me a lot 😅

IN the end, we all draw irrational lines, it just differs where we draw them.

The amount doesn't matter? How can you say that? A paper cut is not the same as having limbs ripped off, even though, technically, they are both damage to a body. A person forced to work for a day is not the same as a person forced to work for a lifetime. OF COURSE the amount matters. Correct that there are certain dietary restrictions in New York City, but these restrictions are of conditional DEGREE and not absolutes, unjust though they may be.

Morality isn't just about "happiness" its about truth. Excessive indulgence in our senses causes us to dissociate from our rational nature and identify with our animal nature. From rationality follows truth and it is what makes us human. Stealing, lying and killing put us in animalistic survival mode. The view that morality is about "happiness" reveals a very shallow understanding of what makes us human.

@abhimanyukarnawat7441

7 жыл бұрын

DiscoveredNotCreated hello fellow libertarian XD

@JMVuko

7 жыл бұрын

DiscoveredNotCreated Well said. There is more to life then the senses. We were meant to love and that often requires a choice to sacrifice and find what our role in this world is and do well at it.

@andrewcheng6889

7 жыл бұрын

And that is what makes us autistic. I feel that ever since I decided to get my shit together and start thinking about things rationally, I've been becoming more like a robot. Take for example college. I've re-examined the college system and came to the conclusion that it's basically a big scam, with the only truth being that college gives you the "college-experience". Which only alienates me from my peers even further, because I do not fully understand what that means. I've came to the realization that there are many alternatives to what a college degree, education, or lifestyle can offer. Instead of indulging in spending and leaching from my parents or getting into potentially massive debt, I must take responsibility for myself and find the path that will most likely lead me to success. Live for the far future, do not sacrifice it for the near future. That is the lesson.

11:10 on disgust and ideas

If you cannot see the difference between rape and murder on the one hand, or stealing gum or blasphemy on the other, then it should come as no surprise that you cannot tell the difference between 1% tax and 99% tax.

Great discussion but he mischaracterized Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. Scalia didn't say that gay sex should not be legalized. His argument was that the Supreme Court should not intervene to strike down sodomy laws under the equal protection clause because polygamy, incest, and bestiality laws would then also have to be struck down. His opinion actually turned me in favor of legalizing polygamy and incest, but not bestiality(animals cannot consent to sex).

I am a retired physician and have made it an area of interest to research the human health effects of the microbiome. This has brought me to an understanding of the role of organic food, pesticides, and diet in general on human health. This was not taught to me in medical school And judging by the way pesticide concerns and organic foods are dropped casually as far left fetishes in this talk I am realizing now that these issues which are primary health issues that can literally liberate people from illness have become politicized to become jokes and oh and as an aside there are those organic obsessed and pesticide obsessed people. Our bodies are organic. The microbiome, the bacteria within us, don’t function in moral gray areas, ideology, and left or right wing affiliation. The bacteria are either poisoned by pesticides if you don’t eat organic, or they are thriving if you pay attention to them and to your own body. It’s a wonderfully pure system. I look forward to the day when more people understand this truth. The more we respect our bodies, the more likely we are to respect the environment, the trees, the waters, the ecosystem, and one another.

20:55 - I think you just described Bill Clinton's sex life.

34:41 “fair-trade styrofoam” 🤣

There really isn't a large libertarian opposition to 'redefining marriage' libertarians generally don't care how the government defines marriage and argue that the government shouldn't control marriage anyway. 'As marriage culture declined in Scandinavian countries, government spending increased' As a rule you can pick any country and the chances are that their spending has increased it's just how the world is at the moment. It's a bit of a leap to say that is effected by that obscure variable.

@wade2bosh

7 жыл бұрын

single moms need more govt

There is a feeling of disgust whenever,I hear the compassion in political context.A political action or sanction taken by government to protect the common good may be good but when taken for compassion's sake will turn evil.

There is a reasonable point that people saying "gay sex is find, but polygamists are evil" is wrong and have no real logical stance, other then some laws about marriage would likely need to change to make polygamy legal. And yes, aphyd does seem to be "that kind of asshole". "As for me, I oppose sexual deviance. But I don't make excuses for it. I don't like it and that's all the "excuse" I need." -aphyd. That statement seem to make it clear, but it could have been meant some other way.

I am a liberal libertarian personally... So? If the question is "Given the current laws, should same sex marriage be legal?" the libertarian view is yes. But if the question is more open ended like "How would you set up government marriage laws?" the answer is "Gov out!". But as a reasonable human that knows that the US will not end government marriage, I support equal marriage as a compromise. Libertarians support the legalization of all drugs, but tax and reg of weed is also supported.

"kissing, handshakes, shared utensils, unboiled food and close proximity to others" are low risk as long as you don't do them with people who engage in high risk.

I understand what you meant to share; however, I disagree with your statement that "being rational is being compassionate,' because rationality involves thinking while compassion involves feeling---big difference.

No surprise. I have asperger syndrome

I am radically Libertarian when it comes to economics and authority, but on social issues I do find myself to have a somewhat high disgust level, which I find peculiar.

Surely an ultimate utilitarian would try to calculate the chance at happiness of the child vs the suffering of the parent. Its happiness x time - suffering x time = ethical points.

Damn, this turned _a decade_ old _today?_

i'm definitely on the Leon Kass camp

For my personal morality I would align with B. But I don't think my views of B should be forced on people, hence the reason I am a libertarian.

I did not say completely arbitrary. I said arbitrary in the context of somewhere between 12 and 20. And depending on the state it is 14, 16, 17 or 18. This shows a relative arbitrary selection of age. That same is true for simply and aggravated assault. We can all agree a slap that does not leave a mark is simply assault and beaten black and blue with a bat is aggravated assault, but the line is somewhat arbitrary between these points.

24:25 questioner makes a good point. Libertarians don't have to have any lower sense of compassion/empathy than Liberals, they usually just have a much better grasp of the Law of Unintended Consequences.. 'compassionately' forcing someone to do something will likely backfire

@ 28:00 & 30:00 Q&A ... the founding fathers wanted to keep religion as separate from politics, but as a practicality, that's been a rather difficult barrier to manage ... also, if your goal is to push the morality behind your laws so that you don't harm any large fractions of the populace, yet you consider allowing abortion rights to be handled on the state level, the result will be multiple conservative states outlawing abortion and many many women will be harmed by such a policy ...

To my American friends on the other side of the Atlantic: as a European I always consider libertarianism as giving more power (freedom, choice) to citizens rather than for a State. I never heard the idea that libertarians have common sense of such matters as social constrains. For example my friend would always argue for mandatory wearing a seatbelts, but also he is against gay marriage. I have different colleague who identifies himself as a libertarian but he is pro game marriages. In both those cases they don't like that government decides what is good for them individually or society. It's nothing about left/right view on social behaviors. Is American Libertarianism more about social issues?

How do you know that?

I am sure Richard understand that our laws on sex should be based off legal consent. Anyone who can and does give legal consent for ANY sexual sex should be legal. This does not mean that anything that does not give legal consent should be illegal, though. A blow up doll can not give legal consent, but we don't think sex with blow up doll should be illegal. Animal cruelty should be illegal, and I am guessing that most animal sex is animal cruelty.

I know the prevailing thought is that our rational ideas should trump things like our emotions or our instinctual feelings like disgust but I don't think it's entirely self evident that rationality is innately superior to these other dimensions of experience. It's true modern society is built on rationality in many ways and it has provided great utility. Without emotions and instincts it's unlikely we would have survived long enough to create the sciences. What if by promoting a more rational society we shut down mechanisms that are inbuilt to provide for a greater evolution of the species as one possible outcome. We could in our hubris because of the utility of our rational, destroy ourselves by devaluing something possibly superior.

No. And I'm not ok with losing at chess, either. I wouldn't accept either willingly. But that still doesn't mean "consent" isn't an arbitrary standard.

I've made this point several times with that other joker but you're more reasonable so I'll repeat it. He claims "consent" is the standard. And that animals aren't capable of giving consent. Therefore bestiality is unacceptable. On the other hand, he refused to condemn slaughtering animals for food. Were they giving their consent to be eaten? I think most people can see the inconsistency.

I did not use the term law, did I? Even so, in cases of murder and many other crimes, the law does not serve as a preventative measure, but as a codified way of dispassionately and objectively punishing the act if it is committed. Even posted speed limits don't actually limit anything, they only inform, or warn, the driver. Prohibitive laws are things like bans on certain products or zoning laws; things that can actually be physically, preemptively blocked or prevented.

And what if rejection from the society is not enough. The people that do the most cruelty to animals are often the people that already reject from the society. The link between massive cruelty to animals and the most violent offenders including serial killers, serial rapists, and sexual homicide perpetrators has been found by FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Society rejects cruelty to animals and society had decide to put in place laws to stop it for a lot of good reasons.

I couldn't understand why he didn't put any focus on the puritanism of the left and only discussed fair trade and veganism, etc. Then I realised it was from 5 years ago before it all began. Very interesting conversation

31:00 made me laugh at the world inside my dark brain making others cry

There are many moral positions that i support but i'm agaisnt enforcing it by violent coercion. People's autonomy has to be respected if they are to be moral agents. Just the the ability of nuance between "this thing is good" vs "this things is so good that it has to be made mandatory by force" is enough to tell with high probability whether that person is a libertarian or not.

I really really like this. It's really interesting. But, I wonder, Is there no distinction between morality (people being driven by disgust) and people who are driven by emotions. -In a social context like the guy in the audience suggests by saying many libertarians are driven by compassion in the sense that they are concerned for the injustice the government does to them. That's where I feel like I am at, I'm very socially liberal because of that sensitivity, though otherwise desensitized.

I am quite happy to be restricted in not being able to murder or rape or steal. I am fine with not being "free" to violate contracts which I or others have entered. So no society is, nor should it be 100% "free". However, such as it is, one can be partially dead; limbs and organs can "die" before the brain, and even then there is a distinction between clinical death and biological death.

The reason that bestiality doesn't fall under the same logical grounds for sex is there lack of ability to legal consent. You could make in argument that because killing animals is more cruel then having sex with animals, that it should therefore be legal and people can agree or disagree with that logic. That argument is not illogical, but it is a different argument. But you can logically support all forms of sex between legally consenting adults and not support bestiality.

The problem with removing the legal "consent" standard, is then this opens up children and the mentally disabled. If the only think that is illegal is when you can show then the other side was not willing, then people who can convince 5 year old to do sexual acts would be legal. It is not because they can not legally consent, the same is true for animals and the mentally disabled. My only problem with incest is inbreeding, and now the state will be picking up most of the bill for it.

Any court issuing a binding sentence effectively becomes the government. Besides, if I, the loud music lover, wish to use Court A. and my sleep loving neighbor wishes to us Court B, who decides which one is used? And what if I do not recognize the power of either court, yet I owned my home before either court was established? This is the problem with Anarchy/Voluntarist solutions; they assume all people consent to participating within the new framework.

"Fair trade styrofoam" made me LOL.

While interesting I have to disagree with some of the conclusions he is making. He is claiming how most conservative ideas come from disgust while most left-winged ideas come from empathy. Yet, a lot of left-wing ideas are combined with disgust as well - for example "mean mean racists/homophobes/sexists". This is not only about empathy - but about disgust.

@EuphoniaPooch

7 жыл бұрын

The ORIGIN of that left wing stance is compassion/empathy for minority or vulnerable groups. The disgust in the example you give is with "racists/homophobes/sexists" who fail to have compassion or acknowledge the rights of those groups. So basically, the left or whoever else are not FOR civil rights BECAUSE of their disgust with people who are "racists/homophobes/sexists", they are for civil rights out of compassion FIRST OF ALL, and disgusted with who people aren't SECOND.

@QED_

7 жыл бұрын

+EuphoniaPooch: One problem with the left wing perspective, however, is that it is selectively compassionate. Consider 1950s racism in the South, for example. Is there any doubt that most racists were conditioned to have their beliefs by their social upbringing (?) And that they were genuinely pained by and fearful of other races (?) The left wing doesn't care about that at all . . .

@Arkylie

6 жыл бұрын

I recently ran across the appalling tale of a teenage artist who got the Tumblr horde to descend on her and nearly drive her to suicide... because she dared to draw a cartoon character (who in the show is large/fat) in a slimmer way. As well as drawing a Black-coded character with white-coded hair, and a pony character who deliberately has no racial coding as a stereotypical Native American character. The horde not only swooped in to bully her until she nearly killed herself, but, when the creators of the show went "Dude -- that's not cool. Let her draw things the way she wants, it's fine," instantly began a campaign that made them (the harassers) look like victims of the Holocaust. Apparently, if fans are allowed to draw things any old way they like, without being attacked for it, then something is seriously wrong with the world, and how DARE the creators of the show stand up for this horrendous assault against all right-thinking worldviews, this FAT ERASURE and WHITEWASHING and RACIST STEREOTYPING, the show is ruined forever because some people don't think the way we all think! Tell me this action isn't based on hardcore disgust FIRST, and compassion NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. This comic represents the general idea: knowyourmeme.com/photos/1035753-zamii070-harassment-controversy And this post shows the mindset of "we're victims because those guys didn't support our harassment campaign!": knowyourmeme.com/photos/1035302-zamii070-harassment-controversy I don't tend to use the term "snowflake," but holy HELL. There were some level heads, so that was nice. One guy pointed out that having creators intervene in the affairs of the fandom (telling them to KNOCK IT OFF) is unprecedented: knowyourmeme.com/photos/1035460-zamii070-harassment-controversy One guy pointed out that attacking people like this is pretty much a subhuman act (say, higher/lower nature spectrum, there you are): knowyourmeme.com/photos/1035343-zamii070-harassment-controversy And another person created a general flow chart for what to do when you find a particular artist's work offensive: knowyourmeme.com/photos/1037262-zamii070-harassment-controversy (I will add that I don't have a problem with those who interact with the artist and try to explain -- calmly and reasonably -- what the problem seems to be, with the intent of helping the artist to better themselves and their art. But also that these people should be able to recognize when the artist is not at a stage to accept this kind of feedback, or unwilling to change, and upon figuring that out, just move on.)

Freedom is a condition of degree, not an absolute yes or no, on or off. Americans or Canadians might not be totally free politically, but they are far more free than Iranians or North Koreans, for example. To say that freedom is mythical is to accept any and all forms of tyranny, since after all, if Freedom isn't "real", why pursue it at all? We might as well be honest and have all our decisions made for us by someone or something else.

I think libertarians can be quite variable on the purity scale. Some are devoutly religious and just don't want the state to keep gay people from getting married while others are atheists.

No, I never said bestiality was wrong because animals can't consent. I said that it was not legal to have sex with animals under the idea of legal consenting because animals can't consent. I argued that all sexual at should be legal between legal consenting people and that animals, children and the mentally disabled can not legally consent, so that are not assumed to be legal under this idea. It is not reasonable to assume that because something does no consent, it is illegal to have sex w/ it.