@@ElliottParkinson yeah but what percentage of homeless people graduate uni? and what constitute as homeless? Ive technically, by definition been homeless before but in comparison to actual tramps it would be considered a joke... Too many variables and far too fringe to be considered a proper arguement.
My favourite Shapiro take was when he suggested people in low lying areas who’s homes will be inundated by sea level rise should just sell their homes to solve the issue.
People would say it's unfair to judge him on one quote he probably doesn't stand by but to me it signals this kind of being out of touch with reality and the need of capitalist/libertarians to always be on the defensive about the clear problems people point out
@@man4437 he also thinks arabs like to bomb crap and live in Open sewage. And later when he was called racist he specified "its not arabs just palestinians. Its like of i called white christians flap jowled hog fuckers and later i specifiy that i didnt mean all white christians just southern white christians so its not racist
I like how the homeless person in his imagination got to Harvard but the single mom in his imagination just took a college course and got it figured out. Lmao.
Also... They're a single parent. Who the fuck is looking after the kids? It's physically impossible to have a full time job, even a part time college course, and also take care of children. You need help from some outside source for that. Maybe, let's say... A government which provided a living income to all people?
@@pyromaniachimbo Define "living income." The cost of living is different everywhere and is different depending on how many people you need to take care of. The rent of an apartment in Los Angeles is not the same as an apartment in Frankfurt, Kentucky. I wish people would actually start thinking about things critically instead of appealing to emotion.
@@POCKET-SAND If the cost of living is different everywhere... Then give a different amount based on region. That's not complicated, right? I'll give an example, in the UK we have housing benefits. The amount you get per week is dependent on the local rent costs. It's the responsibility of the local council to decide how much you should get. A single person in London may be getting £150 a week towards rent, while in Manchester they might get £90 a week.
@@pyromaniachimbo It's more complex than simply "region." It can be different as close as the next county over. Even in the same area, it differs from person to person. Somebody who is unmarried and in their 20s is going to have less economic responsibility than somebody in their 30s who is married with kids, so the older individual with a family will have a higher threshold of what is considered a "living" income than the younger individual. I wouldn't look to the UK as an example of doing things right. Personally, I'd rather my government let me have more of my own money than take it through taxation, only to give some of it back to me in the form of "housing benefits."
@@POCKET-SAND half of the US-tax is dedicated towards military spending. reducing social welfare won’t save you any taxes at all. I hope that whatever "entrepreneurship" you are doing goes down so you see the flaw in your argumentation. the richest 8 people on this planetown 50% of global wealth btw. You can’t tell me that they do 50% of the work though
lol The bigger problem with you westerners is racism. Not sexism. And by the way, for those of you on the western liberal left who think of yourselves as "anti-racist" if you support "affirmative action" you are a racist and a fascist. You are what you preach honey.
@@diggymgee american. Right? Tell me genius. What nation isn't laughing at the american system of de-education. The most war mongering western nation who can't find their own nation on the map is ironic.
@Kevin S Perhaps, but it is a sophomore who hasn't heard a fascist rant before, or who thinks he needs to hear the same rants coming out of every mouth willing to repeat them. There is no wisdom in sitting at the table with genuine pieces of human shit over and over again―that's a myopic idea focused more on concepts of individual self-actualization than it is about embracing good politics for one's community. People of social or economic privilege for whom all politics are mostly beard-scratching academic pursuits are far more willing to tolerate the ramblings of a bigot than someone who stands to be directly impacted by such bigotry coming to power. It is, again, something that a young or learning person needs to be exposed to at some point, but that lesson being learned, it is terribly unwise to mull and consider the wishes of politically-motivated racists and regressives. "Hearing out both sides" with one side being literal fascists just draws a middle ground between decency and something that is to be completely ignored―fascists and fascism do not deserve to define a decent person's politics beyond persuading them to add "anti-" in front of those words
Let me give an example of Personal to Systemic Responsability: In the early 2000's, plenty of people from a poor neighborhood in my city were going to the doctor and complaining of having trouble sleeping. In response, the designated clinic overprescribed sleeping pills, by a lot. After a few years, my city's health secretary conducted an investigation on why this specific neighborhood is consuming exponential amounts of sleeping pills. No doctors have asked WHY they were having trouble sleeping, and just gave them the meds. The investigation found out that the people in the neighborhood were having insomnia mostly because of the recent increase in gun violence in and shootouts near or at their houses. One case is an isolated incident, a hundred cases is a statistic, a thousand cases is a social problem.
the comment about black people is dumb, But also this is anecdotal evidence and is so vague about certain details that would easily be known (city, hospitals, health secretary), but specific about certain details that couldn't possibly be known (all having 'gun violence' at their houses, same reason for insomnia even though they never shared that, how would the health secretary even know who is getting sleeping medication or WHY would they hear about this). This has all the makings of a made up story, and scripted stories always tend to be a perfect setup for someone's political ideology for some reason.
Not saying it doesnt help but if you have 2 responsible parents why would they be poor in America? You'd be surprised at what some of these so called rich parents went through and what they put their kids through to give them a better chance at success. This has very little to do with money. As a matter of fact you could say the money is only there for a lesson. Nothing wrong with that. My parents were middle upper class but you wouldnt know it. Kids far poorer had nicer things than me and if I wanted something I had to work for it if it meant moving rocks from one location to another for no damn reason. Im not mad at them either. Actually im thankful. Oh yeah and most (not all) poor ppl do have themselves to blame. Maybe not anymore as inflation is about to put us all in the poor house but when Ben and I grew up that was mostly the case and being poor is subjective. Being poor in America is like being being middle class/income in most places. Not sure how trying to shame him or anyone for having successful parents is rational at all really. Just sounds d*mb.
the funniest libertarians (to me) are the ones with the "don't tread on me flag" on their right next to the "blue lives matter" flag. They just don't understand the irony...
A blue lives matter flag says to me that whenever this person goes to a restaurant they ask the waiter if boots are on the menu tonight. If they aren’t they make a show screaming at the waiter to get their boots because without licking boots then they aren’t a person.
I "love" Ben Shapiro putting the "common" example of what happens when people take personal blame instead of putting it in the institutions: "homeless to Harvard Law School". Sure thing, mate. That happens at least a couple dozen times each promotion, mate. Not like you need so much free time and free mind to be able to dedicate the insane amount of hours require to enter in those schools if you do not have a daddy who pays your tuition by buying a building for the university. Homeless people are famous for having the privacy and quietness required to sucessfully end of the most elite schools in the world. Who doesn't have the 50k down payment? Or the 800 credit rating required to be able to ask for a student loan to pay even a single semester? Do you know in which system poor people can go to top universities? Exactly, in the system in which people are HELPED by the system, so that their personal and economical situation do not drag them down. If you want a homeless to be able to graduate from Harvard law school, you want a system like Germany's not like the USA's.
You kinda make "some" scence. But European University system (public one icluded) even tough being much better than the gringo one, still has a lot of flaws and weakness.
I wouldn't exactly call the German academic system a great one, but it's a heck of a lot better than the American one. There's lots of flaws to be addressed, it's still too hard for students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds to achieve higher education for a number of reasons, but it's a heck of a lot better than in the big third world country across the pond.
@@InterFelix Yet, the United States is doing just fine. Maybe has something to do with the fact that you do not need school in order to do a job. You can just learn how to do the job well.
@@MrAlepedroza It’s a bold faced lie to say that the US is doing great, definitely. Low income jobs should be paying higher wages in order for people of low income households to live comfortably. But nah, instead they make the poor suffer more because the lobbyists don’t want them, their corporations, or even the entirety of the rich caste to have to pay taxes and lose the unnecessary amount of money they keep to themselves.
"When I say right-wing libertarian, I don't mean people who fit the definition of right-wing libertarian. I mean people who identify themselves as right-wing libertarians." That's a HUGE and really important distinction/clarification that too many people omit, leading to much miscommunication.
considering, wich political parties and movements get funded by libertarian billionaires in europe..... (people like August von Fink jr. AfD: a german party where 40% can be legally called fascists (there is no left wing fascism, fascism is right wing) and wich is under surveilance of the german national security agency. front nationale: a right wing party full of holocaust deniers and right wing extremists in france partij voor de Vrijheid: a right wing nationalist party in the netherlands etc... somehow these libertarian donors chose the fckn neonazis as their political movement
@@DaDARKPass no, it can has ASPECTS of left wing economics like socialism, but in that case, these are twisted. Like National Socialism was not socialism, but the exclusion of every non "Arian" of the german population from any kind of state organised welfare, healthcare, civil rights etc. And at the same time under the cover of "strenghtening the workers", labor unions got dissolved and their members persecuted, company owners got slave labor, could cut wages down to an absolute minimum etc, while the "national workers union" of the party supported said anti socialist agendas. Pinochets Regime in Chile was fascist but 100% anarcho capitalism. (and by the way 100% US backed and brought to power by the US)
@@papyrusix7769 The United States has never taken a proper, long hard look at itself and its history; where they came from and how they developed their identity as a nation. They're now paying the price, because there is some serious, serious gruff buried in that history.
for all of you saying "yes but personal responsibility is still important" no rational leftist is saying that's not true. the problem with libertarianism is that it ignores the fact that there's both personal responsibility AND systemic problems.
And who put the system in place? The government The government makes problems and then claims to be the only one capable of fixing them, you fall for the same trick every single time
Those are absolutists who ignore the concept of *a healthy balance and careful moderation* Medicine is good, but you don't take to much or you overdose.
Is the system fine? No. Is personal responsibility important? Yes. Is personal responsibility all you need to succeed? No. It greatly depends on circumstances.
You’re right. But circumstances have a large chance of being provided by expanding markets. For every Arby’s a black community receives black employment goes up, for every black that is employed their quality of life and work ethic will also go up, resembling the community as a whole. Social welfare doesn’t need to be an option since it separates earning wealth from receiving it. This is NOT good. This is how drug problems are kept going, this is how the value of work is lost in an entire community, and this is how the economic growth of black communities may stunt as a whole. With any state provided education, even just enough to provide a basic job, communities may spiral into success independently. You can not teach success through simple hand outs man.
@Shreyash Nath By circumstances, I mostly meant circumstances of birth. Can you see? Can you walk? Were you born in a developed or developing country? Are you poor? What quality of schooling can be provided to you as you grow up? Will a medical bill cause your parents to spiral into debt? Do you even have parents that you can rely on?
Almost everyone knows about personal responsibility. Everyone grindes. Sooner or later everyone tries to claw themselves out of the hole. Some do too late, some do too little. Things don't automatically get better, everyone knows that. If I am losing hair and getting impotent before the age of 30, there is something wrong with the system. Edit: Exaggeration to make a point. My issues are because of a lack of self care. What I mean is that we have to work more for the same lifestyle, mostly because the government decided that it was spending way too much in education and research.
@@otherssingpuree1779 I'm pretty sure your hair loss has nothing to do with the system. Does everybody grind? No, A lot of people do, a lot of people work hard their whole lives and never get anywhere anyway. However, there are also plenty of people who never do.
Correct Adeste. But Capitalism in decline, which is what we're currently experiencing (look at the wealth disparities), usually results in fascism from a shrinking middle class fearful of the "other". Fascism is defined by the effort to reclaim economic/political power for a particular identity group. Whether this is cast as driving Jews out of the financial sector, taking jobs back from immigrants and foreigners, or suppressing ‘criminal’ minority groups, the idea is to use the power and force of the government to secure property and economic wealth for one particular group. Fascism is a natural outgrowth of class-based capitalism within Liberal democratic systems. Class capitalism thrives best when there is an unambiguous underclass: people who work in factories, sweatshops and mines; do service jobs and manual labor; and in general people who do the actual work of producing and maintaining while the members of the capitalist class handle financial and executive functions. As the general standard of living within the nation rises, this underclass is filled more and more with immigrants, minorities, and other people who are decidedly outside the capitalist class. This may be as overt as importing slaves or establishing military colonies, or it may be as subtle as consigning brown-skinned people and women to ‘menial’ work, while high-paying ‘important’ work is retained within the class-identity group. However, Liberal democratic politics always tends to equalize people: women get the vote, blacks manage to get civil rights legislation passed, gays lobby for (and receive) the right to marry, etc. The end result is that ‘outsiders’ slowly gain more wealth, property, and prominence in society. This rise is tolerated as long as the economy is expanding; so long as there is enough to go around without any major impact on the wealth or property holdings of the core class. However, economies cannot expand indefinitely; they inevitably suffer contractions, setbacks, and derailments. Often these contractions and derailments are met with expansionist government policies: economic tariffs or restrictions meant to decrease foreign competition, military excursions meant to create new markets or gain control over base resources, exportation of ‘menial’ jobs to regions with lower wages… A contracting economy can create an impetus to invest in non-productive sectors - in particular the police and military, who are seen as increasingly more essential for maintaining and controlling the underclass and for projecting economic power through military threats - and that investment in non-productive arenas creates a greater drain on the economy. This downward-grasping economic spiral inevitably leads to econo-militaristic expansionism (the brutal colonial policies of the late British empire in India and the middle east, the Nazi Lebensraum, the incursions in the middle east during the Bush administrations, or Clinton’s failed effort in Somalia), expansion of state security forces (against communists, leftists, feminists, civil rights organizers, or any individual or group that promotes egalitarianism), and a general call for the decaying identity-class to reaffirm its identity and wrest political and economic power away from those ‘underclass’ groups that they had allowed to gain power during more generous times. This strongly reactive tendency - the effort to regain political/economic power for the capitalist class-identity group through governmental suppression and expropriation of ‘outsiders’; the aggressive reassertion of in-group superiority and out-group contemptibility; the overweening focus on power and might, through masculinism, militarism, and other forms of overt aggression… - this is what we mean by fascism. So yes, fascism is a natural outgrowth of a collapsing class-capitalist system. It is what happens when class capitalism tries to recapture and reassert the economic hegemony of its dominant class through political means.
@@krystalsummers1436 Your massive wall of text is still forgetting one very crucial detail about fascism: it is a socialist ideology. I have no idea why you think fascism is an outgrowth of liberal capitalism, when it opposes both vehemently. You have a very Soviet way of looking at fascism - they are tools of the capitalist class. This is simply untrue - plain and simple. Fascism was born out of the European socialist movement as a reaction to the failure of international Marxism after WWI. Fascism is not pro-capitalism, companies are not free under fascism the same way they are under liberal regimes. Fascism is socialism for the nation. This is what Fascism is defined as. Conservatives in Germany allied with Hitler because they let their hatred of communism blind them to Hitler's own totalitarian ideology. They still didn't like him or his extremist ideologies, but it was an alliance of convenience. Do not confuse conservatism with the revolutionary and socialist in nature ideology that is fascism. Imperialism is not fascism - because fascism is not specifically about imperialism, but rather a revolutionary change in society towards totalitarianism. Read Zeev Sternhell and the writings of Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini if you want the actual history of fascism.
He does that to appear smart to people, who are not very smart. He isn't saying anything smart; he is just trying to appear smart and overwhelm the opponent with the number of arguments he makes and words he produces. A tactic commonly used by people, who try to push you some pseudoscience or some scam. Thing is that Ben Shapiro doesn't win debates. He makes sure his audience believes he won the debate. A debate trained person would probably see through constant use of logical fallacies, appeals to feelings, use of disproven statistics (often paired with some fallacy) and just bullshit moves like his studio assistants blocking an opponent's microphone to not let said opponent prevent Ben from doing his thing: Building an easily destroyable strawman in a monologue with himself. He is an ignorant person's intellectual. Even the thing he built his career on, - very controlled "debates" with people, who might've been more versed in topics he talked about, but lacked the debating skills, is basically "ignorant person's intellectual", aka pseudointellectual thing. This probably is the reason why Ben, like most far right pundits, runs away from any skilled debater - if he loses the unfair advantage and is forced to fight using facts, he will lose, since left wing positions are in most cases based on science (hence why most scientists end up going left - left is just most connected to factual reality). What's truly tragic is that Ben has a cult of personality, which hears him say that he doesn't believe in facts which don't align with his feelings, and praises Ben for being incredibly factual and logical. Like, even his slogan "facts don't care about your feelings" is both a projection and a continuation of this fake factuality.
I hate these pseudo libertarians who claim to be libertarians but actually support government regulations against freedom as long as it's a Republican who's doing it.
That’s pretty much all of them. Most of them say the eh support limited government with a government funded military, and police force. They only want government to fund jackbooted stormtroopers basically.
Yes! This is exactly what I think! Whenever a progressive proposes something that requires government regulations or "government doing stuff", it's authoritarian and socialist, but when a right-wing politician does the same, it's suddenly "law and order".
@@aftokratory might it just inform you of something. Conservatism is about less government not more so its convenient he and all you have forgotten that little detail. and if when your talking about "law and order" are you referring to you know antifa going around terrorizing people and in certain states getting away scot free?
I think that one of the problems is that people uses political terms as emotional identifiers. In other words, libertarianism=good, marxism=bad. So, it ends up with people just calling whatever left political position as marxism and anything that counterpoints it as libertarianism. When people like Shapiro says that he's libertarian, what most people hears is not "I support individual freedom of everyone over everything as much as an organized state would allow". What they hear is "hey, I don't like communism, but I'm not a proto-fascist, whatever this means". And that's kinda sad because it borrows the concepts from political theory and just empties them, so we can't use them in discussions anymore without having to re-conceptualize everything
@@pendejo6466 There's a difference between people refusing to take responsibility for their actions, and people talking like the only solution is people taking responsibility for their own actions. Shapiro is doing the latter. My statement is criticizing him for that (because he's saying "YOU take care of it!" while the world burns. His solution isn't adequate, never was, never will be. But that's right-wingers for you, always expecting everyone else to fix the problems.
@@watamatafoyu However, collective responsibility, at the end of the day, comes down to individuals acting responsibly. I think the emphasis of individual responsibility, in the modern era at least, is a reaction to the blame-seekers who always have a reason on hand to attribute their failures to everything else but themselves. It's never their fault, someone or something made them do it, and they never had a choice. People frequently transcend their environment, childhood circumstances, and any number of disadvantages to create the good life without complaining and deflecting responsibility. Those are the people I trust to produce societal progress.
Personal responsibility is the best advice to an individual but is a bad policy for a government. The purpose of the government specifically ought to be dealing with issues that individuals can't resolve on their own (e.g. tragedy of commons). Update: Thanks for correcting the improper reference to tragedy of commons here. It is a concept used as a case for private ownership not government.
@@chitx4391 though admittedly it's not very straightforward to determine which government interventions will result in better results than no action at all.
@@maadhujovi9528 A long time ago, the government of England had these large, freely accessible grazing grounds called commons, for farmers to graze their livestock. However, farmers had no incentive to regulate how much their livestock ate, and as a result the lands ended up becoming over-grazed. That was the original tragedy of the commons.
@@BanglaBoy52 literally name any right libertarian who could even define redlining, let alone care about the concept - if they believe in redlining as a problem they have to admit that there *are* systemic racial, economic, etc issues and not just a collection of personal failings. They can't and won't do that, and you're not fooling anyone by saying otherwise.
I'm sure ben gets a lot of letters from former homeless people who went on to graduate from Harvard. That seems like a totally real, and common thing, for sure...
How much of what you earn does someone else deserve? Compassion is never measured by what you force others to give. It's only measured by what you voluntarily give.
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle roads are largely paid for by state and local taxes. Same with fire protection, schools, police. Calls to cut the size of the Federal Government have little to no impact on roads, schools, etc. No need (nor logic) in sending money to DC an hoping to get it back to build a road or fix the pothole on my local street. So those bringing up roads fail to understand the different levels of government.
man i love the whole "oh this person was homeless or poor and they turned their life around" shit cause like yeah its inspirational, but i wonder why they were struggling in the first place. couldnt have been the system that put them there. not at all.
the system didn’t put them there, rampant drug abuse and dropping out of school did. the system isn’t responsible for their personal mistakes and the taxpayer shouldn’t be either.
@@thetruthcaboose2293 Probably never informed himself how homeless people become homeless in the long run. Like people drop out of school and get addicted for the lols...
a lot of these fools subscribe to some notion of "capitalist realism" where they see this system that has only existed for a few hundred years as "the natural order" and the baseline for society. it simply can't be helped or adjusted in their eyes cus that'd be communism!!!1!! so better to double down and accept it as the baseline rather than do a thing to challenge the politicians and/or their wealthy benefactors
@@hulahula6182 *Person becomes homeless because parents die before he is 12* *hula hula sitting in front of a computer, chilling, watching youtube*: ah bruh you shouldve got a better financial planing, smh
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.” ― Christopher Hitchens
@@sheevirwin8399 You only believe that because you were lucky enough to be born into a first world environment where you are so bored and pampered that you find time to bitch about a few cents coming out of your precious paycheck to help the less fortunate. that said: Hitchens was a piece of a shit and the world is a better place without him in it.
My ex is a "right wing libertarian" and he kept telling me about personal responsibility. Like... dude I live below the poverty line and I am a full time student, I can't just "start a business" or "work", it'll fuck over my grades so bad I'll fail school. Shits more difficult than just "lmao don't be poor" "just work" and I hated it so much that he put me into the basket of "yeah it's your own fault you're poor". Could've thrown him out of a window for that. Wish I did that.
Saddest part is studying full-time, if you look at it rationally, is in fact taking personal responsibility. Really, doing anything productive, or making an investment in future productivity, and doing so full-time, is taking personal responsibility. I will say that some part-time work can be manageable to help get you by, but it is unreasonable to expect you to be heavily invested in building a business or taking on full-time work. The existence of "useless degrees" (which some people fall into the trap of) aside, the majority of students in university majoring in fields that are marketable enough to open doors for careers are, in fact, taking on personal responsibility. "Being poor at the moment" as a mark of shame? My left nut! Idiot of an ex likely had financial help like I did. My family paid for my schooling at a reputable university in my home state of Pennsylvania. Adam Something remarks on his loads of advantages. I rarely saw my classmates who had to take out loans as "lacking personal responsibility". If anything, I watched some of my fraternity brothers not only go to university full-time like I did, but, unlike me who took the occasional part-time shift at local businesses for extra spending money, they were relying on (while going for demanding degrees like engineering, teaching, IT, pre-med, etc.) working for all of their living expenses, and taking out loans for tuition. It seemed like our house was an exception. Most of my brothers were in fact from blue-collar backgrounds and were never given an advantage like I and a few of the other guys did. Seeing that, and living with them, and seeing how hard they worked, taught me about the impact of privilege big time; my family provided me with money that so many other young adults don't get. It almost became a meme that engineering students (like half my house) work their asses off every hour available except party-time Fri/Sat night (where they would totally let loose) and the Sat/Sun mornings after (the wicked hangover). They studied constantly; double-digit hour sessions ahead of exams; much more than I did. And they also worked constantly; much more than I did. For some, that level of overwork was so toxic to them that they were forced to drop out. I saw close friends of mine buckle under the load of the demands of university and work amid a disadvantaged background; despite their failures (and in some cases, continuing difficulty in life to this day) to overcome adversity, I regardless have nothing but respect for their efforts. To continue with my privilege, lacking student debt, I was able to, years later, decide that the career I had gotten my bachelor's degree for, and spent a couple of years working in (IT)...was not my thing, and I moved to the construction trades and became an electrician. That option would have been far more difficult for me to manage had I been working to pay off student debt. I may not have managed it. Without financial privilege, I could have been stuck in a career I ended up hating, and spent years doing so just paying down debt so that I could even start to think about a different, more fulfilling path. As for "libertarianism"...I do consider myself one...although I do lean left. I don't mind being left-libertarian. But it often does require clearing up some misconceptions that have come about as a result of the right-wing appropriating libertarianism as if they own it.
Not to mention starting from scratch and getting on your feet in this country is difficult af. Finding a job in general is a pain in the ass. Firstly, if you don’t have the money for a car your options become severely limited, and people don’t drive for a variety of reasons. Secondly, more and more “beginner” jobs require previous work experience and have more and more expectations. Thirdly, unless you live in like an expensive area, minimum wage in this country is awful, the prices of literally everything have gone way up while minimum wage has barely budged since like the 80s or 90s. And last but not least, relating to the previous point, since the price of everything has gone up, majority of your money gets spent on basic necessities so you never really get a chance to get any richer than you are, unless you get lucky. The baby boomer ideologies of “just get a job,” “work is all that matters,” and “work hard and you’ll make big,” just don’t work anymore (no pun intended). Hard work does not pay off anymore, unless you work like multiple jobs and sacrifice every moment of your life just to working and sleeping with zero free time. More and more young people are still living with their parents because there is like no other options, most people are stuck in car centric sprawls and maintaining a car isn’t cheap, gas isn’t cheap, insurance isn’t cheap, etc. Most of these right wing “just start a business lmao” people are where they are right now because they got a lot of help along the way. Ben Shapiro for example, his mother worked as an executive in Hollywood, he skipped two grades, was a child prodigy, and was boosted to the spot light with his violin skills, allowing him to eventually have a nationally syndicated newspaper column at age 17 and make it into graduate school and law school. He never had to pull himself up by any boot straps. He doesn’t know what it’s like to start off from literally nothing.
The problem with the personal responsibility argument as it's usually made is that personal responsibility can only take you so far. Shit happens and we need a social safety net to alleviate economic turmoil at both the individual level and in a national level for recessions and depressions. The biggest threat to both personal responsibility and social well fair programs isn't the people who will abuse the system at the individual level but government and corporate corruption. Trying to argue against social welfare programs because some people will infact abuse them is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Hell, even the idea of "Personal Responsibility" would require you to be active in changing societal problems. You are part of society, you're actions AND inactions contribute to that society. If society is screwing people over in some way, YOU are contributing to that system, thereby making it your responsibility to step in and address it. People who cry "Personal Responsibility" very conveniently and arbitrarily draw a line in the sand and say "this is where my responsibility ends".
it's very transparently a shameless passing of the buck. any time a rightard says "personal responsibility" you can replace it with "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD"
Most of them are also too selfish or incompetent to do anything for the good or the planet or society. The people who scream about their freedoms the most are more often than not, the people who stampede others during Black Friday or have roadrage over every little thing. They are mostly manchildren that throw tantrums when they are held accountable to the law instead of getting the Anarchy they believe they want. They actually think they wouldn't go berserk within 5 minutes if all laws ceased.
the Personal responsibility argument always reminds me of the old saying " if 1 guy calls you a horse, punch him, if two guys call you a horse, punch 'em both, if 100 guys call you a horse - better get a saddle." If you're not succeeding try harder, but if everyone who looks like you isn't succeeding, it's time for a different approach.
The problem with this idea is that no amount of wrong answers makes an answer correct. If you are actually _not a horse_ , having 100 people chant around you calling you a horse does not magically transform you. I can't even imagine what mental disorder would make someone think that this is a rational way to think. Mob mentality _never_ creates correct information as it is. If a mob all agrees on a single topic, what they believe is probably _wrong_ .
@@AtariEric Perhaps this is a bad analogy. I can't really figure where my head was here. My point was that personal responsibility is an individual problem which can explain the difference between individuals, personal responsibility can't explain the differences between large groups. A basic understanding of markets would demonstrate that, if personal responsibility was an effective solution to inequality it would be expected to have equal distribution among all groups, hence the onus is on the person claiming some groups lack personal responsibility to prove that is not the case. Furthermore lack of personal responsibility can't be a primary cause for a groups behavior, you'd either have to provide a systematic or biological reason for individuals within a specific group to select against personal responsibility in different proportions to other groups.
Take responsibility, if you fail try again, and if you keep failing then learn from your mistakes and improve upon them keeping in mind the success you have made along the way.
I think a fairly significant reason as to why a lot of people on the right think that everything can be solved by taking personal responsibility is because a lot of system issues, on the surface, can look like personal ones. Since a lot of people (both left and right) tend to not really dig deeper, or just simply don’t care about it, they just look at it at a glance and provide a shitty solution since they don’t know a whole lot about the problem.
I think also the problem (at least part of it) is that they come from more privileged part of society: you see more often white christian cis-het to be right-wing than black gay muslims. And yes, to them, most of their problems can be solved personnally: it's the issues of discrimination, poverty, etc that most requires a societal effort, and they are not subject to those kinds of issues.
@@rvsen5351 Personally I would say that poverty can be fixed on a personal level, it just takes an extreme amount of discipline, making other people fix your poverty for you is essentially discriminating against people who had discipline to raise themselves to a better position. Discrimination I could say is a societal issue however the only real fixes to it are further discrimination like affirmative action which is a catastrophe.
@@rvsen5351 but I don't see government trying to solve the problems of black gay muslims. We see them trying to solve the problems of the single mom who has kids with 7 different baby daddies. (My mother was a single mother, two kids, two different fathers, so I didn't grow up in some privileged home.) Lather, rinse and repeat for a whole host of issues. Many of the problems CAN be addressed by simply making different choices. But as long as only SOME are held to some "social contract" without holding EVERYONE to a contract, you are going to have some legitimate resentment by those who are always presented the grasshopper's bill. Most folks want to help those who have suffered some unfortunate circumstance. However, there is a limit and when it is repeated, the person is less likely a victim and more likely a volunteer to that circumstance. I.E. you have one unplanned kid, yeah, stuff happens. You have seven and you may be part of the problem.
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle Never mentioned millionaires in my above comment, not being in poverty and being a millionaire are extremely different. To not be in poverty you need hard work and discipline, to be a millionaire you have to have those plus a lot of risk tolerance and luck.
The nice thing about personal responsibility is that you can take it whenever you want. Solving systemic issues doesn't detract from your ability to take responsibility for your choices and actions.
Of course. Everyone understands that. The issue is that if one has any interest in improving society on a systemic level, they are just dismissed as “woke” according to the American right wing. Which is completely insane and extremist.
"People who were single mothers and then... took a college course" You mean they married their degree, the university changed their gender, or lost their child? How does his logic work? There are also single moms who chose to be single moms, it is not always a sad story.
Lmao. What if they are single mothers, but they are rich as heck? Oh gosh, they make so many assumptions, it's literally as if those archetypes are obvious, their speech and mind is ridden with those black on white views of the world.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Juvenile? Benjamin Shapiro said people used to be single mothers before getting college degrees, this states that single motherhood and college degree holder are mutually exclusive states of being. Nothing wrong with critiquing someone's poor choice of wording, and flawed ideas.
You need to take some responsibility but the government still needs to provide opportunities. Public schools and decent public transportation are good examples. They give you a much better chance in life but you still need to take advantage of those opportunities on their own
@@toptiergaming6900 oh i thought this was another comment from someone that didn’t watch the video acting like he thinks personal responsibility doesn’t matter, my bad. sorry
the government needs to not exist to govern - ie to control if you want to be controlled just sell yourself as a slave to someone and leave the rest of us out of it
I would argue that the main goal of a government should be to give the highest percentage of its citizens the highest quality of life possible at the lowest cost regardless of the methods (although the methods you listed are among the best for achieving that goal). And although people should be given as many personal freedoms as reasonable simply because the ability to choose in and of itself is a significant factor in improving ones quality of life, that doesn't mean people should be allowed to choose things in ways that endanger others or would deny some people access to basic necessities like food, water, shelter, and healthcare.
Most of the time, people follow set routes in their daily routine, so replacing cars with public transit for the day to day grind would be a good idea-reserving cars for the times when their 'flexibility' is necessary.
Personal Responsibility is an important principle of citizenship, but it is an inadequate basis for public policy. As an example, imagine if public safety on city streets was solely dependent on each pedestrian and vehicle driver exercising Personal Responsibility in determining when to cross each street intersection. While this policy works well enough during times of sparse traffic, it produces chaotic, unsafe results in more crowded situations. Rather than relying solely on Personal Responsibility, cities have found it far safer to enforce explicit rules and regulations of passage through public streets (e.g. pedestrian crosswalks, clearly marked traffic lane dividers, standardized vehicle and pedestrian stoplights, etc.) with which all citizens are required to comply. This concept of Civic Responsibility is just as important as Personal Responsibility in maintaining a high quality of life for all members of society.
So what is your idea of personal responsibility? does it not include your sense of civic responsibility? could personal responsibility be the way that we act and engage in social life so that it is beneficial to ourselves and other people? Take your traffic policy, for example, personal responsibility doesn't mean you can do whatever you want in traffic while disregarding other people, of course, you can play that game but it's a short game and doesn't yield good benefit for your beings and others for long. Now if we have a set of rules in traffic, things are clear, we all can play the game for a long and peaceful while. But then you can say that the game is not what you want, and you ought to play it whether you like it or not, what would you do then? would you devote your own time and energy in order to abolish the game? while you have already benefited from the game itself for a long time? or would you try to improve the game itself? or perhaps screw it and you walk away from the game, we are human with free wills after all, ain't we?
I am a libertarian, (gosh now it sounds like shit) one who thinks that racism is rather shooting urself in the foot; and indeeed as much as responsibility matters we shouldn’t expect all to be perfect; there has to be some level of law enforcement when a mistake can be certainly critical. Ofc another solution would be having a better education like in Europe. Would be maybe cheaper but definitely safer
slightly offtopic but there was an instance in my town where a very often-clogged and jammed intersection had its traffic signals down for maintenance, and traffic flow drastically improved because people would just take the intersection like a stop sign, instead of a full stop and wait 2 minutes while an endless line piles up behind you.
Isn’t molyneux a perfect example of this? Didn’t the dude go from saying that Mexican immigrates should be able to just move here because he’s anti borders to basically being a white nationalist now?
Stef is not a white nationalist at all. That's just a BS smear. He spoke about how people of different races tend to have different average IQs, and didn't even claim that whites have the highest. That is what earned him the title of white nationalist in the mainstream media. You will also find that most libertarians (including Stef) think that should be no borders, however, in the status quo with a welfare state, this is not possible.
Mexicans by rigth live in any states of USA with spanish name, after all the USA stole all those states from Mexico. Mexicans remember that and never renounced to those lands. Plus WASP are dyng out anyway.
@@35mm21 Actually, he did say which race was smartest...on average of course. Defense against what exactly? I do find it amazing that people can't handle this proposal that races may have different average intelligences.
@@35mm21 I tell you what, why don't you go find me some quotes of Stef's demonstrating his preference for a white ethnostate. That would be a better way to have this debate rather than just calling me stupid.
I don’t see a good reason why one wouldn’t be able to persue both personal responsibility AND systemic change. It’s only that this isn’t the story being told.
Yea, but that is just your opinion, man. Would you have any arguments for that, or are you saying it just because it seems nicely symmetrical and it makes you look like you are above the petty right-wing / left-wing argument?
@@ivorne542 Okay, let's take one theoretical example. First let me define what I mean by systemic: something that effects the entire system as a whole. So, maybe you are aware that within the U.S. half of the states do not distribute educational funds equally. That means the rich areas get more funding and the poor areas less funding. Let's target one aspect of that - due to higher funding in the rich areas all of their high schools have computer engineering classrooms. That means there is an opportunity to learn programming, software, etc. at the school using current technology. Now, does that mean everyone will learn? - No. If someone wants to learn software programming it is still their personal responsibility to sign up for classes and actually study to build their skill. So just the availability of the computer engineering classroom means that the education system provides the resources but can't make someone learn. Now, let's look at the opposite side - a poor county. They get some education funding from the state but not enough to have a real computer engineering classroom. They also don't have any full time teachers who are focused on that subject. There are a few older computer systems here and there in the school but nothing current for the students to use. So that local school system doesn't have the necessary resources for students to learn those subjects. The students are on their own and must use their home computer systems to learn what they need to learn. Very few of them will do that because they don't even know how to learn. In addition, their parents are probably not well educated and won't drive them to excel even if they are intelligent enough to do it. Now, comparing the two counties it is almost certain that the rich area will have more students graduate who know computer engineering or related subjects. So, would making sure that the poor county had more funds fix the problem? - for some individuals yes. But the poor area would also require a much more intensive approach involving parents and students to make them understand that they must drive their own education. Providing the resources is only half of the picture. In fact if you just provide system improvements you are not going to have the desired impact. But it is a necessary part of improvement. Just focusing on the personal responsibility side doesn't even recognize the systemic issues that we have as issues. It is kind of just excepting the dog eat dog world that we live in. The problem is currently the U.S. is losing its position in the world and we can't compete with what we are up against. We really need more of our citizens to reach their potential, but guys like Ben Shapiro have decided that a large part of the population are just trash to be disposed of because they couldn't make it. I could go on and talk about system after system here in the U.S. - health, banking, credit, prisons etc. Every last one of them have systemic issues. However, aspects of their operation won't improve without the individuals involved taking personal responsibility (quick example - to be healthy not only requires medical services to be available and affordable but for people to take responsibility for their health - exercise, don't eat bad food, etc.). So, anything I've said here illogical?
@@ivorne542 If you dont improve yourself how in hell are you going to change anything else. If you arent strong you have nothing to effect the world with and instead will just be dragged along by the societal current because "its too hard" to work for what you want
@@ivorne542 This is already proven to be the best scenario.If people are personaly responsible,and ths system is good,their country is great at something For example,Japan has free healthcare,but its people take the resposibility of staying healthy themselves,which is why their healthcare system is very cheap. This is also one of the reasons,nay,the main reason why free public healthcare wouldn't work in America,its citizens aren't taking any responsibility for their own health
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." ~John Rogers
To be fair Atlas Shrugged is a great mystery thriller story with unique and interesting characters, and extremely good pacing. It's just that you need to be mature enough (or at least have played Bioshock) to identify its end goal as pure fantasy. I've read it at 30 and had a great time without it magically turning me into an ancap or libertarian.
I'm not disagreeing, I just reacted to the apparent disdain towards the book's literary value in that quote. It is good fiction. (Also I subscribe to the approach of "death of the author" when consuming media, so Rand's opinion about the book's realism is irrelevant to me.)
@@rustkitty Fair enough, but I’m guessing “Dyanetics” has “good pacing” too. Not really the point. It’s sad that people have let this woman’s ideas pollute their minds. Did you know she was inspired by a serial killer who stuffed a 12yo girl’s torso full of newspapers to get some ransom money? It’s true. Look it up. I’m sure Neil Peart had plenty of reason to revere those books and ideas, but as a real life political ideology, it makes no sense and is counter-productive to civilization….HENCE, the horrific act that inspired Libertarianism.
@@hadara69 Dianetics is a manifesto/religious book and not narrative fiction so the comparison is not apt. Since you brought up serial killers, perhaps a better comparison would be the music of Charles Manson, which is indeed good music even thought it's made by a murderer and racist cult leader. Bad people can make good art. Compare that with irredeemable trash like for example The Turner Diaries, which is both horrifying and bad literature. Like I said, I'm reflecting on the quote belittling Atlas Shrugged as a piece of literature just because the politics it represents is bad. This is a fallacious tactic and it's always saddening to see people on "my side" make such painfully bad arguments. Libertarianism is untenable on its own merits, we don't need to come up with silly smear tactics.
I think it's less a matter of there being a libertarian to fascist pipeline, although there is one, but rather that fascists will simply never admit to being fascists, and thus have co-opted 'libertarian'. They used to just say 'conservative', but after the Romney-Trump civil war they had to distinguish themselves.
My understanding of libertarianism is about as opposite of my understanding of fascism as something can be. I often see libertarianism as being somewhere between left and right, removing responsibilities from the government and hence removing opportunities for government to fill responsibilities in either a left or right manner. Extreme libertarians are often critiqued as being anarchists. I understand fascism as a strict form of government with tight control over the economy and extreme crack downs on opposition, some kind of dictatorship, very restricted speech. What am I missing here?
Libertarians, most of the ones in America at least, are generally considered "right of center" (I personally think the political spectrum is almost useless for determining something's ideology, but everyone still uses it). They generally side with Republicans more often than with Democrats if they don't vote Libertarian. Because of this, some leftists deem them to be "Fascist" not because their ideology is anything close to what Fascism is, but because they simply don't like them. This channel seems to greatly misinformed on what Fascism actually is.
Far right pundit like Ben Shapiro use right libertarianism as a guise for their actual right wing authoritarianism. Another word for right wing authoritarianism is fascism.
These people people have been changing and reinterpreting 'fascist' so that to them it basically means: 'someone who opposes things we support'. I believe that the USA is at the point where if someone installed an actual fascist government, people like this youtuber and his fanbase would totally support it, while still believing they're the antifascists. The right calls them commies, but fascist policies would be much closer alligned to the far left in the USA than communist ones would. Fascism was like communism light, the understanding that the state doesn't need to own everything, but instead control everything. The communist idea of class struggle was replaced by class cooperation, where the state could control the elite for the benefit of society rather than destroying them and nuking your economy like had happened in Russia. I see it as the concept being a 'socialist evolution', instead of a 'socialist revolution' like the Soviet-Union.
Personal responsibility will only get you out of poverty if it got you into it. If the system puts you into a situation, it’s most likely that it’s also going to be the only thing that can get you out. Personal responsibility only has an effect if you live in a society where work and effort truly means better quality of life.
If the system puts you into a situation, it is also very likely it'll leave you there and forget about you. On the other hand, societies where work and effort truly have no impact on the individual's quality of life disintegrate pretty quickly.
It ain't the system that puts the bottle in your mouth. Most people are in poverty because they're lazy, addicted to a substance or just plain stupid. I grew up around poor people, so let's stop pretending like 90+ percent of them aren't poor because of their own fault.
@@user-xsn5ozskwg you know what, I don't think I can. I can't think of a society, so dumb that people in it had literally zero incentive to work, and so it collapsed. But can you think of an existing society, where people have no incentive to work? Or is it that our work incentives have no "true" impact on our quality of life?
And you expect that short clips specifically selected to use for criticism are going to give you an accurate or complete view of anyones positions? Especially when most of this video is extrapolation without evidence to show that is the direction its targets were actually going
@@jeice13 You're right. Instead Benji's years of spewing hateful, regressive bigotry paint a plenty clear picture his vicious contempt for most of humanity.
The problem, besides the fascism, is that we DO need personal solutions to personal problems, but we ALSO need systemic solutions to systemic problems. No amount of pulling-by-the-bootstraps is gonna fix climate change
@chris135x If you spill your glass of milk, do you clean it up or do you wait for your mom to clean it? It's not unreasonable to make the government clean up the milk it spilled itself.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around how libertarians view a billionaire funneling billions of dollars out of the economy using tax loop holes and offshore havens as admirable, absolutely not draining to society in any way in fact it’s very beneficial. But no it’s someone getting 100 dollars in food stamps a month that’s the issue with this country and they’ll always have these stories about how they see food stamp receivers buying lobster all the time. It’s a lie and a bad one that just shows you how outta touch they are
Q: How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb? A: If it really needs changing, the market will take care of it. Added in edit: Actually, I am a disillusioned-conservative-turned-libertarian; but many or most libs are disillusioned liberals.
As soon as a lightbulb is put in you can't prevent freeloaders from benefiting from it. As such, no one is prepared to pay to change it (except as a charitable donation) so it won't get changed.
What crap. A gross mischaracterization of Libertarianism. I don't believe you ever were Libertarian. So who do you want to change the light bulb? Obviously, the State, by taxing The Rich. You would never think of changing your own light bulb.
@@lonestarr1490 Why changing a lightbulb? There is a fire station somewhere in the USA where they have still working 100 years old light bulb...YOu change frequently because of capitalism, because of "invisible hand".
@Amin Yashed please, give me an example of someone who turned their life around without outside help? Just saying "wrong" to something you disagree with does not make it so.
I have been binging your videos and god I love this channel !!!! thank you so much, you can tell there is so much time, effort, and thought put into these videos. Great work!!!!!
Most people I've met (as a slightly conservative person myself) who claim to be libertarian are just some flavor of republican who for what ever reason don't want to Identify to be Republican. Usually it's to say to non conservatives in conversation, "I'm different, all those negative things your talking about the Republican party doesn't apply to me."
The trouble with personal responsibility is that some people make bad choices, and the best means of encouraging bad choices is taking away the negative consequences of those choices.
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896 How can you take away the negative consequences of someone's actions? If someone's action has a negative consequence attached to it, it isn't going to be one that we "enforce," every actions has consequences. Are you talking about like de-criminalization?
Because he's using coded language that appeals to his prejudiced fans. "Single moms", aka "welfare queens". It's a Reagan-era holdover. They're women living in an "nontraditional" way, and they're models of failure on the fascist's "personal responsibility" front. There's also an element of racism at play
@@chompythebeast There is evidence that most single mums can't make it work. Also, given the current labour shortage, there is cause to be concerned about welfare queens. To the Right, social programmes are skin to that British bounty on cobras in the 1890's. There are too many highly poisonous snakes about, so we pay people to kill them. Unfortunately, some greedy people decide to get more money by FARMING the undesirable species, and so the numbers actually RISE, and then the authorities give up paying bounties, and so we end up with larger populations of the animal than before. The complaints on the Right are all about the incentives created by social programmes and how those incentives can make things go wrong.
This could apply to literally any right wing influencer. Or the guys who worked a service industry job while their parents paid their rent for 1 month and just quits. Then comes to some very backwards conclusions about personal-responsibility based off that experience after parents give them a *very generous loan*.
@@POCKET-SAND Ah yes, the famous leftist Hitler who loves gays, advocates for minority rights, good and free education, same-sex marriage and worker unions. The classic leftist fascism!
@@ImpreccablePony Fascism is a corporatist, authoritarian, usually nationalistic, revolutionary and modernistic ideology. It is corporatist in the fact that it divides sectors of the economy into "bodies"/"corps", in which they are "guided" by the state. Usually this results in the corporations being puppeted by the government, but not entirely nationalized, though in many instances they are nationalized/annexed by the government, allowing for greater government control over the economy, but not to an extent that it is essentially a command economy a nature - a "State Capitalist" economy, in essence. Authoritarian in that one must serve of the state - one can be "free", so long as it serves the state. Often this "upgrades" into totalitarianism. Most fascists governments are nationalistic, though not all do have to be nationalistic. Revolutionary in the sense that they utilize violence, and want to break the current systems, and establish their own. Reactionary, yet modern, in the sense that they want to bring back a twisted form of the past, "revitalized" in their own vision, combined with the current progress of modernity - a strange mix of the past, present and future, muddled up into what they may consider to be "ideal". THAT is Fascism. Look it up.
I think the title should be "Why fascists use libertarianism as a front for their ideology" or something like that. There is nothing wrong with libertarianism as such, not even its right-wing side as long as they properly critique the de facto power that large corporations would have whether there is or isn't a government.
@Roniixx Partly agree with you there, as mostly he seems to describe socially conservative (ethno)nationalists, rather than fascists. He conflates auth-right with fascism, even though there are many different ideologies that fit that auth-right mold. But the core of the video is correct; authoritarian right wingers do have a curious tendency to abuse the label 'libertarian' to peddle their ideology. Probably because ringt wingers idolise US history, part of which is of course strong libertarianism, but in reality their views aren't libertarian at all. They just shoehorn their authoritarian views into historic US libertarianism, which of course doesn't fit.
@Roniixx Fascism means a "realistic order" adhering to "proven traditions". Right-wing libertarianism is for naive fools who want that but forget (or are naively oblivious) there's no way in h*ll they'll EVER achieve that without an organized state to do their bidding. As much as I loathe fascism I consider it an immensely superior system to right-wing libertarianism since while the fascists consider the lowest classes sheep they still understand those sheep need to be tended and protected. A libertarian believe he or she has zero obligations and responsibilities to anybody but himself and herself. It's a system for those with utterly out of touch with humanity and the reality it faces. Libertarians claim the police and the state should ONLY exist to protect property. And how exactly would such a state and police force be organized pray tell? Any right-wing libertarian sounds like this:"We hate a strong state, but we very much like a state the (be strong enough) to protect OUR rights and property. In other words we have nothing against the state per se as long as it represent our rights and not the democratic rights of people." See where this is going? There's one class who understands the right-wing libertarian system better than anybody. THE MAFIA. Rest assure they will knock on your door and offering their "protection for tribute" when there's nothing standing against them. In order to limit their power and to prevent ruthless people like them from having a field-day. People understood this *centuries* ago. Which is why we have a democratically elected government accountable for the people. Don't like the government? Elect a new one? Don't like the bipartisan system in the frickin' USA? Then reform the archaic electorate system. Abolishing the state is as foolish as to blame the doctors for being responsible for people dying of cancer and hence are useless. An infantile knee-jerk reaction fit for noone. Right-wing libertarianism is for the naive fools who have this bizarre notion that given freedom everybody would just automatically find common ground and come to a fair agreement and that *nobody* would *ever* abuse such a system to their own advantage. It's for those who seem utterly unaware of what kind of people are out there and what they're willing to do.
I'd point you to anarchism (actual anarchism, of the libertarian socialist kind), but I think overall only strawmans of the radical left could be said to not believe in personal responsibility.
Whenever I have ideas that start to lean towards libertarian ideals I just look up what Shapiro has to say about and he does a great job of talking me out of it lmao
Oh so this is the mindset that led him to say that when the world is drowning you can sell your home and move away. I thought it was a brief moment of stupidity on Ben’s part.
I don't see the issue with the concept though. If sea levels do rise because of climate change, it will be a slow and gradual process over the span of decades. Home buyers will anticipate the possibility of flooding and avoid coastal properties over time. The buildings will depreciate over the course of decades, not instantaneously drop to zero. If the property changes hands enough times, the effects of depreciation will be spread out and not cause an immediate financial burden.
@@IncrediblyStupidName The rising of sea levels might seem slow, but with each small increase in level there is exponentially more land surface that is going to be flooded( if the shore is reasonably flat, which it mostly is). And when people purchase a property it is usually intended for a long stay, even generations. So if a large land mass was to be flooded in a time frame that is short enough to worry about, no one would have a incentive to purchase a home the is at risk, especially with that threat being widely known.
literally everyone is in favor of using violence to deal with government if they get pushed beyond a certain point.. what pushes people over that line can change depending on ideology and comes down to the individual.
All they have to do is: -Talk fast -Say nothing -Overlap points -Don't allow opponents to interject and address each point individually -Interrupt -Gaslight -strawman argue -rewrite history -blame your opponent for not comprehending your unorganized invalid ideas -fall back on your bona fides when in doubt or in trouble. Ben Shapiro may be smart handsome and rich but is still somehow repugnant proving these traits don't make a good person
handsome? smart? no... i mean i guess he has a sort of "book smart" intelligence, but you'd never be able to glean that from his show, or anything he's written, just an appeal to the authority of getting a law degree from a prestigious Uni... which isn't nothing, but i don't think he's v smart. but i get how ppl could think he is. handsome, otoh...
@@ListenHereOldMan I can't stand him but you gotta give him some credit. He was a prodigy by the age of 20. He just makes my skin crawl. I'm also self aware enough to know that his physical attributes are better n mine so... He can have that win too. I'd still rather be me all broke n ugly
I think I'm inbetween, the individual responsibility shouldn't be ignored, but the system shouldn't either. For the society to get better, I think both need to improve.
Individual responsibility for a person is some of the best advice. The problem is that u can’t hire a therapist for everyone in the country and have them tell them u need to work harder. Making people’s life better needs to start with institutions
Even the very ability of a person to take responsibility stems from things out of their control. It always comes down to systemic change, an effect can't come before a cause.
"Libertarians want the benefits of living in a civilized society, while not contributing to the society being civilized." - some legend on the internet, whose name I forgot. e.g. They dont want to pay taxes, but they sure as hell enjoy the roads being maintained.
@@YoelRekts They seem awfully selective about that part but they love mentioning roads, Social Security, Medicaid, National Endowment for the Arts, schools, etc. Yet far too many always seem to leave those pesky wars out of their diatribes. Couldn't have anything to do with the massive corporate profits they generate. . . Nah.
You can very much believe that you have to take care of yourself and that you can improve your own situation by your own means,i.e. take personal responsibility, and still believe that the system, while maybe not completely broken, at least is a rigged game that is badly played and needs to ultimately change. I guess the problem is believing that you'd get anywhere with only one of those two things (because clearly: we don't)
@@chris135x The reason he is talking about Ben Shapiro because he is (or was) a self described Libertarian. The argument that Adam Something is making isn't that libertarians are inherently right wing populists, but that many self described libertarians are right wing populists. He even mentions in the video that Libertarians are the antithesis to fascists, did you not watch it?
@@huncho6238 Ben Shapiro is just a conservative. He's not a libertarian. Being a conservative or a liberal is not the same abs being a libertarian. I don't need to watch the video to be told what a libertarian is. I am one.
"If you believe in personal responsibility, you believe the system is fine" Logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Two things can be true at once, people need to accept responsibility for their lives, AND, we need to make serious improvements to the social and government systems here in the US.
Yes, spotted that. This guy would present his points better if he didn't operate with a bias. Coming from somebody who couldn't care less about all this left/right divisive bs
I think that the meaning of personal responsability in this sentence is "your situation as a direct result of your choices in life". If you believe in that for everybody, without making the sum of the behaviours, the only conclusion is that everyone deserves to be where they are, and so the system is fine.
@@supra2169 you are partially right. Personal responsibility, as my libertarian friends present it, is how you can deal with situations from a particular point on. We have no control over our place and nature of upbringing, financial conditions, and so many other random issues that we face every day. We cannot change those. But what we can change is how we react to them, how we play the things that often play us. Ppl are born unequal, and the system will probably always be flawed, so use whatever resources and wit you have at your disposal and lift yourself and your loved ones up. If you can bring about positive change in the system, great. If you cant, your first priority should be yourself and your loved ones. Whatever system you are in, there is always a non zero probability of escape and freedom. It never means the system is fine as it is. It merely allows us to thi k of contingencies if the situation never improves. I share the same philosophy. I have one life, and I realize that the majority of ppl have tragic, unfruitful lives... And we all end in the same way, death without any choice in the matter. So, why be morose about the obvious. Fight for greater equality, but don't be stupif enough to enter into somebody else's servitude through that same fight. Revolutions have leaders, and they might not have your best interests at heart. To sum it up, personal responsibility is looking out for yourself. It is by no means a systemic solution, hence myself not being a libertarian even though i agree with all this. Remember, we all deserve equal rights, but we are probably not all equal. Its just nobody has the authority to decode who's stupid and who isn't
That is certainly true but I think a large issue is that there are quite a few people who DO think the system is fine and use 'personal responsibility' as an excuse to not have to work to change anything.
speaking as a right libertarian, i couldn't agree more. at least with the issue of conservatives calling themselves libertarian. the number of people who call themselves libertarians but couldn't dream of criticizing the police, or city planning, or the drug war, or right wing legislation on lgbt rights, is frustrating beyond belief. particularly when these same people oppose free trade if it doesn't support the shitty inefficient businesses they're super into! they usually just tangentially find themselves agreeing with right libertarians when it comes to issues of free speech, not out of a principle of free speech, but because they specifically have shitty opinions they feel like they can't express
to defend jordan peterson, it doesnt seem to me that what he said was wrong. he didnt exclude the necessity of systematic improvement, he just said that too often people can forget the power they can exert on a personal level, and that when youre not in a position to rely on society to change, the best you can do is improve your own situation. it isnt a binary opinion of personal vs systematic
Exactly. There is a problem in politics where you have situations like: Racists blaming immigrants for losing their jobs or people blaming the government for making shitty choices, because the "government is evil/racist/communists/etc"
As someone who has some experience with him, this is one point that a lot of people misrepresent on both sides, but it makes perfect sense when you understand what he's actually talking about. He's not saying that systems don't matter and that there's no reason to try and change them, he's saying that you should approach the systems which govern us as a mature and developed person, rather than using a dream of systemic change to dodge what's more likely to be a problem with yourself. If you can't even keep your own bedroom in good shape, much less your familial and friendly relationships or your job (if you have one) or your finances or other important things, why would you be good at organizing abstract systems that happen on massive scales? Make sure that you are in a good place where you are stable and healthy and able to think things through with other people before considering massive quests to fix everything. There's certainly problems with the world, but the only thing worse than an armchair revolutionary is a basement revolutionary, because at least the armchair has a comfortable life they'd lose if their ideas turn out bad and that changes how they look at things. And this isn't even purely politics, although that's a common one. This isn't a new idea, either, there's philosophy going back over 2,000 years that says something similar. Confucius said that raising a country was like raising a family, and therefore an excellent leader was also an excellent family man because both could make the ones they were responsible for grow and realize themselves. That guy wasn't against systemic change: he argued FOR the Mandate of Heaven being conditional i.e. if the emperor sucks hard enough then just fucking kill him. But if you replace one worthless loser with another one, you haven't fixed anything, so if you want to make China a better place as emperor, start by being a virtuous individual. Now, I don't know about you, but I have definitely met people who used big ideas to shield themselves from the fact that their life sucked, and it was basically their fault, and they had no intention of changing it, and they were going to take out their frustrations over that by trying to be petty dictators over one political icon or another. With the internet, it's easy as hell to find encouragement for it and an outlet. But if you're miserable and poor now, then in 99 cases out of 100, even if you got what you wanted, you'd still be miserable and poor. So try to be a well-rounded human first.
@@rafeorr7855 this video displayed peterson and shapiro in a light that made it seem as though they saw it as a binary issue. i am disputing this framing
Thanks for acknowledging that left libertarians and even right libertarians are not the same thing as "those libertarians." It's so hard to explain to people that thinking people should have freedom and the government's role is to fuel and provide an individual's self sufficiency fairly and equally to where they can govern themselves is not fascism.
@@randcall5933 do you support public schools? Do you support children having food and a reasonably safe place to sleep? Do you believe in children having access to healthcare? That's the basic of what I believe in. It's not "welfare state" it's common sense. Raising children well means raising good civilians. Having good self sufficient civilians means they are able to raise children well.
People who think that relying on your personal responsability is the best way to improve your life aren't people who necessarily think that society and institutions are fine. It's a fallacy to say the opposite. Usually, Conservatives tend to think that even if society and institutions are imperfect, try to change them deeply and quickly will probably lead to a worse situation, both for individual freedom and for collective well-being.
What conservatism tries to conserve is _the current power relations within society._ That is, the people at the bottom of the pecking order are to remain at the bottom, and the people at the top are to remain at the top. If you keep this in mind, pretty much all conservative policy makes perfect sense. When conservatives propose a change, it is to strengthen some hierarchy they feel has been weakened. When they oppose a change, it's because they expect it to upset a hierarchy. All other arguments are window dressing.
@San Te child labor wasn't phased out because of Government intervention. The Government pased nominal bills after child labor had been phased out by the free market. Company towns are the same thing, except instead of the free market phasing them out, they left because the Government said they had to handle all the aspects of owning a town themselves including enforcing state and federal law. And again, the fact that things are getting like they used to be doesn't necessarily mean regression. Unless you think building homes to past longer is regressive, and designed obsolescence is progressive
I love when someone post a strong point of view, slightly controversial video about a real issue in society and every single so called "victim" starts commenting and whines about what it says with the obligatory BUT this doesn't describe them because such and such. This is when I like the RU-vid algorithm this video has soo many comments that soon it's going to be in everyone's feed
I'm libertarian, but a mutualist anarchist. The deeper i dove into the libertarian ideology the further to left it drove me. I'm a firm believer in individual sovereignty(a crucial component of women's reproductive rights before I get dunked on)and believe it or not I believe I have a duty to preserve individual liberties for everyone, not just ME. Do a piece on left libertarianism and its comparison/contrast with the right or vulgar model which has negatively coopted by the right.
The terms left and right are devoid of any logic or reason and simply meaningless as they only sit there to categorize groups of people poorly as to divide them without allowing for the deeper nuance that politics has to grow.
@@sirsteam6455 oh they do mean something. The Left is broadly pro-anarchy, the Right is broadly pro-hierarchy. Every opinion can actually be then put on this spectrum.
@@zunlise2341 Ok taking that definition then Capitalists and Socialists too are on the same side as well as progressives and Conservatives while the same happens on the other side with Communist Dictatorships, Absolute monarchies, Oligarchies ect do you see the problem all of those are very different to each other and operate in many different way and often see each other as enemies thus they don't mean anything meaningful that is as it is a useless way to categorize because you could just say authoritarian or anarchical.
As somebody who considers myself a left-wing libertarian, I see these right wing Libertarians in Facebook groups all the time. We usually tell them to go back to the Republican Party, because none of their views are in line with libertarian social views. I've seen fascist talking points used, and I've seen Christian nationalism. The only thing that gives me hope is I see other people who have a similar mindset to myself going after them as well.
@@theeverydaythinker6310 where exactly did I say "shout them down"? Explaining to someone that their authoritarian ideas don't line up with the party's values is not shouting them down.
I would love for this fictional homeless man turned Harvard graduate to come out and say that it was Ben Shapiro who changed his life and made it such. Cuz it never happened.
Libertarianism is about the ethics derived from: _Self-ownership, private property, voluntary associations and the non aggression principle_ How is that fascist, my friend?
so pretty much opposite of "all for the state, nothing outside of the state and nothing against the state". Individualism is directly opposite of fascism
Libertarians talk a lot about their principles, but in practice it always ends up being about the legitimacy of property owners to do whatever they want to make a profit, while the rest of us are free to suck the exhaust. Murray Rothbard was a neo confederate and a Holocaust denier. Hayek and Friedman were supporters of Pinochet, a literal fascist dictator. Libertarian institutions like the von Mises Institute are always defending those in power from those who have less power. What's called libertarianism in the US is just a grift for racism and fascism. And that's not just an opinion; it is the only consistent principle that keeps libertarians together. Their "freedom" is just the freedom of those with property to do whatever they want! edited for grammar
@@christianlibertarian5488 Ok, I'll bite. Difficult to know where to start though. Firstly personal responsibility is not "truth", it's an ideal, and in many respects not a very appealing one. Secondly your comment is rather assumptive; I'm actually doing fine, thank you, but a vast number of people in the world are not, and there is very little correlation between their wealth and either their effort or their talent. Obviously some people work harder than others, but that is far from being the only factor (or even the main factor) in someone's income or wealth. I find the idea that someone's financial wealth equates with their worth as a human being to be distasteful in the extreme. Thirdly, for many people, it's not about their "tastes" but about a basic standard of living and a roof over their head. And finally, I would say that to describe any kind of support for those who are down on their luck as "stealing" is inhumane, sociopathic, narcissistic. Given your username, I'll add "unchristian" to that list too; if you can point me to a biblical basis for the doctrine of "I got mine", I'd be very interested to see it. Please know that I am not accusing _you_ of being inhumane or any of those other things. But the world view you've expressed in your comment above seems to me to be, so if you personally are not any of these things I'd be interested to know how those things can be reconciled.
@@cooperised I believe you have constructed a strawman of your opponents here. "...the idea that someone's financial wealth equates with their worth as a human being..." - this is not at all what is meant by a strict importance of personal responsibility. your worth as a human being is completely independent of your financial wealth, and even your wealth in general; what isn't independent, however, is your wealth (both financial and in general) and the level of personal responsibility you choose, or are allowed or incentivized, to take. ('allowed or incentivized' being an important distinction for many in the world today) if the government, your family or community, or your own choices preclude you from being fiscally, legally, or morally responsible for your actions, it should come as no surprise to anyone that you end up being or acting definitionally irresponsible or otherwise winding up a serf or worse. conservative libertarians (not authoritarians, mind you) advocate for full personal responsibility because we know that the government incentivizes and often even forces, to the benefit of the government/ elites and to the detriment of the already or soon to be downtrodden and of the common man in general, personal responsibility to be alienated from the victim legally, fiscally, and morally. the only way to lift the downtrodden from the depths of depravity and despair is to restore agency to them, and to allow them to crawl back up to standing themselves, or they will not have the skills, ability, wisdom, want, or wherewithal (or any combination of them) to remain standing when you 'helicopter money' them into a temporarily better situation and right into absolute dependence on you and your helicopter money. this is not to say that charity has no place in society, but government not only has no right (it does what it wants anyway, but it constitutionally and morally has no right) but is also completely inept in any regard to do so effectively, and as mentioned has a perverse incentive to maintain a dependent poor class at the bottom, so would never structure its welfare to enable families or individuals to be independent. "...trying to justify stealing..." (from Christian Libertarian above) "...I'm actually doing fine, thank you..." (I believe this was your response in reference to the 'stealing' quote above, and will address it as such here) to steal does not necessitate the precondition that the stolen goods are for your consumption, or even for your remote physical benefit. the reason, if I may speak for this gentleman, (or lady) for the characterization of your position as justification for stealing, is twofold: -that the resources you advocate for using to relieve those in need of their need (so as to avoid saying 'let them eat cake' yourself) are, in whole or in part, not your resources by right, which makes taking them without consent of the owners theft, whether it be for your benefit or for that of others. -even if the presence of a benefit to you must needs be established to constitute theft, the act would still constitute theft because even though you would not receive the resources directly, you would benefit in that it would make you happy or otherwise emotionally satisfied. (that is to say, you would steal from others to appropriate their funds to your own emotional wellbeing, which is contributed to in part by the provision of goods to those who it pleases you to do so for)
@@cooperised You are missing the point of Libertarianism. It is prescriptive for economic activity and governmental policy. It is NOT prescriptive for personal morality, in the sense of one person's worth being greater than another based on wealth. It is likewise NOT prescriptive for how one should behave as a moral human being. That is why I put both "Christian" and "Libertarian" in my moniker. At base, those are conflicting. A Christian, seeing a person down on their luck, should do what they can to help. That can be anything from putting money in their cup to supporting charities that can improve such individual's lives. A Libertarian, on the other hand, would eliminate those governmental policies that have forced that person in to such a state. It would NOT use the coercive force of government to take money from a third party to give to such an individual. There are no philosophies devised by man that are perfect, that can provide all things to all people. Thus "Christian" vs "Libertarian." But using coercion (through the government) to force your desired outcome cannot be supported.
I find the Peterson-Shapiro dynamic interesting. Everything I've seen about Peterson seems to go in the line of "here's what you can do to make your life better", and then Shapiro takes that and says "see, there's nothing wrong with the system". Peterston should correct him if he disagrees whith that extrapolation,
Your correct about Peterson but about Shapiro, the man literally tells people over an open mic to give him example’s of systems in place that have the intent to discriminate. I don’t think he says everything is the system is jolly and well, especially with things like school choice and healthcare.
First we need to define fascism. Fascism is not when people are racist but has the aspects of: nationalism authoritarian/totalitarian regime freedom of the state rather than freedom of the individual militarism a sense of corporatism and more importantly fascism is an attempt to have capitalism but not have the issues that it brings and the social inequality that they have Yes these libertarian speakers do show aspects of fascism such as militarism or nationalism maybe but I think a lot of the aspects of fascism goes against their views such as authoritarian/totalitarian regimes or freedom of the state rather than freedom of the individual. To compare them to fascists would be an overstatement.
@@lol-ih1tl not necessarily. It's an attempt to have capitalism without all the issues and inequality that capitalism brings but it also has other aspects.
@Anubhav Phukan: _"and more importantly fa scis m is an attempt to have capi talis m but not have the issues that it brings and the social inequality that they have"_ Incorrect. Fa scis m was a branch of (sta te) soc ialis m with a dose of tota litarian ism and st atis m. They in fact opposed ca pitali sm and bourgeoisie.
If you polarise and individual responsibility is all there is, maybe. But real people are not like that. Or do you see libertarians ask to dismantle police forces, for example?
Individual responsibility would mean the bridge would've been repaired properly because whoever did the repairs would be responsible in doing so. But all idiots can do is twist definitions to fit their narrative, because being responsible and honest isn't something they're good at.
In an ideal world Civil rights act is wrong imho, it needs to be sacked. People should be able to regulate their private places completely. They can decide who to employ whom to not, based on their whim, and should not be answerable to anyone.
@@mr.greengold8236 Uh, I read another one of your responses and thought it was reasonable. But the fuck is this take lmao. I assume you have good intentions so you should probably rethink this.
The problem I notice is that the some people use personal responsibility for every problem. There are situations where personal responsibility is the best answer, BUT there are other situations where it isn’t. Personal responsibility was not the best answer to things like Jim Crow laws or monopolies.
Not every monopoly is bad, in fact, most bad monopolies exist because corporations get in cahoots with the government, the exact opposite of what libertarians want However, if a goods producer makes the best product on the market at the most attractive price and dominate the market as a result, then that monopoly its ok, its the result of people willingly choosing what they want, not being forced to buy something
@@CherryKnockoutYT a clear example is LEGO, they hold more or less a monopoly among brick building toys, but people buy LEGO not because is their only option, but because their toys are of better quality and offer a lot more variety than its competitors
by “personal responsibility” they mean “0 responsibility for anyone but me, none even for the society that I take advantage of ever day” and yea some poor suckers turn their lives around by being greedy rightwing trash and exploiting others - doesn’t mean that it’s the right damn thing to do.
@Gabriel Terrero Exactly. Wouldn't it be better to provide support for people who need it rather than just telling them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
@Gabriel Terrero If I were a single mother I would simply find the time to go to college, raise my child and work at the same time. Guess I'm just built different
That's a dumb theory. That's like if a conservative said that libertarian leftists are the same thing as tankies because they both believe in redistribution of wealth and social equality. Just ignore the fact that they mean different things when they say "equality" and they want to bring about their goals in completely different ways!
my mom is a left libertarian who is "so proud of the empathitic kiddo she raised" and yet when i was facing homlessness she bought a 900$ chandelier and was more concerned about me making it to her wedding. she'd only help me if i was going to college or had a fulltime job, despite the fact that im an unmedicated disabled person. i saw a lot of parallels between these right libertarians and her in your video. "its all about personal responsibilty, so if your kid dies and you could have helped, thats actually their fault" sorry to fucking traumadump in your comment section, just... wough keep up the good work btw, all your videos are fucking bangers!
Adam Something: "Right wing libertarians are basically the same as fascits because they support capitalism...which usually has though doesn't necessarily require private companies with bosses who tell their workers what to do...and therefore it's the same as supporting a form of authoritarian gov't that controls nearly every aspect of its citizens' individual lives." RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIGHT.
@@Theevil6ify He never said that, he said that using the "personal responsibility" as the only factor to resolve poverty can lead to really f*ck up ideas, like for example the idea that some races are more intelligent/hardworking and that's why there's differences in class. He even shows an example from those channels of a guy saying that "The blacks are committing crimes and the jews are spreading communism" I don't know where did you got all of those "private companies have bosses and therefore are authoritarian states" because he never implies nor says anything barely resembled to that.
@UC2IEbxQf1JWatJCd2XYlo0Q no you can’t lmao , let’s say you live in the projects . That’s government housing ( not even yours it’s government owned ) , if you live in an apartment , you most likely don’t own it and are paying rent. Most poor people don’t have assets lmao . People who have assets can but they’re not even lower class so this is a stupid point
@Mr Right Come on dude. You got a job and a work visa. I can assured you that most developed countries don't just give out work visas because the company hiring you will have to make a compelling case why they really really need you. That is not a "pack up and go" situation. I'm glad it worked out for it but your case is an outlier.
@Mr Right there is no country on earth giving out work visas to anyone to do any job. That's not how it works at all. It's not a matter of "doing research and finding it". Also no country would ever let someone in without sufficient monetary reserves for their stay and a ticket back. The vast, vast majority of foreign low skill workers in other countries are there illegally, not on some free first come first serve visa. You have so little idea how the world actually works you can't even write a convincing lie. You went on this whole rant to further some point because you can't do it with arguments, you had to write a real life fanfic. Even your writing style is so childish. Stop lying on the Internet, your mother would be very disapointed if she were to find out.
Your argument is literally "libertarians dont want to change the status quo so basically they are conservatives, which we all know are actually fascists"
