Libertarian Caller Answers Challenge...? 

He’s been frozen into immobility by repressive governmental regulations. In a Libertarian society he would be free to move around and stuff.

@@frankmcgovern5445 That is by far the most cogent and compelling argument for libertarianism I've ever heard. =D

Because he’s a goddamn sigma male. Look at him holding that frame.

​@@Kropothead No doubt. I saw the Crowder debate; Sam made Crowder break frame so hard that it put him in the hospital.

Im more impressed by the ventriloquism

I get treated pretty well when I go into a supermarket. Never had a supermarket employee kick me in the face.

@@firstlast9916 Possibly because there are laws preventing them from doing so.

D) my connection is cutting out

Holy hell that's such an excellent summation of pretty much every single libertarian caller I've heard thus far - well done~! xDDD

Dude.... you boiled libertarian philosophy down to perfect simplicity

They don’t even know.

Name one monopoly in human history that lasted over 100 years. They don’t exist. Monopolies are fake fears.

@@firstlast9916 Probably because most societies have at least had the common sense to realize that it's a really bad idea to allow them to exist, I'm not a historian but I assume most get defeated by non-economic methods like the sherman anti-trust act. This is a dumb argument anyway, 100 years is longer than either of us will live. That's like saying "name one global extinction event that prevented life from ever continuing on the planet," just because the environment might recover and introduce new generations of organisms doesn't mean an impending catastrophe is a "fake fear" for the generation it's coming down on. A bad thing is a bad thing regardless of its permanence or how commonly it happens.

@@TheSquareOnes it’s not a bad idea to allow monopolies to exist. The “worst” case of a monopoly was standard oil in 1870. And standard oil decreased prices and increased quality every year it existed. Standard oil was good for the people. Eventually, they lost market share because electricity was invented. Monopolies in free markets last maybe a maximum of 25 years and help the people out a lot. If government gets involved, monopolies last much longer or until the product goes obsolete. Let’s say that the government took over apple when the iPhone came out and banned all competition in order to stop the monopoly. What would have happened? Androids wouldn’t exist. Phone cameras would never have improved. We would still be stuck on iPhone 3.

@@firstlast9916 It is a bad idea to allow monopolies to exist, even though you happen to be able to provide an anecdote or two where it wasn't a bad outcome. Look at Wal-Mart, which comes into a town and bankrupts most of the rest of the stores. Small businesses can't compete, because there's no way they can offer prices as low as products made in poorer countries, they can't retrain their skills or change their inventory to become more competitive, because Wal-Mart sells everything, and they can't move to a more amenable community, because Wal-Mart is either already there too or will be there in 6 months. And once the businesses have shut down and people have no choice, they crush everyone's wages because they know their employees have limited options of where to work, especially for a high enough salary to afford products from anywhere other than Wal-Mart. If they were truly allowed to merge with the other big box stores too, they'd likely just give their employees Store Credits to work there, and not pay them any money at all. On the whole, rare cases and the rare benevolent company aside, most monopolies do far more damage than help. Are people in their garage going to invent a widget that can outcompete the local oil company and its vast number of resources? Usually not, which is why these companies should be broken up. As you said yourself, it happened to be the invention of electricity, which was not necessarily done simply to compete with the oil market, that brought down Standard Oil. If that hadn't happened, how do we know Standard Oil would only have been a monopoly for 25 years? Or that in year 26 it wouldn't have succumbed to the endless corruption of most other major companies?

That is so true

How to debunk a liberal: let them explain the difference between legal and illegal drugs.

@@firstlast9916 WTF does that have to do with anything? Not to mention most liberals have more conservative opinions especially, with opinions on a need for social democracy promoted by many leftists. Leftists≠Liberals

@@stevonwhite8933 are you for legalizing all drugs (including antibiotics) and do you consider yourself a liberal?

@@firstlast9916 Liberal?FUCK NO. And no I don’t want to legalize all drugs that’s some libertarian bullshit. But, let me ask you some questions… 1. Do you believe in taxes? 2. Do you believe in regulations?

Okay but... that's most libertarians in my experience thus far. Tho I must admit I have a personal bias for them, since I love listening to these calls... xDDD

But that’s all of them

but the drug companies are not to blame for those consumers getting their hands on the drugs the doctors prescribed the drugs and are the only ones that can so they are to blame for that

@@robinsss Doctors were mislead by the drug companies, who told them that the new opioid formulas were safer than the old ones, and that they did not pose a risk of addiction like the old opioid formulas did. Drug company reps encouraged doctors to prescribe the opioids freely because they were “safe.” If the drug companies hadn’t lied, the doctors would not have prescribed all those drugs the way they did. Remember, most doctors are not pharmacologists, and they rely on information from the drug companies themselves and the FDA to inform them about the safety and efficacy of the drugs they prescribe.

@@liberator6 ''''''''Doctors were mislead by the drug companies, who told them that the new opioid formulas were safer than the old ones, and that they did not pose a risk of addiction like the old opioid formulas did.''' where's your proof of that?

It doesn't matter what the debt is. It will never get paid off and it was never meant to be paid off. Just please do some research on our current monetary system, the people that created it, and the federal reserve note. Hopefully you will gain the understanding that this entire economy is one giant con game.

way ahead of you. Yes a pyramid scheme of the worst kind.

wthf5 Way ahead of you? Where is the race?

wthf5 If you are still counting the "National debt" you aren't "way ahead of anyone" Even if there wasn't a "national debt" (the US government owing money to anyone other than the federal reserve) congress would owe whatever notes are in the "monetary supply" plus interest to the federal reserve. That means this nation is in perpetual debt. Even if there was no "National" debt.

I realize that. I didn't mean to come across that way to you. I've been studying the workings of the federal reserve for the the better part of 15 years. I understand the system very well and completely agree with you. I was just touching on a mere morsel of what is happening financially in the west. .

They dont screen calls

TOMMY TOWNE yes, working 80 hour weeks to barely afford rent in a cardboard box because there's no protected minimum wage, yeah that's freedom!

A socialist phone system communicates with smoke signals.

@@firstlast9916 you can do better than this. What you posted really has no zing. It doesn't make much sense, either. Are you saying indians are socialist?

@@evlmpyr tribes are fiercely egalitarian actually. If you hoard in a tribe, you will get killed by the rest of the tribe. That’s why Indian tribes never grew. They stayed in the Stone Age. You can’t trade anything in tribes. You will get killed if you try. Everything is shared.

man cite your source, then stay on topic.

@@evlmpyr you want a source for why Indian tribes are not as good as capitalism? The answer is in your hand. It’s called a smart phone. No Indian tribe in existence today can make one. Socialism works in tribes. Not in society. We can’t share our way into creating an iPhone.

9 years later, nothing has changed, except Sam's video and audio quality is infinitely better.

Yeah, I think he even started to slip up and say something along the lines of "harmful drugs do get approved," which obviously isn't helping his case here. It doesn't really hurt the greater point though, which is that companies are very obviously willing to ship a dangerous product and that we'd see more of them rather than less without a government screening process.

Because if you actually call out a libertarian they have no details but no taxes and no government everything else will just work itself out

@@matthewheywood8532 I'm kinda convinced that the current Republican party is mostly libertarian.

Michael Z oh god ya they are for sure trumptards

@@evlmpyr not really in some aspects of the economy yeah, but they’re for big military higher police budgets, more NSA spying power, and corporate welfare. But as far as regulations and tax breaks for the rich, they’re pretty libertarian.

Who owns the river?