Prof. Antony Davies: Who Favors More Freedom, Liberals or Conservatives? 

I thought that was the point of the video.

The libertarian party are murderous abortionists

@@SubscribetoEndTheLGBTcommunity Not at all. They're anti-war and pro-2A so long as people don't use their weapons for murder. There is a difference between murder and self defense. Also, they don't believe abortion should be regulated by the government but should be up to the individual. That's not the same as being an abortionist. I'm pro-life pro-choice so I agree with that philosophy. I would never abort a baby but I think the government should not enforce abortion or anti-abortion. Democrats typically want to force abortion and Republicans typically want to force anti-abortion. "Don't hurt people. Don't take their stuff."

Libertarian here

@@gauravagrawal4564 Same. I was nonpartisan for 4 years but nowadays I'm a proud Libertarian since I finally found a platform I actually liked.

+firexgodx980 Even then, Conservative economic policies are not completely inline with Libertarian. Conservative is all about maintaining the status quo, and the current status quo of the economy is nothing like what Libertarians want, especially when we talk about issues such as defense spending (which Libertarians wants cut to the minimum). There are some overlaps that makes the two beliefs seemingly the same, but the basis for their policies and beliefs are different. Same with Liberals, many liberals takes social liberalism to the 'extreme' with policies such as Affirmative Action or completely banning religious elements from, well, everything. Libertarian policies are a lot more passive than Conservative and Liberal policies.

Senator Rand Paul had elaborated this in one of his interviews that Republicans are good with most of economic liberties whereas Democrats are good with most of personal liberties. Libertarians are good on both of these liberties.

firexgodx980 >economically conservative >socially liberal Being this vain and degenerate

I’m socially conservative and economically far right

@@taoliu3949 If conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, why is it the liberal college students that are shouting down anyone for thinking different, and conservatives that are run off campus? Your assumptions are the status quo my friend.

Agree with these definitions. Modern Liberals claim to have the market cornered for humanitarian efforts. They ignore the fact that Modern Conservatives can support the same efforts (most likely through different means) with moral absolutes.

Well said, thanks.

therasheck It sounds like you're a big fan of NEGATIVE rights, which many libertarians promote. Liberals and progressives back many different kinds of POSITIVE rights.

what college did u go to?

Do you make the distinction of what is fake talk in your comments?

You weren't made to watch this video. You chose to. Curiosity drives learning. It may have helped that your focus was not disrupted by a social environment (classroom)

Let's go Alexander Hamilton!

Patrick Henry!

@@IS0T0P3_90 He considered slavery to be a necessary evil. It was an okay thing at the time but he was against it and even said that sometime after there would have to be conversations about it. Also, he let his own slaves be free when he died.

Thomas Jefferson was better

@@IS0T0P3_90 if you pay taxes you are a slave. Slavery never ended it just changed names. CALLED TAXATION.

+Strax Sal it was popular during the 1960s to 1970s in the republican party in america.

and it was illegal in some states, not to attend church regularly, at the time of ratification of the 1st Amendment. So what's your point?

***** true.

you obviously never been to the deep south have you i live in south Carolina and we have tons of religious bullshit laws like that here

@@peterkropotkin1158 I live in the south you live in the stat of insanety

The case has not been made at all, Learn Liberty is a nice shiny output for old arguments on 'Libertarian' propaganda, the fact that these arguments are not new and we still have huge problems after all this time should be saying something, they do not work, its a fantasy. It comes down to the kind of freedoms these right-wing thinktanks are espousing, they couldnt care less about your personal freedom, that is a side issue that sounds nice for propaganda terms, they care (ultimately) about corporate freedom. They worry deeply about democracy because this means the plebiscite could take away their power to own everything that society depends on. Everyone likes 'freedom' but it is a term that is abused constantly by the libertarian right: NO your businesses should not destroy the environment; pollute our atmosphere; use innapropriate chemicals in foods and toiletrees; not pay any tax (because we all depend on roads and infrastructure which needs paying for) or offload any losses onto the state; buy elections etc etc, that is not the kind of freedom society needs. Other freedoms ofcourse are fine.

​@@l000tube ... You've just pointed out so many issues that have been disproven looong time ago ..

@@sefisyara5961 Elaborate further if you like ...

Alexandru Dragoi lol lots of public schools wouldn’t want it no more now that we have a lot of students In different races who are Catholics,Muslims,Buddhists,and even little bit of satanism for now on. You don’t even know if Muslim Americans or people who love the devil would go crazy and make the school go chaos. You got public schools to do prayer.

No

Right but it's not private, it's publicly allocated health care.

The only way to pay for Universal Healthcare is through taxes, which is through force. Thus Universal health care = less freedom is the point I think he's trying to make.

You can make that case all day, but if you roll around getting a hard on for freedom, you will have to realize that by living with a group of people, you are accommodating them. Ultimate freedom of choice is impossible since different decisions would interfere with each other, that is why people compromise with each other in small scale relationships, and that is why we have a system of government on large scale relationships. With that out of the way, we could do two things, as I assume you would be inclined towards one of them... privatize everything, including the use of force, or establish a democratic union which makes decisions and enforces them through popular consensus. As I believe the former would lead to a pseudo-feudal tyranny, I am inclined towards the latter. Now for healthcare. The reason why most people like the idea of social allocated healthcare is not that they believe it will be free, but because they don't want their healthcare needs being met by people who are, at the bottom line, interested in profits over quality of service. You can make the claim that since they are interested in profits, and they are competing with others, this will drive the quality of service up. (on a varying degree) Not only is this empirically wrong, but it isn't even intuitive when considering basic economics.

John Edwards in the end, i have to pay the government a fee, or buy their shitty product, if i don't the end result is me with a gun to my head...

TL; DR Compare and contrast North Korea with South Korea.

Minimum wage forces businesses to pay a wage that is not be subjective to free market demand. Universal Healthcare forces everyone to buy insurance.

yes, that's the whole point of it. And yes, I believe absolutely that people should be forced to get healthcare insurance. Just like they should be forced to have a home, buy enough food to not starve, be forced to have access to drinking water and enough air to breath.

The point here is CHOICE. That's what freedom means, to have a choice in the matter. People should not be forced to do anything, rather they should be free to make the choices to dictate their own lives. That is the meaning of freedom. By forcing people to purchase anything, you are taking away their economic freedoms. Libertarians believe people should not be forced to do anything, rather they should be free to choose for themselves because they understand their own needs the most.

let's for the sake of argument accept that there would exist people who, given the choice, would choose to have no health coverage even if they could afford it. Of the 50 million people in the US with no health insurance, how many of them are forced to go without health insurance because they cannot afford it? Clearly the overwhelming majority. This is actual reality. The reality is, that the effect of making health insurance compulsary, is more freedom. Reality matters, not ideology.

alienzen You need to have data to back this up... A lot of people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, true, but there's also a lot of them who feel they do not need it. There's a reason why the ACA requires everyone to buy insurance, because many young healthy people are forsaking health insurance. ACA needs these people buying health insurance as well otherwise medical insurance costs would balloon out. That's how insurance works, you need to have both healthy and unhealthy people in the system so they balance each other out. Not being able to afford something is not the same as not having a choice, in many cases they CAN afford it, they just choose not to buy it because they prioritise other things over it. The ACA is not making anything affordable, it's making people spend money on something that they could spend it on something else they feel they need more. Money is not infinite, it's not possible to give everyone everything. Everyone has a finite amount of money, it's their choice how to spend it because they know what they need the most.

Yes, but you have to hire a stenographer.

Thanks for your feedback! Here's more of Prof Davies ru-vid.com/group/PL-erRSWG3IoAQEzpfjrflNpZZNjcMS9vb