Why libertarianism is a failed philosophy

Подписаться 1,1 тыс.

Просмотров 2,7 тыс.

50% 1

How does a libertarian utopia work? And why does it not work?
In this video, we explore the philosophical underpinnings of the Bioshock series and its scathing critique of libertarianism. Through the lens of the game's Objectivist utopia of Rapture, we examine the dangerous allure of individualism and the illusion of personal freedom, and how it can lead to chaos and the breakdown of society. With a deep dive into the game's themes, characters, and gameplay mechanics, we uncover the flaws and contradictions of libertarian philosophy and its application in the real world. Join us as we explore the dark side of one of the most influential political ideologies of our time, and how Bioshock's dystopian vision serves as a cautionary tale for those who champion unfettered individualism.
#libertarianism comes from left wing philosophy, despite it being seen as centrist or right wing ideologically these days. It’s based in the meta-ethical position of #objectivism - that there are absolute moral facts that exist independently of context or culture or circumstance. If someone claims that God exists and that laws come from God, that’s an objectivist stance.
If someone is an objectivist, they’ll look at gender and believe that it is a biological function, rather than a social or cultural phenomenon. Objective reality exists independent of human experience.
In this case, the leader of Bioshock's underwater city Rapture - Andrew Ryan - believes in what he calls The Great chain of industry. He deifies this force - it has powers, it has a will. You can know it in how people naturally want to buy, sell and produce. It in "the right direction" when we act in our own self-interest, and slackens when we behave irrationally or selflessly. Greed is good.
But for #bioshock , objectivism cannot be sustained. It contains an inherent contradiction - an unregulated market leads to horrifying consequences. A lack of public goods leads to a collapse of all public interests. A city without shared goods is one that can't last forever.
On the misunderstandings of trickle down economics - Arndt, Heinz W. "The" trickle-down" myth." Economic Development and Cultural Change 32.1 (1983): 1-10.
On the town destroyed by bears - Hongoltz-Hetling, Matthew. A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (and Some Bears). Hachette UK, 2020.

Опубликовано:

21 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 106

@trenchtardgaming Год назад

I went to a libertarian convention once and it was insufferable. A man said people should NOT sell heroin to kids AND THE AUDIENCE BOOED

@appropriate-channelname3049 Год назад

Sounds like you might just be a stick in the mud ;)

@trenchtardgaming Год назад

real @@appropriate-channelname3049

@RealBradMiller Год назад

Well, you are just denying the adult paying customers and a way of life, and children from having their own money to buy things they enjoy! Harrumph!! 😂😂😂

@FlorisDVijfde 11 месяцев назад

Some libertarians are extreme. However, they provide food for thought. Walter Block has argued that benefits of legalising still outweigh the dear cost. Meanwhile, people let their couch potato child eat another bag of potato chips while he plays a couple of more hours of his video game. What kind of monsters are we to allow our neighbours to do this?

@Vic2point0 7 месяцев назад

I suspect we're missing some context from that, at very least. Libertarians do not generally think there's no moral right or wrong; they simply understand that the government is not the best arbitrator of it. Indeed, they have their own dangerous chemicals for your child to partake in.

@Vic2point0 9 месяцев назад

Seems to me that things went south in Rapture as libertarianism was *abandoned* (things were banned that wouldn't have been in a truly free market), and also that disparagement of morality (and maybe even disparagement of theism) set the stage for people to not act in rational self-interest at all.

@gonzophilosophy 9 месяцев назад

I think this is a profound and insightful observation which leads me to this question: is abandonment of libertarianism inevitable when a person's loss of power and wealth is coming?

@Vic2point0 9 месяцев назад

@@gonzophilosophy That temptation will be there for any individual going through that, but the system shouldn't be set up for any particular person's interests.

@gonzophilosophy 9 месяцев назад

@@Vic2point0 Ah but isn't libertarianism set up for particular people's interests to begin with? Specifically the already-wealthy and already-powerful? Andrew Ryan needed a system to actualise his desires, which wasn't possible in a society with mandatory public goods and regulation (which both serve to further equality and stability). Libertarianism favours the privileged.

@Vic2point0 9 месяцев назад

@@gonzophilosophy Not at all. Being free is what allows you to become wealthy (if you're not afraid to work hard). But there are other ways of obtaining/protecting your wealth, such as the authoritarian practices Ryan turned to when he abandoned libertarianism.

@gonzophilosophy 9 месяцев назад

@@Vic2point0 I would say that most sources of wealth are sourced from inheritance or originally from violence (e.g. colonialism). There are stand out exceptions who create new technologies, but the vast majority of wealth comes not from freedom but exploitation.

@peacebuddha96 4 месяца назад

Rapture only started failing when andrew gave up his philosophy. Liberalism failed in video games. Collectivism failed badly thousands of times in real life.

@gonzophilosophy 4 месяца назад

Are you referring to collectivism in the sense of Scandanavian socialist policy or collectivism in the sense of Chinese, Japanese and Korean social policy? I ask because all of those are still functioning - some in better ways than others, but highly functional nonetheless.

@peacebuddha96 4 месяца назад

@@gonzophilosophy those are partly capitalistic that's why it still works to some degree. Communist states all failed. And please look more closely at Japan's society. Their suicide rates, their extremely old demographic. Their "work ethic". Sweden meanwhile is a complete dumpster fire of a welfare state. Their migration is completely off the charts for example. Same for my country Germany. All of Europe is basically fcked because of these socialist politics.

@kenoctcercos4832 2 месяца назад

4:25 I would've rather used "moral realism" if I was in your place because because "Objectivism" may aslo refer to the philosophy of Ayn Rand and it would be easy to misunderstand considering the topic of the video.

@gonzophilosophy 2 месяца назад

Andrew Ryan is most definitely an objectivist, so perhaps my error was in characterising Rapture as libertarian. Still, I'm not convinced that libertarianism and objectivism would be different in this particular context. If you had an speculations about those, I'd be really curious about them :)

@Sweet_bacon892 4 месяца назад

Ok equality, well the market can care about “equality” that being ways to benefit those not in the majority through CONSENSUAL means. The market isn’t simply money it’s free interaction between individuals charity is part of the market, if I hate seeing people starve on the street & desire to house & feed them that’s still the market. As for injustice idk how man can fight injustice at all & not be free non aggression is one of the main principles of libertarianism.

@gonzophilosophy 4 месяца назад

I think you'll find there is no such thing as a free market - all that own the means of production will be using violence or coercive control of some variety. That's where the libertarianism falls down. It's like communism - neat in theory, but the moment it butts up against reality its proven to be untenable.

@Sweet_bacon892 4 месяца назад

@@gonzophilosophy Now I’ll go the social contract is an arbitrary line of what a government can & cannot do to its citizens , resulting in constant rights violations in the name of the “greater good” good in theory & half baked & sometimes down right evil in practice. How would they use coercion without any pushback both financially & or militarily? Are we saying a sizable amount of violence or do you mean “oh someone punched someone else see therefore violence accrued” can I get an example of a private entity committing violence without any repercussion that couldn’t also happen in our society.

@gonzophilosophy 4 месяца назад

@@Sweet_bacon892 I can't tell what you are arguing but thank you for engaging authentically.

@Sweet_bacon892 4 месяца назад

@@gonzophilosophy In a free society the odds of 1 company taking control, using violence with no opposition is low. Competition incentives one to not act in such a way. Not to mention libertarianism itself isn’t an economic system so you can have communes, mutual aid, a welfare republic all we ask is consent is given. That society isn’t built on violations of human rights but free association. If somehow libertarians made the exact society we have today but people consent before being citizens & can leave to start their own society that serves them better so be it. Non-aggression principle. Yes the philosophy itself doesn’t have morals per se,doesn’t mean we’re all evil machines who don’t already have our own morals to live by which I’d say is the same as liberalism.

@gonzophilosophy 4 месяца назад

With no offense implied or intended, I cannot understand your meaning. You speak in buzzwords and vagaries, and while I would like to sincerely engage with your views, I simply can't interpret what you intend to say. While it may be tempting to see this as a failure to understand on my part, it may be worth putting your text into ChatGPT with a prompt like "reword and reorder this text to create a coherent argument, citing specific examples" and reposting.

@Whopsie12 4 месяца назад

The essential problem with creating an ideal libertarian society is that it only works if basically literally everyone agrees to it... in perpetuity. Unfortunately there is almost no way that will ever happen. Those that attain wealth and the power that comes with it will always inevitably, and sooner rather than later by my reckoning, seek to bend the society around them to their will. Human nature has always played out that way. Saying that libertarian societies failed because someone or some group within them didn't adhere to the agreed tenets of libertarianism is exactly the point, I think we all can agree that absolute personal autonomy is the most ideal way to live but libertarianism will never create that because ones own individual freedom will always inevitably lead to clashes with others and their freedom and without a central governing power to arbitrate disputes that society will quickly fall into anarchy and collapse.

@gonzophilosophy 4 месяца назад

Why would everyone agree that absolute personal autonomy is the ideal way to live? This seems like an incoherent concept, as there's no such thing as a human who exists outside of society. Not without completely removing ourselves from it.

@HaveButOneLife Год назад

In what way was Rand a libertarian? I know it's taboo to essentially hate watch a video (so I won't) in which the goal is to shit on the viewers' beliefs (I'm a libertarian), but I'll just say that right libertarianism is the most misunderstood political philosophy on the planet. It's so misunderstood that a clear conservative woman, who clearly wanted traditional conservative values, could be described as one; despite the fact that she hated the etymological libertarianism (which was left back then) in the first place - nor have I debated the points that "individualism is dangerous" or "personal freedom is an illusion", and I don't even know where to begin as far as being able to tackle it (I believe the description is a decent excerpt of what the entire 30 minute video entails, just being blatantly honest). I'll be honest and say I've never thoroughly played, let alone beat, Bioshock. I just watched the plot synopses, since I don't do so well with games that have even slight horror themes; that's essentially to just say that there are specific nuances that I might not know of. Maybe one day I'll finally beat it, but if it's indeed a game that's meant to shit on my beliefs... what would the point be? To me, it's funny when I see all these people on the internet make these claims. That it's meant to be a harsh critique of objectivist "libertarianism" and Andrew Ryan's craziness was the cause for the downfall of Rapture, even though what I researched said that over time it was the result of him abandoning his principles over some mania of power struggle, and he became more authoritarian over time. To me, it's objectivist only in aesthetics. Oh, there's a giant Greek statue? Must be Randian! Decent game, sure, but I can't say that I find it even remotely fair to use a game as an outlet for an ideology that one may be vehemently against. It'd be boring if I played rightlib games that criticize socialism just for that instant gratification.

@carlsonraywithers3368 Год назад

Absolutely true! Ayn Rand was a Market Elitist and actual libertarians like Murray Rothbard hate her guts. Banning religion is a stupid idea because faith is the second driver of motivation for individuals after desire. The message of the whole game flew over their heads, It's not that libertarianism doesn't work(It clearly does, Just look at America in their classically liberal years), It's that objectivism is a stupid oxymoron combining libertarianism, Which advocates for the elimination of the state, and conservatism which advocates for the conservation of traditions which won't happen without a central force making sure that happens. It's basically atheist paleo-libertarianism or rule of everyone(which is a directly democratic state btw). That's why you get similar dogshit takes from Hoppeans like "We should physically remove degenerates off our community even though it's their property that they paid with real money because they ruin our perfect utopia".

@FlorisDVijfde 11 месяцев назад

I'd need to read more but Rand hated libertarians as far as I know. Probably as lawless degenerates? She experienced the lawlessness of the revolution first hand. But while liberarianism has many variants opponents will always target only the most extreme, the anarchists. It also tempting to mix up objectivism and libertarianism. Objectivism seems to focus more on ethics while libertarianism has it's roots in Austrian economics. The commonality lies in pursuing one's one rational self interest. This is just further exploration of the basic Adam Smith idea as far as I can tell. Rand takes it further by not only seeing it as the engine of an economy, but also the engine of morality, dismissing forced altruism which always ends in selfish abuse. By all pursuing rational self interest people protect themselves from other people's selfishness as well as their own. Since greed is not rational as it will be self destructive. And charity is not excluded because it can align with one's own goals. Just like entrepreneurs aim to solve problems, so can charities and they can get their money from reasonable people. Not from socialists that aim to enrich only themselves and prefer to redirect all responsibility to a state that never truly takes it. If Rand ever described a system, it can only work if people are reasonable. Many clearly are not but that does not mean the philosophy is wrong. Part of philosophy is changing how people think. Libertarianism provides a reasonable and tyrant free alternative to a system that has never worked and always results in tyrants. But Rapture was never libertarian, people were not free. Stories need conflict. A true Utopia provides a tale far too boring for a video game relying on lots of action.

@Arvidholders 9 месяцев назад

@@FlorisDVijfdeYes, objectivism is not a good moral system. I doesn't explain the world at all in all it's complexities and nuances. This the "left side brain is holy" and always being "rational" and "objective", a.k.a. not understanding emotions, ethics and aesthetic, reminds me of people I know who have autism and struggle with putting words to their emotions so they end up ignoring that whole part of human existence. Ian Mcgilchrist has written a lot on the subject of left vs right brian, I recommed it. Also some New Atheism philosophers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have this way of thinking. The satanic bible is also inspired by Ayn Rand, look it up, just saying... Faith, not just in a religous way, is very important because in order to function you should have faith in things. Go with the most practical solution accounting your emotions and dreams too. I've experienced that at the end of the day it's better to follow your heart (for at least 60%) than your head all the time, so that's more a subjectivist kinda approach. Brecht Arnaert has an interesting approach to this, he calls him self a "transendental libertarian", he combines Austrian economics with subjectivism and mystical Christianity. I noticed if you grow older you become more conservative and less libertarian. For a reference of my political thought, I voted Sven Hulleman, BvNL in the Netherlands.

@FlorisDVijfde 9 месяцев назад

@Arvidholders I like Sven and didn't even know he was on the ballot. Objectivism provides a serious handicap to autists as they will need to express their own self interest and emotions and need to deal with other perspectives rationally, perspectives that they cannot really see or understand. Rand's heroes clearly don't exclude the right part of the brain. Howard Roarke is a passionate and creative individual. It's an intense character following his heart and vision. Ayn Rand is often straw manned into a charicature with a robotic and heartless philosophy. But she actually pleads for a new wave romanticism more guided by reason and wrote a book on it. Reason can serve to protect against negative emotions, not to ban emotion, in stoicism, equally misunderstood this way. In order to be conscious, you need your reason in order to observe and analyse, but not as a slave to ego. You can't identify with emotions eager to protect the ego. If you do, reason will simply backwards rationalize the craziest stuff and allow to act on whims. Therefore, reason cannot be entirely at the backseat. There has to be a harmony. The more people come up with black and white depictions of Rand, the more I want to read her because those depictions just don't ring true. Most of Rand's writings that I've read are common sense (sometimes to the point of "duh", nothing new here) mixed with hyperbole to make a point. Pursuit of self interest is basic Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations, for example, but Rand points out it is the engine for life and a moral obligation that if neglected, wastes lives. Follow your bliss says Joseph Campbell. So does Rand in her own words. FInd that talent and mine it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-B5L7-kegaY4.html

@Arvidholders 9 месяцев назад

@@FlorisDVijfde Yes of course, you should read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead if you really want to understand it. I think it has some good takes on money and power and the philosophy can open you up to question everything that we take for granted. I wasn't trying to be "black and white" in my argumentation, I do understand how this works I think. I've watched a lot of V for Valentine, those guys are pretty libertarian and Ayn Rand fans and I've also spoken to Tom van Lamoen, the leader of the Libertarian Party at a Holland Gold event. Very passionate and idealistic guy, loved his energy. However I don't really believe it is the best system.

@courtlandsimkins3957 3 месяца назад

I've never heard someone with an australian accent using so mamy rhotic words

@gonzophilosophy 3 месяца назад

But never with the hard R

@sherohavaty2020 10 месяцев назад

libertarian actually centrist from a start in 20 sentury turned right and now days they are depends on country and politics may more be left as they now in america or be right like in the rest of the world

@ShiroiTengu 10 месяцев назад

The insufferable tone of derision used throughout, made watching this video an unbearable chore.

@gonzophilosophy 10 месяцев назад

Thanks for doing your chores!

@kippy2564 2 года назад

Cool video dude. Looking forward to more of your stuff in the future

@FlorisDVijfde 11 месяцев назад

It did not work because it was never "libertarian". The tycoon became a tyrant, did not allow contact with the outside world and violated the most basic libertarian principle of all: the non-aggression principle. And true objectivism means no one is allowed to be someone else's parasite. Inconsistency in following any sound idea will invariably result in failure.

@gonzophilosophy 11 месяцев назад

I would love an example of a single libertarian society that operated well for any period of time. I'm quite happy to adjust my view if there is a notable example of it working, as to my mind libertarianism is a philosophy designed by tyrants to convince moderates to allow tyranny.

@FlorisDVijfde 11 месяцев назад

@gonzophilosophy While hundreds of socialist governments have collapsed and not a single one succeeded, libertarianism has not been given one chance. Argentina seems the first one to try and no doubt there will be issues, recovering from decades of destruction from socialism. If experience cannot help, then logic can. There is a contradiction in your fear. Tyrants are by definition not libertarian since they don't respect the sovereignty and freedom of others. Libertarianism does not give room to tyrants: it simply does not allow the state to become as large to be able to oppress freedom. Corporate tyranny is not given free reign either, since employees can organize and the small government or organisations that exist protect the free market and the consumer against threats like cartels and pollution. Bitcoin is proof these systems can exist. No one controls or owns it. People are slowly waking up and are fed up with government tyrants as well as corporate giants that enjoy unfair benefits thanks to the government: lower taxes than small companies, regulation in their favor, lobbyism as well as better ways to protect their wealth from inflation and low interest rates caused by the centralized gov controlled bank.

@carlsonraywithers3368 11 месяцев назад

@@gonzophilosophy America during the 19th and 20th century was libertarian. If you're looking for current governments, Fiji, Cook Islands, Argentina(recently), and most polynesian countries are currently libertarian. This is because the country is too small that a big government is unnecessary. This is also the reason most of these countries are rich and are resorts for the rich.

@gonzophilosophy 11 месяцев назад

@@FlorisDVijfde I'm sorry I must have missed it - what was the example of libertarian government?

@gonzophilosophy 11 месяцев назад

@@carlsonraywithers3368 I actually really love this idea that the best example of the libertarian government is the US in the 19th and 20th centuries, because this means that libertarianism caused the greatest Depression the world has ever seen.

@Ailsworth Год назад

There is a serious critique to be made of Galt's Gulch, for example, but this isn't it. This video is not really an analysis of libertarianism (which is stolen Objectivism without attribution), but a comparison of various cherry-picked historical quotations, read derisively. Why not use an Elmer Fudd impression? The central question is avoided, and it must be avoided everywhere outside the abortion debate. Does a person belong to herself or to her society? As she does not fall into domestic duty as an ant or bee might do, she is said to be "rational," which means she makes decisions by consciously balancing and comparing abstractions and by using INDEPENDENT judgment. This should satisfy the issue completely. It is quite simply satisfied on this end, but there is something frightful to a left-leaner about making such a claim (again, oustide the realm of Roe V Wade) that I have recently begun to attribute to the simple desire to rule.

@gonzophilosophy Год назад

If you have some specific critique of my reasoning you are welcome to say it. The way your comment is written seems to be a generalised impression of disagreement, which might result from discomfort rather than any actual fault with my premises. Happy to also hear how this argument can be best applied to Bioshock. If you have constructive criticism about strengthening my argumentation, I'd be more than willing to accept it.

@Ailsworth Год назад

@@gonzophilosophy What argumentation? What premises? You do not present A vs B but rather you present Joe's version of A vs Marie's version of B. That Libertarianism, as such, has no definition, this going to be made more difficult. I knew a Libertarian once, and I could never get to the bottom of anything with him except his right to carry an M16. I knew an anarcho-capitalist once, but he was just a confused communist, like the syndacalist in Holy Grail. Is it of no importance to you that no man on earth can enter your house and say, "arrest that man!" Do you believe that such a state of affaris actually exists that it was consciously established? Oh, and the Bioshock part is not important, just an afterthought in the title, just the place where the objectivist straw man is perceived.

@gonzophilosophy Год назад

Arguments do not need to be presented as explicit (which this is) or dichotomies (which this isn't - there is no strong opposing view) but thanks for watching!

@courtlandsimkins3957 3 месяца назад

I think it's silly to ask if you belong to yourself or to your country because under libertarianism, the average man wouldn't belong to themselves, they would be the slave of whatever monopoly they're under

@Ailsworth 3 месяца назад

@@courtlandsimkins3957 This is a theme for literature, not for real life. Corporations do not have powers of coercion, as the state does.

@Islandswamp Год назад

Hey man! Love the video. I'm pretty sure that libertarian bear infested town was near where I live in Vermont USA.

@gonzophilosophy Год назад

What was that like? Do you have any details of the specifics or what the popular local view was at the time?

@Firaxo Год назад

@@gonzophilosophy You do know that the bear infestation was a State issue and not a local issue? Other cities and towns also had issues outside of Free State Project. And the reason they couldn't just kill the bears? Regulations on Federal Level :)

@gonzophilosophy Год назад

@@Firaxo My understanding was that a lack of consistency in their own internal garbage collection attracted bears, which then caused a slew of consecutive problems. It was their internal inability to make decisions collectively - their libertarianism - that caused the problem and exacerbated it. Many countries have solved the problem of wildlife and garbage through municipal sanitation and taxation.

@HaveButOneLife Год назад

@@gonzophilosophy It also could be an unfair representation of the philosophy. I think you both make a good point: the situation should have been handled better, by taking responsibility, as the philosophy describes, and those regulations we criticize were also the sole catalyst as to why they couldn't come up with those solutions. It's just not a fair critique, in my opinion.

@gonzophilosophy Год назад

@@HaveButOneLife if you let me know what inaccuracies and imprecisions are in my argument, I'll take the criticism seriously.