Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@Noah_Ahn says : Liberterianism only works if we learn to educate people on self responsobility to themselves and others.>> <<@johnlukehauskins says : "Counter productive chaotic revolutionary anarchy." Counter productive to who? We do not need a weatherman Peterson.>> <<@giulionazzo88 says : Non agression principle>> <<@David-210 says : Libertarianism is above all an allergic reaction to state over-interference in individual, domestic and foreign affairs.>> <<@erickzuniga3113 says : You wanna send your kid to a ultra right Christian school that doesn't want to teach science or math? Sure! I support your right just don't cry or blame anyone when they don't get into college! 😊>> <<@daevydjae says : Not everyone wants to play by the rules even if everyone agreed what those rules are. Not everyone will accept responsibility and accountability for their own actions. Prime example: Trump.>> <<@Derek_H_360 says : Has he read Nozick?>> <<@Drakemiser says : Why am I hearing a lot of sophist arguments looking up the word “Libertarian”.?Bad choices make some companies fail, a few will succeed and then a few of the ones that failed will realign and fit somewhere in some middle or maybe even succeed. You don’t need politics to structure human understanding. A few will outright fail, but the historical examples far surpass this kind of thinking. And let them be free to do all of it, and it’s not a problem. The problem is when something(gov) comes in and starts making laws that mostly make no sense and you have to go through bureaucracy to even get you foot in the door to correct your mistakes. Am I crazy? I even like this guy..>> <<@Nutellaälskare says : He's confusing anarchism and minarchism, which are extreme examples and not to mention left-libertatian, with the contemporary right-libertarianism. I'd like to assume confusing, but more probably he's just committing a straw man fallacy.>> <<@Amok-chi says : Who else besides people is going to make choices? There’s no other entity that is going to make choices for people, so it’s either people making their own choices or other people making choices for them. Since no one is inherently better than anyone else what libertarians ask is that people be free to make their own choices and not be coerced into other’s choices. No one is against rules, what is asked is “who sets the rules?” and libertarians answer with “rules have to be agreed upon, without coercion”. Will there ever be a world where everyone is free to choose everything about their lives? Probably not. Nonetheless, it’s desirable to move in that direction and many times we are not. Libertarianism is, above all, a moral stance about not forcing your will upon others.>> <<@PlaystationLover603 says : An a newbie Ancap, I can say that Jordan cannoy understand that if the state is absolished, does not mean that anarchy become a society with no rules. All rules and commands would be voluntarily agreed upon by private property owners through consensual reasoning that violent aggression, giving them to set up private borders, covenent communities, and other rules as well as ostracizing specific individuals that do not align with the standards of the rules set up by the community, maintaing order and liberty through the right of property owners and through peaceful cooperation without aggression.>> <<@Spektakular99 says : “Guys blasting British soldiers is illegal” imagine if someone said that to George Washington>> <<@user-is9iz6wb3n says : No one is “deluded” by the belief that letting people make their own choices will 100% always lead to the best outcome. What libertarians understand is that people will do what they want to anyway regardless of what rules and punishments you set up, so we question anyone demanding their “authority” be respected outright. What granted that “authority”, what makes you an expert in my life?>> <<@Nubenhoofer says : I drank the libertarian kool-aid for years and let me tell you, these people all have oppositional defiance disorder. They are permanent revolutionaries, basically Trotskyites that believe in property rights. I finally realized what the scam was when Trump got back into office and my "heros" couldn't make it past a day without hurling "5-D Chess" at people. Now I have dug a bit deeper, and have found their roots to be FAR more nefarious than market worshippers. The whole movement is no less than a limited hangout psyop by the British Imperial hegemons that have been doing their damndest to keep the conversation on economics firmly within the box of "capitalism vs. communism", and as far away from the Hamiltonian AMERICAN SYSTEM OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. And THAT is why Dave Smith is running around trashing Trump at every turn. THAT is the TRUE threat to their whole reàson d'etrè.>> <<@timetravellergec2043 says : You can't a well functioning society without being ordered at the very minimum by the moral commendements of the 10 commendements. In short you can do what you want within the bounds of the 10 commendements (while keeping freedom of religion, so the first 3 of the 10 ones).>> <<@nathanielhiggerstein says : skill issue stealing from others and stripping them of their civil rights is never moral>> <<@swordwaker7749 says : Libertarians don't believe in no rule. Rules cannot be derived from later institutions alone. These can serve as no basis for the fundamental rule. Attempting to do so leads to circular reasoning: The rule is valid because the institution said so, and the institution can validly say so because it is the rule. That is not a valid line of reasoning. Without presuming any existing institution that comes later, when two desires conflict, there are only 2 ways, the non-aggression-principle and the law of the jungle. Everything else degenerates into the law of the jungle if you can give anyone with power the right to unilaterally declare the NAP invalid. Consequently, any institution that comes later can make their own rules, and no libertarian prohibits that. However, the rules must follow the original rule, the non-aggression-principle. Rejecting such rule doesn't lead to more order. It leads to more chaos.>> <<@Earthday42282 says : I think that freedom separates the people. will you become Cain or Able?>> <<@Crypto-xm8je says : “Counterproductive, chaotic revolutionary anarchy” BASED 🗿🏴>> <<@Crypto-xm8je says : “Counterproductive, chaotic revolutionary anarchy” BASED 🗿🏴>> <<@thrusherthrush2515 says : Libertarians can't be nationalist. That's the problem.>> <<@mauriciorv228 says : Jordan is right. Libertarians fail to understand that humans are humans and we live in a society where at some point we all benefit from each other to different degrees. Extreme individualism that demonizes social programs and laws the regulate standards in the workplace are the downfall of societies just as bad as a hardcore socialists. Countries that have a better balance of state and economic freedom thrive like Sweden or Switzerland. Underlying capitalism but strong welfare states.>> <<@R888-x2f says : Very stupid assessment by Peterson>> <<@chad2097 says : Bro has no idea, what he is yapping about>> <<@hibernian87 says : There is no freedom without responsibility.>> <<@ywtcc says : Liberalism and Libertarianism are both based on the same deception - when they're talking about "freedom" and "liberty" they're talking about power in a backhanded way. Instead of free will and choices, imagine that you're thinking in terms of questions and answers. A question is something that occurs to you, it's when you don't know what the answer is, but have several candidates, that you appear to have choices. There are questions we like asking, and questions we don't. Having choices isn't always a good thing, it just means you don't know what the right answer is. Freedom is an empty concept in a deterministic universe, it's neither good nor bad, it's based on an inability to determine. The reason it's a popular concept politically is it's a deceptive way to talk about power, which is why Liberal and Libertarian politicians end up being doublespeaking power fiends.>> <<@ywtcc says : The bigger problem with Libertarians is when they apply their principles to intra governmental issues. A limited Federal government is completely compatible with slaveowning states. It eventually descends into big government autocracy when you limit government's ability to limit government.>> <<@suteerthvajpeyi-og6eg says : Mr. Jordan Peterson is, I believe in the wrong here. I agree that we need laws. Rules that prohibit fouls and unjust moves. But what I do have issue with is the means Mr. Peterson chooses to enforce these rules namely a state. Let me define a state in non emotive terms. A state is an institution granted sovereign authority over a jurisdiction to redress offences, adjudicate disputes, make laws and raise the requisite funds for its operation through taxation. Sovereign authority means that no other authority can question or interfere with the execution of its decisions. The making of laws part i.e. the legislative part is not of much dispute. All agree that most of the principles of justice are not subject to change the way physics or chemistry is subject to change. Ideals or norms do not change, only their application to situations does. For this reason, a permanently operative legislature is a standing threat to liberty and a conduit for horrible abuses of power. What about a temporary one ? That too is a (lesser) threat to individual rights for at the time of drafting of these laws even if one person turn out to be corrupt, of questionable integrity or even simply short-sighted, then you are doomed. So what do you do ? You need laws but not through a legislature. What are the other sources of law besides a legislature ? Custom, contracts and treaties. The first requirement for any law is that it ought to be equally applicable to all. So if a person openly says "I do not believe in laws against theft.", then he is saying that all property including his own house, clothes, car and so forth is up for grabs ! No smart but evil person will openly reject the laws. Rather, they will pay lip service to such laws and hypocritically violate them whenever they get the opportunity to do so. All who are openly anti-social are typically isolated by the wary public via house arrest or banishment for in a radically liberal society, every inch of land is owned by an individual or a group of individuals and they have the sanction to throw out any trespasser on their property. Turning to the problem of how to deal with hypocritic occasional offenders in absence of a single sovereign authority. Won't it lead to violent clashes ? No country, no organization benefits from a state of perpetual conflict. So at the very outset there will be a high demand to prevent conflict from becoming the norm for purely selfish reasons. Each authority thus will at least try to resolve a dispute as quickly as possible to prevent damage to itself. One way to do that might be via a system of voluntary progressive lord-vassal (or to put it in less feudal terms judge-disputant) relationships. 2 vassals pledging allegiance to the same lord might easily resolve their differences by arbitration via a common authority. Two lords sign treaties to assure that there is no mutually assured destruction when their vassals enter into dispute. Some heirarchies may be complex, some simple. I am not saying that there will be no true fights. Humans are too aggressive for that. But at least the incentive will be to end them as quickly as possible. Also the authorities will not be using weapons of mass destruction such as were employed during the 2 world wars.>> <<@Randomhumaan says : So what kind of person believes that everyone should be entitled the rules of the game? Edit: I’m talking about tax and legal loopholes that only the elite and ultra wealthy “get away with”. It seems that people only care about not relying on the government when THEY aren’t in that desperation>> <<@LeftCoins says : Freedom requires material conditions>> <<@JD-os2kr says : Cool, enjoy your delusional analysis>> <<@SODSigma6789 says : Revolution is what is required. This will require a viable third party candidate. We can’t just keep shuffling around Republicans and Democrats anymore. George Carlin called it over 30 years ago…..”garbage in, garbage out”.>> <<@alex_smasher19 says : Nah, the problem with so many of them is that they have no problem to allign with something incredibly statist as a republican>> <<@IlIentente says : Herc aspect needs the geb treatment where he smacks boulders with his club at people, replace his shoulder charge with an ability that throws his teammate, his pull with a big knock up in a line and enemies close to him get yeeted away, his stim with a stacking damage buff instead of a heal and finally... his ult should be that he can pick any character and throw them for a guaranteed crit on the enemy thrown and susbsequent targets, or if its an ally thrown, they get damage mitigation for a short duration. :)>> <<@tarotqueen9118 says : "Revolutionary anarchy" Dont threaten me with a good time!>> <<@YirelOfDarkness says : And the Liberals struggle with defining what a Woman is 😭>> <<@CowboyWill3 says : He missed on this one. Law and order, societal structure and rules that prevent anarchy are supported by Libertarian Right. We are not anarchists.>> <<@joshuamoore8042 says : Absolutely not!!! You are 100% wrong. Libertarians do have rules. The limits of your freedom is when you interfere with another person’s freedom and the rules of society should only govern what happens when you infringe on another’s rights.>> <<@DanHBExplained says : Freedom has no definition without it's minimum rules. A lack of belief in the free market is a lack of belief of the concept of freedom itself.>> <<@JohnDoe-gq6yg says : My view is this, libertarianism is really an ideal, in practice it just means the minimum amount of government intervention in the lives of citizens as possible and streamlined, reduced government spending and by extension taxation along with the focus of said spending being on the country instead of foreign aid for everyone under the sun.>> <<@RaisonDetre96 says : The biggest thing about libertarian detractors is that they almost always mischaracterize libertarian positions. Grifter Peterson is no exception.>> <<@alterangel says : No. Its not that "everything will work out for the best". It's that everyone will be more free. And what is "best" for you, may not be "best" for me. So let's have more freedom to choose what's "best" for each of us.>> <<@whade62000 says : Oh this clown. As if I'd accept any advice from Peterson on anything>> <<@OpalsJones says : this is a bad take. there are rules in the free market.>> <<@Dan-wi3mq says : It sounds like peterson is confusing libertarianism with anarchism.>> <<@reichen609 says : Wow... he's still alive... Why.... 😕>> <<@javierbayon741 says : Damn people are dumb, the thing about not having a working government is that people will take advantage of the "freedom" of choice and will exploit people with less resources that's why the US is governed by big companies and Epsteins in the back and people are so dumb to blame the government. If you're government is weak it's the people's choice for it to be that way, also when you base your entire ideology on hating everything about communism, don't be surprised to eventually find yourself working 16 hours a day without weekends and if you think that won't happen to you because everything work out eventually just remember how car companies or maybe other sectors act with competitors who want a share in the market>> <<@libertarianesque8645 says : I am truly disappointed that Jordan Peterson would stoop to this level of strawmanning. Libertarian's do not believe we should have no rules at all. Just those which prevent fraud or harm to others. We agree that unless theft and assault are punished, society is impossible. Pretending all Libertarians are anarchists is intellectually dishonest. No one is saying what Peterson here claims they are saying.>> <<@Paul_The_Beav says : Everyone wants to judge other parties based on the dumbest members and their own party based on the smartest members. Of course there are lots of dumb libertarians. Now try debating Rand Paul.>> <<@TwilightxKnight13 says : What most analysts fail to acknowledge is that most people are not radical members of any political party. Even Peterson, who I generally agree with, falls into the trap of painting the moderate majority with the same broad brush as the radical fringes. Whether they be the classic liberal, the traditional conservative, or an "enlightened" libertarian, the majority of people exist in the moderate middle with "leanings." Most liberals do not believe in restricted speech even though the radical progressives want to ban so-called hate speech. Most conservatives do not want prayer in public schools even though the radical right keeps pushing it. Most Libertarians don't want open/unrestricted immigration and completely unregulated drug legality even though the radical anarchists do. The difference between people is their leaning. I lean away from liberal because their their platform is too steeping in entitlements and I believe in a more Darwinism approach. Adults do not need the government to protect them from their own stupidity. I lean away from conservatives because their platform is too steeped in religion and I do not believe in the existence of a divine being. They are too eager to foist their personal morality on others. I lean towards Libertarianism because personal liberty as the foundation of our country is paramount to me. I want the strongest possible adherence to personal freedom and liberty that we can manage. I am not opposed to some government regulation, but we have waaay too much of it. Our founding fathers did not expect the rampant bureaucracy we have due to congresses' delegation powers that has generated more than 100,000 pages of regulations most of which have never received congressional scrutiny. I am a moderate Libertarian and proud of it. I do not have to embrace the most radical Libertarian ideals to be one. I certainly do not support an utter lack of laws and complete anarchy. That is as idiotic as to suggest that just because someone is Liberal that they support Communist/Socialist USSR, or that just because someone is conservative they believe that there should be no entitlement programs of any kind and everyone should be required to attend church on Sunday.>>