guy5235 (July 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm)

Liberty have long been used as reason for defiance and underachievement. We cannot simply use the significant of liberty to justify violence or disrespect. We cannot ignore the fact that a lot of people have been claiming their acts of disobedience and defiance as acts of liberty. Thus the true practice of this philosophy have partly been desecrated.

Masebrock (June 24, 2009 at 5:36 am)

ascend2luv: The underlying flaw in your argument is the assumption that it is impossible to create wealth.

socer777 (June 18, 2009 at 3:32 am)

You don't know what anarchy is, do you? It's not this video in case you were wondering.

ascend2luv (June 17, 2009 at 6:11 am)

when natural resources are hoarded by a few "elite" to create scarcity amongst the majority, 1% own over half of the worlds wealth it leads to imbalance and scarceity amongst the majority the monetary system was created to perpetuate loss of liberty and enslave the majority, me and you.

GRADUALGOSSIP (June 17, 2009 at 1:22 am)

It was amazing to me that people wanted the commissioners to increase their taxes so their children wouldn't lose their sports. The parents said our kids will end up doing drugs and end up in jail if the government takes away their recreational parks. It was insanity. Everybody was afraid of being personally responsible for themselves. How can you be self-sufficient when the government imposes itself on you? Is America still free? Are we just saying were free and actually communist?

PrometheusLoire (June 17, 2009 at 12:26 am)

Well said, sir! We are in agreement.

Tastentier (June 16, 2009 at 9:56 am)

I think this describes the basic idea of liberalism as a whole. Market liberalism is an essential part of liberalism.Of course there are political philosophies that get labelled liberalism without being really liberal. I live in a socialistic country that was founded on such a flawed liberalism. Flawed not only because the market economy is highly regulated; lots of personal freedoms are being violated here, such as the freedom of speech or the freedom to ingest whatever (drug) I want.

Tastentier (June 16, 2009 at 9:44 am)

I really wish this was common sense and intuitively understandable :) But alas, most people seem to assume that what they personally perceive as immoral, disgusting or otherwise "wrong" must be universally wrong.That's why they enact laws against victimless "crimes", resp. elect government officials to do so, based solely on the misconception that their own morality / personal taste would be objective and universally valid, or even divine. It appears that common sense is very uncommon.

Tastentier (June 16, 2009 at 9:30 am)

To explain why I can objectively call this wrong: Being subject to phenotypical variation, morals are subjective. Promiscuity or group sex for example might be immoral in your opinion, whereas your neighbours might be bisexual swingers. But no matter how wrong this is in your eyes, you don't get to dictate their behaviour.The only morality that we (the vast majority) can all agree upon is that it's wrong to endanger somebody's health or even take a life, to steal or to enslave others.

Tastentier (June 16, 2009 at 9:22 am)

The "divine" is nothing but a justification for the initiation of force against others who do not share your personal values. Your personal morals aren't applicable to everybody or exempt from criticism because you claim that they are divine.Morals arise from our nature as social animals, and of course there is phenotypical variation. Trying to force your own morals onto others is wrong, unless you defend yourself against a violation of your liberty, your property or your life / health.

justforwatchingcraps (June 14, 2009 at 6:00 am)

some pretty basic philosophy, mostly intuitive/common sense.

MazdakTV (June 12, 2009 at 10:58 pm)

What a load of bullshit... this only describes: market-liberalism and not Liberalism...