“I have always found it quaint and rather
touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet
selfish enough.” - Christopher Hitchens. I'm fairly certain that a fair proportion
of you, my subscribers, consider yourself libertarian, and so with this in mind, I invite
you to reply to what I have to say on this topic below, in the comments. If you think my following reasons are insufficient,
let me know, as I appreciate that I might just be missing something, and if I am, I
want to know it. Anyhow, to explain why I'm not a libertarian,
it stands to reason that I begin by describing what exactly libertarianism is, right? And so, here's an attempt to steelman it. Likewise to all political philosophies, “libertarianism”
represents a wide array of movements and beliefs, but all are predicted on the core principle
of liberty. Now what exactly liberty means, depends on
the libertarian, as traditional libertarians sought to abolish capitalism and private property,
while contemporary libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights,
but a fair summation of all libertarians is that they seek maximum freedom of the individual
and minimal authority of government. As such, they tend to insist upon freedom
of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom of and from religion, freedom
of the Press, freedom of ownership, freedom of the economy, and they almost always oppose
the welfare state and taxation (which they see as a form of slavery). Or as the American Libertarian Party puts
it, “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their
own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not
forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.” Now that sounds pretty damn reasonable, right? Penn Jillette and Michael Shermer seem to
think so (“But I’ve voted libertarian for many years now.” “I've leaned libertarian most of my life,
since college”). As does Ron Paul (“They said the role of
government ought to be but one thing - protect liberty. That's the purpose of government”), Clint
Eastward (“And now, you've called yourself a libertarian - is that right? Is that correct?" "Yeah... libertarian values, as for Rubublicans
used to be when they were saving money and everything”), and according to libertarians
websites, Keanu Reeves, Chris rock, Vince Vaughn, Will Weaton, Matt Groening, and countless
more… and so why doesn't it convince me? Well, what follows is my three primary reasons. This is Why I'm NOT a Libertarian. One of the most eloquent and convincing summations
of the libertarian philosophy that I've ever heard of comes from Walter Edward Williams,
who in his book titled All It Takes is Guts, wrote the following: “But let me offer you
my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn
belongs to you - and why?” And so, what's my answer? Why do I think that strangers are entitled
to some of Walter's fruit? Well, to put it bluntly, Walter fell out of
the right vagina at the right time; he inherited a biological and/or socioeconomic advantage
that he did not earn, and thus, he does not “deserve” all of the fruit if his labour. He was dealt good cards… Now Walter came from a broken family, in a
relatively racist country, and so how the hell can I say that he had an advantage? Well, for him, it’s got more to do with
nature than nurture, and to explain why, let me rewind a bit. In 1971, the American political philosopher
John Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice, and within it he (as many of you likely know)
observed that when people contemplate and determine the structure and rules of society,
they do so selfishly, based on their personal circumstances, characteristics and preferences
– such as their mental and physical abilities, social status, ethnicity, gender, and most
crucially, their conception of what's good. Thus, it's no surprise that some people who
can afford the bare basics (such as shelter and food) want a society in which they're
not obliged (through tax) to pay towards other people's bare basics. Likewise, it’s no surprise that some people
who can afford to pay for their family’s medical bills want a society in which they're
not obliged (through tax) to pay towards strangers’ medical bills. Just as it's no surprise that some people
who can afford to send their children to school want a society in which they're not obliged
(through tax) to pay for other people's children to go to school, and so on and so forth. But the only reason they seek such a society,
Rawls argued, is because of their lucky circumstances. They’ve been dealt good biological and socioeconomic
cards, and as such they stand to lose a card or two should society attempt to equalise
the hands of those less fortunate. Now to get around this prejudice, Rawls proposed
what he called the “original position”, and argued that “A just society is a society
that if you knew everything about it, you'd be willing to enter it in a random place.” He reasoned that if people determined the
basic structure of society behind a veil of ignorance, which would deprive them of information
about their specific characteristics, such as their ethnicity, social status and gender,
they WOULD create a welfare state. They’d elect a society that maximizes the
prospects of the worst of because they themselves might be the worst off. They’d create a society that would ensure
that if they or their loved ones were born blind, deaf or dumb, they’d nevertheless
have a life worth living. Thus, this is the primary reason I’m not
a libertarian. Despite the fact that I came from a broken
family and had a very rough upbringing, I am extremely lucky to have the characteristics
that I do, and while I’ve worked extremely hard to get where I am, I did not “earn”
the temperament, patience, charisma, and, if you will, intellect that I have – I was
simply dealt good biological cards. Thus, I’m convinced that SOME of the fruits
of my labour should go to those less fortunate, and that the same is true of Walter’s fruit. Now Sam Harris, in a post titled “How to
lose readers without even trying” (which, admittedly, makes me a little bit nervous
about my releasing this video), put Rawls’ original position this way: “Many of my
critics pretend that they have been entirely self-made. They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual
gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease, and for the fact that they were born at a
specific moment in history. Many appear to have absolutely no awareness
of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not
have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse. Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and
we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily
unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I
asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the
age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments.” Anyhow, moving on, the second reason I'm not
a libertarian is because I don't believe in natural rights, which I would argue is the
very bedrock of libertarianism. If it wasn’t, then all of morality would
come down to arbitrary private contracts, and libertarians certainly don't believe that
this is the case; they hold that we are born with certain inalienable rights – namely
life, liberty, and (in most cases) property, but I see absolutely no justification for
this. Many libertarians, such as John Locke, insist
that these rights are god-given – that we have the right to liberty because god said
so (but I, as an atheist, obviously don’t find this convincing… and what’s more,
even if I was a Christian like Locke, I’d still reject his assertion, as in my opinion
the bible explicitly states that it’s perfectly fine to deprive certain people of liberty). While other believers in natural rights (though
not strictly libertarian), such as Immanuel Kant, insist that natural rights are derived
from reason alone; that, in Kant’s case, they’re categorical imperatives – but
I reject this because I don’t believe any action is non-contingent (and I’ll likely
explain exactly why in a future video, rather than needlessly cluttering this one). And so to those of you who’re libertarian
and non-religious, I’d like to ask a question: what makes you think we're born with natural
rights? What part of the state of nature possibly
yields the RIGHT to liberty? Sure, we’re born free, but that doesn’t
mean we have the RIGHT to be free, does it? As it stands, I maintain that Thomas Hobbes
got it right when he said that in the absence of a social contract, life is “solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (And yes, I know that Hobbes believed in natural
rights, but I find his argument to be inadequate, albeit practical – again, I’ll try and
address this in a future video). The third reason I'm not a libertarian is
because I don't believe in libertarian free will. On top of the fact that we’re not responsible
for the biological and socioeconomic characterises we posses, I also don’t think we’re responsible
(in the libertarian sense) for anything. I’ve discussed the illusion of free will
in previous videos, and so won’t repeat myself here – but in case you still believe
in free will, and especially if it plays a vital role in your libertarian worldview (which
I’d assume it must), please consider checking out said videos. If we’re not responsible for our actions
in the libertarian sense (which is to say, for example, if my being a YouTuber isn’t
entirely of my own volition), then how can I sincerely take credit for the fruit that
it produces, let alone insist that I deserve them? To use Rawlsian terminology, I might be “entitled”
to most of the fruit, but I don’t “deserve” them – and I certainly don’t deserve all
them. If we’re deterministic entities, libertarianism
simply doesn’t work. And so there you have it… the three primary
reasons as to why I’m not a libertarian. Now don’t get me wrong – I consider myself
a liberal (at least in the classical sense), and in many situations I stand side by side
with libertarians, but I don’t call myself a libertarian because I don’t believe in
free will, I don’t believe in natural rights, and, most crucially (and ironically), I don’t
believe libertarianism represents true liberty. True liberty, in my opinion, requires equal
opportunity, and libertarianism doesn’t deliver this. In fact, to the contrary, it protects those
ARBITRARILY dealt good cards, and leaves those arbitrarily dealt bad cards to die… it addresses
“freedom from” but it utterly fails to address “freedom to”. Now, as said at the beginning, if you think
any of my reasons are insufficient, or that I’m missing something crucial, then please
let me know, as I’m entirely self-taught, and as such I appreciate that this makes me
vulnerable to missing a thing or two – despite extensive research. Anyhow, I’m Stephen Woodford (or Rationality
Rules), and as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to
my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel via merchandise and
PayPal. Until next time my fellow apes, until next
time!
[removed]
Is Rationality Rules even a Breadtuber?
[10:56]