There is an entire reddit about Sam Seder dismissing Libertarians but Cenk and Ana platform one as though he were a serious person. What are we supposed to think about that?
" How come no libertarian has ever beat Sam Seder in a debate?
Sam has debated Yaron Brook, Peter Schiff, Dave Smith, Darryl W. Perry, Nicholas Sarwark, Adam Kokesh, Larry Sharpe, Steve Kerbel… not to mention hundreds of other libertarian or anarcho-capitalist callers over the years and not one of them has successfully defeated Sam Seder in a debate. Why is this? And why be a libertarian if your ideology doesn’t stand the test in a debate against a progressive?"
I find most libertarians engage in sophistries to concoct a self-serving justification for their actions. A handful walk the walk, but most do not.
A segment of the Republican Party claim they are libertarian, but they are what I would call the Back-From-My-Stack-Jack Party, who believe that taxes are not needed. The rest of libertarian philosophy, with regards to civil liberties? They don’t walk the walk, as evidenced by their rubberstamping the so-called " Patriot " Act time and again (which is an absurd contradiction of Constitutional guarantees…) Of course, they won’t explain how communal services can be delivered; hell, there won’t be any. They’ll have everything metered, down to when you need to go to the bathroom…
FYI: I heard Penn Gillette renounced his being a “libertarian”…
Because TYT is a network that allows ALL opinions and then lets US (the Viewers/supporters of TYT) decide for ourselves. There is also the fact that having people that have differing opinions on promotes idea exchange and could even get some to change their minds and agree with us. If all TYT did was have on people that agreed with us 100% then nothing would change and get better. We can’t change ANYTHING if all we do is talk to people that agree with us. WE HAVE TO CHANGE MINDS
I think that TYT has had on people that are communists; I know they have had on Fundamental Christians; I could care less if they have had on or will have on a Satanist cause they are entitled to their beliefs just like us; and NOBODY thinks the Jets will win a Super Bowl in my lifetime just like the Bungals won’t.
The point is that if all we do is sit in our little TYT/Progressive bubble then nothing will change. If we want things to get better we have to change people’s minds and get them to believe that Women have the right to choose what happens with their bodies; We are NOT a Christian Nation, There is nothing wrong with being gay, All humans are equal, etc. Then we have to talk to them and LISTEN to them also so that we can come to an understanding and then maybe shit can start to change.
Hey; we need some comic relief, what with all the serious discussion of a Republican dictatorship and Big Oil grabbing the levers of political power and turning the planet into a charcoal briquette…
It is important to have as many voices as possible on TYT. And it is equally important that each guest is met with the same scrutiny. (Unless they’re a kid, obviously, or intellectually or developmentally disabled [IDD] or something.) I’m just saying, the Libertarian guy was not met with the same energy as the Keys guy or even RFK, Jr.
Technically all Libertarians are intellectually disabled bc it makes no F’N sense. That’s why Sam Seder has a Reddit all about Libertarians losing debates.
I am not sure you understand the fact that there is no value in debating your ideological mirror. That is just yes manning yourself. You have to interview other people to understand where they come from, what are the foundations of their ideology etc so you can find the cracks in them and effectively counter those things instead of calling them deplorable and repeating arguments chasing their own tails. Try it, it would actually make you understand how the world really works and make your arguments marginally tethered to reality and maybe even effective
If you start playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon will knock the pieces down and struton the board and think it has won the match. That applies to most debates. Each side thinking they won the argument. It applies to more than libertarians. Pigeons have debates, real intellectuals have discussions. Pigeons try to force others to see their point, real intellectuals understand others points and reveal their flaws in a convincing way. None of us are perfect but Maybe you can at least try and implement it?
I believe you are referring to libertarianism as anti statist ideology right? One centred around individual rights and freedoms? I guess the closest you could come to that would be catalonia. An anrcho syndicatalist system.
Anti statism is an interesting concept. because while there are some that promote using private ownership of everything and even security services. They will promote institutions that promote circular debate on social issues but not any that would put economic restrictions on private owners and their pursuit of capitalism. That is what we see in American radical mutation of libertariansm.
On the other hand there are those that I would call anti collectivists rather than anti statist. These are people who recognise that it doesn’t matter if the means of production are controlled by the state or by the elite corporations, as long as the decision re being made by an oligopoly, its the same thing. basically who would see uniparty as the problem plaguing citizens more than fighting each other on social issues that don’t go everywhere. That is also an interpretation of libertarianism not entirely true to classical libertarianism.
But then again, freedom of individuals is relative to who is holding them hostage. Like counter culture being dependent on what the culture actually is. I am pretty sure that would have different connotations for people being held as slaves by plantation owners vs people suffering under Mao’s famine for example. And it would mean something completely different for people being bombarded by NATO vs people being brutalised by Al Nusra or ISIS ( their perception being they are unrelated to NATO). Whilee in Europe we might have talked about freedom from Hitler, people in Africa might have talked about freedom from all of Europe not making a distinction between different countries. So libertarianism is not a monolith. And I think it is difficult to even have an honest debate unless you specifically outline what the person considers as libertarianism or what they are actually supporting.
That’s just my take on it. I hate political labels and would rather just talk ideology and policy with another person without the bias of labels. because they are so misrepresneted and misunderstood most of the time anyway. All the communism, marxism, salinism, maoism, taoism, quackquakaoism - all the other isms, lol.
These systems, libertarianism included, are never going to fully recognize the freedom of individuals as long as they operate under patriarchal mindsets and frameworks.
Libertarians are just weirdos who don’t want to be called out on their BS. They are not serious people (as Sam Seder continually proves) and it was stupid of Cenk and Ana to platform that guy and treat him like a serious person.
That isnt the point. If we are debating them, we need to know what kind of libertarian so we can challenge them on the specific freedom from specific things that they promote. Talking about corporations being oppressive to someone opposing government suppression looks ridiculous to their crowd. You might think you did a good job negating principle they never supported in the first place. Their rowd will think WWE are just uninformed. We need to first understand the flaws in their logic and fir that we need to understand whatever logic they are operating on
Patriot 
" Act time and again (which is an absurd contradiction of Constitutional guarantees…) Of course, they won’t explain how communal services can be delivered; hell, there won’t be any. They’ll have everything metered, down to when you need to go to the bathroom…
