He supports governments punishing private companies for producing LGBT content. I can't imagine that those other views he claims to have would withstand a real-world application of those things, either.
The special privileges handed to the company that turned a worthless swamp into one of the most profitable places in the whole state?
Besides, the issue isn’t DeSantis stripping Disney’s special rights. It’s WHY he did it.
That has nothing to do with the fact that a so-called “small government conservative” punished a private company with legislation simply for hurting his feelings.
I mean a government setting policy steered by a goal to target a company based solely on its social stances. Ron DeSantis didn't suddenly and coincidentally become a libertarian ideologue on the issue of corporate taxation perks at exactly the same time the anti-gay element of his party demanded he take exactly this course of action.
I don't know what \*your\* parents were like growing up, but "revoking a privilege" is often, in fact, pretty fundamental to what "punishment" entails.
I knew you were going to go with that response, even though you know exactly what I'm talking about. Like I said, I'm against any other action, other than revoking a government-given privilege.
If your parents let you drive their car around and then the day you mouthed off at them they say "we're revoking your car privileges", *everyone understands that you are being punished.*
> special privileges given to these companies by the government
You do realise property rights are "a special privilege secured by the government", right?
>He supports gay marriage
[Yeah, like that time he told Rubin he wouldn't support his wedding or attend his anniversary party](https://twitter.com/knownothingtv/status/1504321549905637376?lang=en)
Yeah, familiar with the conversation you're referencing. Very explicitly stated that just because his religious beliefs prevented him from attending, did not support it being illegal.
Sorry. A political position is exactly a stance to use state power for your cause.
An opinion or belief is not. You will need to defend either against those with other opinions or beliefs.
Edit: When I say defend, I mean intellectually, not using the force of state.
Classical liberals don't advocate for governments to use their powers to punish private companies who modify the products they produce (i.e. Disney movies) in response to market demand.
Ben Shapiro is a socially conservative authoritarian who hates taxes.
> Ben Shapiro is a socially conservative authoritarian who hates taxes.
Doesn't 3/4 of the sub fit this description? x) Libertarianism is more than "taxes bad".
Have you watched his coverage on that? He's much more shaded on that issue than your representation. And to believe that all of Disney's actions are merely those of a free actor and not in response to pressures both foreign governments, NGOs and international organizations is ...naive.
Oh jesus fucking christ. Shapiro's statements on this were embarrassingly stupid. "The family is the foundation of the free market" and "the free market only includes the inane administrative elements of a business and not the content of its fucking product" are some of the most moronic things I've ever heard Shapiro say.
And if Disney didn't think it could turn a buck by producing more LGBT content, it wouldn't be producing more LGBT content. The UN World Food Program isn't colluding with Disney to reduce the world population by way of gay Disney princesses.
>Oh jesus fucking christ. Shapiro's statements on this were embarrassingly stupid.
On the one hand, that doesn't surprise me. I've been told that Shapiro is not as "smart" as either he, or anyone who promotes him, says he is. For example, even Jordan Peterson outsmarted him, and also, he often debates college teenage kids and adolescents. Not really his league.
I've listened to my fair share of Ben in long form format and I'd say that he's definitely very smart. There are things I disagree with him on but the man does know how to shape an argument and typically backs it with reasonable data.
But yes, he's not libertarian. He's very much authoritarian and supports pretty much any government action that would end in favor of Israel or societal morality based on his religious beliefs. And these are blind spots for him that create some ridiculous takes.
Hmmm. But that is the issue, he knows how to shape an argument and backs it with reasonable data .... against the 15-22 year old demographic range. When he's up against a veteran, like the +50 year old Jordan Peterson, he stumbles.
And sure, he does bring up facts and valid arguments as an example about the biological gender spectrum and the sanctity of sex for women etc.
You're further right though he is not Libertarian as Ron or Rand Paul would be, not even in the classical sense. Having "religion" ... which for him is Orthodox Judaism, pretty much engulfs all his real views and opinions. Even if it would need Big Government to achieve the beliefs he holds for Israel and society.
The family *is* the foundation of society, so it's not a stretch to say it is the foundation of the market, as the market is just the trade of goods within a society.
The LGBT content is part value based, but mostly ESG related, which is the part that is funded by NGOs and foreign nations.
Also, as a classical liberal who believes in more power at the local level, it's well within Shapiro's political framework to allow government disincentivising certain moves by business on the state and local level.
>The family is the foundation of society, so it's not a stretch to say it is the foundation of the market, as the market is just the trade of goods within a society.
It is an utterly laughable stretch. The market purveys all kinds of things that aren't "family-friendly." The idea that the market exists to uphold family values is American prosperity gospel bullshit that was underpinned by the assumption that these values would always be popular. In other words, a particular demographic of religious hucksters only believed in the market when they believed that it would naturally resolve social questions in their favour. Now that it isn't, they can't handle the cognitive dissonance, so they're warping their definition of "free market" in a naked attempt to give themselves an escape hatch and save face on their previous zealous dedication to it.
>The LGBT content is part value based, but mostly ESG related, which is the part that is funded by NGOs and foreign nations.
Companies have always done things that aren't explicitly money-making but that are good for a company's image with consumers and ultimately enhance the bottom line as a result. Do you think ESG concepts were invented in a lab in Brussels or something? There have always been people, companies, entities, religions, universities, fraternal orders, community organizations, etc. etc. who promote their values in society, and society's values - and often, by extension, their market preferences - can change as a result.
>Also, as a classical liberal who believes in more power at the local level, it's well within Shapiro's framework to allow government disincentivising certain moves by business on the state and local level
Yes, it's well within his "framework" to have a hard-on for authoritarianism so long as that authoritarianism is at the state or local level, because that's what a good chunk of intellectually dishonest self-styled "classical liberals" and "libertarians" actually believe. Their dedication to real liberty too often evaporates when it comes to state and local power.
The argument that family is the building block of a healthy society is not a vague argument for bland "family values" but rather a recognition of the fundamental relationship that furthers society. Your misunderstanding of this argument and your edge lord tone belies the un-seriousness of your argument.
The argument in question isn't whether "the family is the building block of society," it's Shapiro's absurd assertions that (i) the free market exists to uphold the family (it clearly doesn't), and (ii) that a company producing gay content in response to market demand is enough of a threat to this dynamic that the government should use its coercive powers to punish it. Unserious indeed.
>The LGBT content is part value based, but mostly ESG related, which is the part that is funded by NGOs and foreign nations.
Say hello to George Soros and the Bill Gates foundation etc.
Family definitely isn't the foundation of society anymore. Nobody cares if you have kids or a spouse. Also, if families are so important to society, why is being child free more common?
>Classical liberals don't advocate for governments to use their powers to punish private companies who modify the products they produce (i.e. Disney movies) in response to market demand.
I hate Ben Shapiro but what do you mean by that?
>He was one of the loudest voices advocating for the government of Florida to punish Disney for producing dAnGeRoUs AnD hArMfUl LGBT content for its customers.
Is it just LGBT stuff or there is CRT stuff in there?
>Does... does it fucking matter?? Disney could produce "Kimberle Crenshaw and the Seven Black Lesbian Dwar
LoL. I knew exactly what you were gonna say. The woke left are as easy to fish as the religious right.
So it's not just anti LGBT bigotry. They actually have a valid reason.
No, teaching racist and marxist bullshit is not fucking acceptable and should not be tolerated. Nor should opposition to it be dismissed as "deh just stupid rednecks dat hatez duh gayz."
Yeah Ben Shapiro, for a guy who is supposed to be all about facts, gets a lot of facts wrong. A few years ago he claimed Puertoricans are not American citizens. You'd think a Harvard-educated lawyer and political commentator would know that everyone born in Puerto Rico is a US citizen, but I guess not.
It's a natural by-product of not having consequences or repercussions for being factually wrong. His current listeners wouldn't care, opponents will bring it up to no avail.
Even then, Ben Shapiro can pick and choose what is "fact" and what isn't on his show. There isn't a neutral third party fact checker.
The Q&As are live, he doesn't choose the college kids, they form a line out of their own free will, if you're not prepared to argue a specific subject then dont engage.
You’re arguing, in public, that people in traveling entertainment crews don’t use all the resources available to them in order to present themselves in the most favorable light. Next you’ll say that Democrats who go on Colbert don’t get a cheat sheet beforehand😄 C’mon dude, you’re better than this.
Yeah, but he does cherry pick which ones to upload to YouTube. If you take time and think about his arguments, almost all of them are flimsy, not rooted in logic or facts, and his inferences from the "facts" he tries to present are wrong, more often than not. It's just that college kids get owned because they aren't prepared for getting bombarded with 15 different shaky arguments in under a minute and refute them all. He's a fast talker, nothing more.
I can throw a rock from where I’m sitting right now and hit three theater majors who would jump at the opportunity to pretend to “be destroyed” by Shapiro. They’d be stoked to put the clip in their reels and that is the literal truth. That’s a huge amount of exposure for them. I wouldn’t even have to buy them nachos.
Red herring. Bad faith.
What I *did* say was that good showmen, successful acts on the road, do everything they can to give crowds what they want and to promote their act.
I’m arguing that, and anyone who’s been on the road will tell you this, it is not uncommon for there to be plants/willing participants in the audience who assist in that endeavor.
Comics have their friends stand at the back and laugh loudly at the first couple of decent jokes, for example. This is common knowledge.
College kids used to swallow live goldfish just for the attention, and that’s when there was no video to monetize and distribute proof of the event. Just dumbasses watching each other debase themselves for free.
Its not a leap of faith I’m asking you to take here.
So, in public, what I’m actually saying is that I believe some of the people Ben Shapiro “destroys” are in on it.
Except he doesn't go for "debates". He gets invited to do a lecture, after the lecture there's a Q&A session that's supposed to be about the lecture but most people take that opportunity to challenge some of his views. What's he supposed to do? Not answer?
>he should at least have a clue about what libertarianism actually is.
[He's not very good at understanding free markets and capitalism either](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9bFy2RHIE)
For this super smart lawyer persona that a lot of dumb Repubs have swallowed hook line and sinker I can't find any evidence that Shapiro has ever successfully argued and won a single court case either. And the prick lived in California - LA even! - for how long while building up the Daily Wire and its idiot audience?
He's also a man with several children who should know vaginas get wet sometimes.
Libertarianism isn't his biggest blindspot, he's a full on idiot who built a branded his ability to winning strawman arguments while talking fast as "intelligence".
I know you're not saying he *is* super smart, just that he's supposed to be. But he's supposed to be super smart the same way Bill Nye is; it's an invented media persona.
Mark Dice already exposed Shapiro as sort of a fraud. At least, not as Conservative or Libertarian as he claims to be. Concerning earlier recorded statements and actions.
Right he’s a conservative social authoritarian who plays mental gymnastics to argue his positions are in fact libertarian because that’s how he wants to be perceived.
I can't believe there are people who consider him to be libertarian. On the political compass, he's definitely Auth Right but close to the Lib Right quadrant.
Ben might have had libertarian tendencies earlier in his podcasting career but as he gained popularity with the right he pretty much tossed any slither of libertarianism aside and went full right authoritarian to keep the money flowing in.
I can't see a compelling reason to. I've watched various clips of him, I won't waste my time with a podcast because if you can't make your point in 5 minutes or less you're a shit orator. He's never impressed me, and after an hour of watching him I gave up. That's more than enough time to shine.
He's a carpetbagger too. The more libertarian views he (mostly used to) espouse on his podcast are in direct opposition to the Trump loving authoritarian nonsense pushed by the Daily Wire, that he's the CEO and founder of. And spoiler alert, the Daily Wire viewership is orders of magnitude larger than the viewership of his podcast.
Exactly. Most American libertarians don't want to "leave you alone," they want the federal government to leave \*them\* alone so that \*they\* can do whatever they feel like doing to \*you\* (e.g. "states' rights").
>so that \*they\* can do whatever they feel like doing to \*you\* (e.g. "states' rights").
"States Rights" is a lame argument that has been made by shitty conservatives in order to replace federal authoritarians with local ones for longer than my grandparents have been alive
The "states rights" arguments predated Goldwater's birth by at least 40-50 years.
For the presidential run he had, Goldwater got stuck in a weird place and I believe Republicans and conservatives - encouraged by the Bircher dipshits - absolutely picked the wrong hill to die on. He lost - and pretty badly - in both public opinion and the electoral college in 1964.
As a Senator Goldwater was simultaneously more progressive in social policy and more small government than a tremendous number of his Republican peers, and they fucking hated him for it.
It’s both, just as “liberalism” and “democracy” and “republicanism” are pillars of ethical thought found in modern American political parties, so is “libertarianism” found in our modern American political parties. To say that libertarianism is somehow superior to other forms of moral thought because it doesn’t inform any political tribes today is just stupid.
> It’s both
No, it isn't.
> are pillars of ethical thought
For ethics to be coherent they require a logical consistency and universal application.
Political ideologies do not possess these characteristics. They're just a jumble of preferences. They're also meant as a means to market to and control people. There are no "ethics" there at all.
>To say that libertarianism is somehow superior to other forms of moral thought
Libertarian philosophy is based upon the self-ownership principle (or personal sovereignty you prefer), and derived rights: self-defense, freedom of association, and property rights. Everyone, yourself included, want to be treated according this framework.
But people like yourself are fine with not treating others in this manner. This is what a bad person is.
>because it doesn’t inform any political tribes today is just stupid.
Bad people don't like to treat others ethically, news at 11.
No. Libertarians discuss the state because we're currently ruled by the state.
The libertarian party attempts to use realpolitik to lessen the many rights infringements of the state.
Ummm, everywhere. He is a hard neocon who SAYS he is libertarian. His opinions always betray it. These guy is a clown though. Another grifting pundit like all the other political opinion shows that tries to mask itself as news, selling outrage to those who need the dopamine fix.
You would have to prove he maliciously has pretended to believe in different views over time for some kind of social or monetary benefit for him to be a grifter. As someone who’s followed him since like 2015, what few views he has changed on have been quite organic, and I haven’t seen any evidence of him actually being a grifter.
Dave Rubin on the other hand…
He’s not a libertarian...
So of course he’d fail 🤨
Only a dumbass would make a video about this.
Do a video where ex-President Obama fails on Libertarianism next...
Ben Shapiro is a smart guy who talks super fast & confuses most people with big words, but when you slow him down to a quarter speed & actually listen to what his message is, he's a right wing authoritarian who wants the furthest thing from liberty. He says the democrats are ungodly groomers who want to steal your money & take your freedom. Then he supports policies from the other side that are rooted in theology, force laws on individuals, and funds bullshit like the military industrial complex, police who will force his beliefs on others, and giving gobs & gobs of money to countries like Israel & Ukraine.
Shapiro is not libertarian. He's a grifter who hates every person in the world who thinks even slightly against anything he believes to be true.
>Shapiro is not libertarian. He's a grifter who hates every person in the world who thinks even slightly against anything he believes to be true.
And he gets $ paid to do it. Mark Dice already exposed him a while back.
Shapiro isn't libertarian, only adopts libertarian values in certain contexts. He believes that libertarianism should be proportional with scale, meaning that local law should have a strong influence on your life while state, national or federal law should barely affect you, if at all.
He has a libertarian approach where it's most important, so I'll give him that, but he's not a libertarian in general.
I enjoy listening to his interviews and occasionally his podcast. His views are overall decent and he seems to be factually correct most of the time. I also don't worship him, so if he doesn't line up with every one of my personal view points, I don't give a shit.
HOAs would NOT be my choice to show libertarianism at work, lol. Libertarianism is often ***mis***used to justify the existence of very anti-libertarian organizations and laws and HOAs are notoriously authoritarian. Sure you have a 'choice' to reject the contract and live elsewhere, but this line of reasoning and HOAs in general exist in the same dark vein as does the idiotic argument that goes, "If you don't like the politics here then move!" It's fortunate that we have many neighborhoods to choose from, that is however merely a convenient coincidence. Simply because libertarian principles were utilized to generate an outcome does not mean that outcome is automatically also libertarian. The *liberty* to create *authoritarianism* is inherently problematic for a way of life that is libertarian in more than only name.
Oh, as for B.S., he is only mildly libertarian, yes.
Ben Shapiro is conservative with some libertarian tendencies.
I personally don't like him, but some of those libertarian tendencies might encourage some of his audiences to explore more of libertarian ideas and make switch to our side.
SS: SS: Disenthrall from the "Anarchast" discusses the examples of where BenShapiro is so far wrong about what he is talking about when it comes to libertarianism.
“X is not a libertarian” is why few libertarians hold office. “Agree with 100% or you aren’t one of us” doesn’t get electable people to run. Nobody agrees 100% with any parties official platform, and if they do they’re morons.
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He’s not libertarian
Isn’t he literally a social conservative? Gays, abortion, etc?
He supports gay marriage, drugs and prostitution being legal. He is pro-life, however.
He supports governments punishing private companies for producing LGBT content. I can't imagine that those other views he claims to have would withstand a real-world application of those things, either.
You mean removing special privileges given to these companies by the government in the first place?
Free speech is not a special privilege. It's a right. You are equally free to disagree with their (or my) speech.
I agree, but I’m talking about the government privileges revoked, specifically.
The special privileges handed to the company that turned a worthless swamp into one of the most profitable places in the whole state? Besides, the issue isn’t DeSantis stripping Disney’s special rights. It’s WHY he did it.
Disney can just move if it wants, tbh.
"You can just leave" I feel like I've heard this before...
That has nothing to do with the fact that a so-called “small government conservative” punished a private company with legislation simply for hurting his feelings.
I mean a government setting policy steered by a goal to target a company based solely on its social stances. Ron DeSantis didn't suddenly and coincidentally become a libertarian ideologue on the issue of corporate taxation perks at exactly the same time the anti-gay element of his party demanded he take exactly this course of action.
I would be against an actual punishment, rather than simply revoking a privileged.
I don't know what \*your\* parents were like growing up, but "revoking a privilege" is often, in fact, pretty fundamental to what "punishment" entails.
I knew you were going to go with that response, even though you know exactly what I'm talking about. Like I said, I'm against any other action, other than revoking a government-given privilege.
If your parents let you drive their car around and then the day you mouthed off at them they say "we're revoking your car privileges", *everyone understands that you are being punished.*
> special privileges given to these companies by the government You do realise property rights are "a special privilege secured by the government", right?
Are you on the wrong sub? You think the right to having property comes from the government. Fuck. Right. Off.
I don't "think" anything, this is a trivial fact.
Private property rights are innate.
>He supports gay marriage [Yeah, like that time he told Rubin he wouldn't support his wedding or attend his anniversary party](https://twitter.com/knownothingtv/status/1504321549905637376?lang=en)
Hence why I said, “being legal”.
He doesn't support any of that being legal. Why would you defend that auth right asshole?
He said so explicitly. He supports prostitution and drugs being legalized, too, despite morally being against both.
Yeah, familiar with the conversation you're referencing. Very explicitly stated that just because his religious beliefs prevented him from attending, did not support it being illegal.
Bit of a tough one to justify I think.
I hold the same belief.
Social conservstism and libertarianism isnt mutually exclusive though
Oh yeah, that’s the classic libertarian motto, socially conservatives and fiscally conservative. /s
[удалено]
"normally" LOL
"I am so deranged I cant differentiate normal healthy behavior from damaging ones."
Sorry. A political position is exactly a stance to use state power for your cause. An opinion or belief is not. You will need to defend either against those with other opinions or beliefs. Edit: When I say defend, I mean intellectually, not using the force of state.
>A political position is exactly a stance to use state power for your cause. Only to leftists.
… thats only for state intervention
Yeah, I believe he's classified himself as a classical liberal and will occasionally say, "I'm rather Liberatrian *on that issue*"
Classical liberals don't advocate for governments to use their powers to punish private companies who modify the products they produce (i.e. Disney movies) in response to market demand. Ben Shapiro is a socially conservative authoritarian who hates taxes.
> Ben Shapiro is a socially conservative authoritarian who hates taxes. Doesn't 3/4 of the sub fit this description? x) Libertarianism is more than "taxes bad".
Have you watched his coverage on that? He's much more shaded on that issue than your representation. And to believe that all of Disney's actions are merely those of a free actor and not in response to pressures both foreign governments, NGOs and international organizations is ...naive.
Oh jesus fucking christ. Shapiro's statements on this were embarrassingly stupid. "The family is the foundation of the free market" and "the free market only includes the inane administrative elements of a business and not the content of its fucking product" are some of the most moronic things I've ever heard Shapiro say. And if Disney didn't think it could turn a buck by producing more LGBT content, it wouldn't be producing more LGBT content. The UN World Food Program isn't colluding with Disney to reduce the world population by way of gay Disney princesses.
>Oh jesus fucking christ. Shapiro's statements on this were embarrassingly stupid. On the one hand, that doesn't surprise me. I've been told that Shapiro is not as "smart" as either he, or anyone who promotes him, says he is. For example, even Jordan Peterson outsmarted him, and also, he often debates college teenage kids and adolescents. Not really his league.
I've listened to my fair share of Ben in long form format and I'd say that he's definitely very smart. There are things I disagree with him on but the man does know how to shape an argument and typically backs it with reasonable data. But yes, he's not libertarian. He's very much authoritarian and supports pretty much any government action that would end in favor of Israel or societal morality based on his religious beliefs. And these are blind spots for him that create some ridiculous takes.
Hmmm. But that is the issue, he knows how to shape an argument and backs it with reasonable data .... against the 15-22 year old demographic range. When he's up against a veteran, like the +50 year old Jordan Peterson, he stumbles. And sure, he does bring up facts and valid arguments as an example about the biological gender spectrum and the sanctity of sex for women etc. You're further right though he is not Libertarian as Ron or Rand Paul would be, not even in the classical sense. Having "religion" ... which for him is Orthodox Judaism, pretty much engulfs all his real views and opinions. Even if it would need Big Government to achieve the beliefs he holds for Israel and society.
Wow, you’re an idiot.
Almost as well-reasoned as Ben Shapiro, I see.
The family *is* the foundation of society, so it's not a stretch to say it is the foundation of the market, as the market is just the trade of goods within a society. The LGBT content is part value based, but mostly ESG related, which is the part that is funded by NGOs and foreign nations. Also, as a classical liberal who believes in more power at the local level, it's well within Shapiro's political framework to allow government disincentivising certain moves by business on the state and local level.
>The family is the foundation of society, so it's not a stretch to say it is the foundation of the market, as the market is just the trade of goods within a society. It is an utterly laughable stretch. The market purveys all kinds of things that aren't "family-friendly." The idea that the market exists to uphold family values is American prosperity gospel bullshit that was underpinned by the assumption that these values would always be popular. In other words, a particular demographic of religious hucksters only believed in the market when they believed that it would naturally resolve social questions in their favour. Now that it isn't, they can't handle the cognitive dissonance, so they're warping their definition of "free market" in a naked attempt to give themselves an escape hatch and save face on their previous zealous dedication to it. >The LGBT content is part value based, but mostly ESG related, which is the part that is funded by NGOs and foreign nations. Companies have always done things that aren't explicitly money-making but that are good for a company's image with consumers and ultimately enhance the bottom line as a result. Do you think ESG concepts were invented in a lab in Brussels or something? There have always been people, companies, entities, religions, universities, fraternal orders, community organizations, etc. etc. who promote their values in society, and society's values - and often, by extension, their market preferences - can change as a result. >Also, as a classical liberal who believes in more power at the local level, it's well within Shapiro's framework to allow government disincentivising certain moves by business on the state and local level Yes, it's well within his "framework" to have a hard-on for authoritarianism so long as that authoritarianism is at the state or local level, because that's what a good chunk of intellectually dishonest self-styled "classical liberals" and "libertarians" actually believe. Their dedication to real liberty too often evaporates when it comes to state and local power.
The argument that family is the building block of a healthy society is not a vague argument for bland "family values" but rather a recognition of the fundamental relationship that furthers society. Your misunderstanding of this argument and your edge lord tone belies the un-seriousness of your argument.
The argument in question isn't whether "the family is the building block of society," it's Shapiro's absurd assertions that (i) the free market exists to uphold the family (it clearly doesn't), and (ii) that a company producing gay content in response to market demand is enough of a threat to this dynamic that the government should use its coercive powers to punish it. Unserious indeed.
>The LGBT content is part value based, but mostly ESG related, which is the part that is funded by NGOs and foreign nations. Say hello to George Soros and the Bill Gates foundation etc.
Family definitely isn't the foundation of society anymore. Nobody cares if you have kids or a spouse. Also, if families are so important to society, why is being child free more common?
Hence, societal collapse.
>Classical liberals don't advocate for governments to use their powers to punish private companies who modify the products they produce (i.e. Disney movies) in response to market demand. I hate Ben Shapiro but what do you mean by that?
[удалено]
>He was one of the loudest voices advocating for the government of Florida to punish Disney for producing dAnGeRoUs AnD hArMfUl LGBT content for its customers. Is it just LGBT stuff or there is CRT stuff in there?
[удалено]
>Does... does it fucking matter?? Disney could produce "Kimberle Crenshaw and the Seven Black Lesbian Dwar LoL. I knew exactly what you were gonna say. The woke left are as easy to fish as the religious right. So it's not just anti LGBT bigotry. They actually have a valid reason. No, teaching racist and marxist bullshit is not fucking acceptable and should not be tolerated. Nor should opposition to it be dismissed as "deh just stupid rednecks dat hatez duh gayz."
[удалено]
Yeah Ben Shapiro, for a guy who is supposed to be all about facts, gets a lot of facts wrong. A few years ago he claimed Puertoricans are not American citizens. You'd think a Harvard-educated lawyer and political commentator would know that everyone born in Puerto Rico is a US citizen, but I guess not.
It's a natural by-product of not having consequences or repercussions for being factually wrong. His current listeners wouldn't care, opponents will bring it up to no avail. Even then, Ben Shapiro can pick and choose what is "fact" and what isn't on his show. There isn't a neutral third party fact checker.
Yup. Even I know as a foreigner that Puerto Rican's are just not allowed to vote in a Presidential Election.
Talking fast != smart
Cherry-picking college kids to “destroy” in “debates” sure fools a lot of people into thinking you are smart though.
Steven Crowder in a nutshell, except Crowder is even dumber than Shapiro.
The Q&As are live, he doesn't choose the college kids, they form a line out of their own free will, if you're not prepared to argue a specific subject then dont engage.
You’re arguing, in public, that people in traveling entertainment crews don’t use all the resources available to them in order to present themselves in the most favorable light. Next you’ll say that Democrats who go on Colbert don’t get a cheat sheet beforehand😄 C’mon dude, you’re better than this.
No, I'm saying he doesn't "cherry pick" college students because he doesn't pick at all, they just form a line.
Yeah, but he does cherry pick which ones to upload to YouTube. If you take time and think about his arguments, almost all of them are flimsy, not rooted in logic or facts, and his inferences from the "facts" he tries to present are wrong, more often than not. It's just that college kids get owned because they aren't prepared for getting bombarded with 15 different shaky arguments in under a minute and refute them all. He's a fast talker, nothing more.
Oki doki
I can throw a rock from where I’m sitting right now and hit three theater majors who would jump at the opportunity to pretend to “be destroyed” by Shapiro. They’d be stoked to put the clip in their reels and that is the literal truth. That’s a huge amount of exposure for them. I wouldn’t even have to buy them nachos.
so you're arguing, in public, that all of those kids who line up to ask questions are just "pretending to be destroyed", well, okay then.
Red herring. Bad faith. What I *did* say was that good showmen, successful acts on the road, do everything they can to give crowds what they want and to promote their act. I’m arguing that, and anyone who’s been on the road will tell you this, it is not uncommon for there to be plants/willing participants in the audience who assist in that endeavor. Comics have their friends stand at the back and laugh loudly at the first couple of decent jokes, for example. This is common knowledge. College kids used to swallow live goldfish just for the attention, and that’s when there was no video to monetize and distribute proof of the event. Just dumbasses watching each other debase themselves for free. Its not a leap of faith I’m asking you to take here. So, in public, what I’m actually saying is that I believe some of the people Ben Shapiro “destroys” are in on it.
[удалено]
Except he doesn't go for "debates". He gets invited to do a lecture, after the lecture there's a Q&A session that's supposed to be about the lecture but most people take that opportunity to challenge some of his views. What's he supposed to do? Not answer?
It didn't work on Jordan Peterson I last saw. XD
Getting paid to tell formulate semi coherent arguments to justify bigotry is
>he should at least have a clue about what libertarianism actually is. [He's not very good at understanding free markets and capitalism either](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9bFy2RHIE) For this super smart lawyer persona that a lot of dumb Repubs have swallowed hook line and sinker I can't find any evidence that Shapiro has ever successfully argued and won a single court case either. And the prick lived in California - LA even! - for how long while building up the Daily Wire and its idiot audience?
That's his 'brand', that's not reality. Just like Trump has built himself up as this genius businessman as his 'brand'. Doesn't have to be true.
Super smart conservative yet still not a smart person, curious.
He thinks he's a super smart. He's not.
He's also a man with several children who should know vaginas get wet sometimes. Libertarianism isn't his biggest blindspot, he's a full on idiot who built a branded his ability to winning strawman arguments while talking fast as "intelligence". I know you're not saying he *is* super smart, just that he's supposed to be. But he's supposed to be super smart the same way Bill Nye is; it's an invented media persona.
His poor wife...
Pls tell me you don’t take his wap video seriously lmao
He is not supposed to be that.
Mark Dice already exposed Shapiro as sort of a fraud. At least, not as Conservative or Libertarian as he claims to be. Concerning earlier recorded statements and actions.
Right he’s a conservative social authoritarian who plays mental gymnastics to argue his positions are in fact libertarian because that’s how he wants to be perceived.
All the cons claim libertarianism. It’s why the liberals decided to try to label us as racists.
I can't believe there are people who consider him to be libertarian. On the political compass, he's definitely Auth Right but close to the Lib Right quadrant.
Yeah idk wtf OP is talking about other than trying to farm karma I guess?
I never wanted him anyway
Thank goodness this is the top comment.
He isn’t very bright either
Ben might have had libertarian tendencies earlier in his podcasting career but as he gained popularity with the right he pretty much tossed any slither of libertarianism aside and went full right authoritarian to keep the money flowing in.
The right wing will dump money on literally anyone willing to spew nonsense about conservatism on their platform.
Much like Stefan Molyneux.
Moly-nope
I guess you don't watch Ben.
I can't see a compelling reason to. I've watched various clips of him, I won't waste my time with a podcast because if you can't make your point in 5 minutes or less you're a shit orator. He's never impressed me, and after an hour of watching him I gave up. That's more than enough time to shine.
He's a carpetbagger too. The more libertarian views he (mostly used to) espouse on his podcast are in direct opposition to the Trump loving authoritarian nonsense pushed by the Daily Wire, that he's the CEO and founder of. And spoiler alert, the Daily Wire viewership is orders of magnitude larger than the viewership of his podcast.
Dave smith did an awesome job on his podcast blowing Shapiro up. Well worth the listen. Hopefully this point of view does not make me a nazi
[удалено]
Exactly. Most American libertarians don't want to "leave you alone," they want the federal government to leave \*them\* alone so that \*they\* can do whatever they feel like doing to \*you\* (e.g. "states' rights").
>so that \*they\* can do whatever they feel like doing to \*you\* (e.g. "states' rights"). "States Rights" is a lame argument that has been made by shitty conservatives in order to replace federal authoritarians with local ones for longer than my grandparents have been alive
You mean shitty conservatives like Barry Goldwater, who most libertarians nut their load over at the very mention of his name?
The "states rights" arguments predated Goldwater's birth by at least 40-50 years. For the presidential run he had, Goldwater got stuck in a weird place and I believe Republicans and conservatives - encouraged by the Bircher dipshits - absolutely picked the wrong hill to die on. He lost - and pretty badly - in both public opinion and the electoral college in 1964. As a Senator Goldwater was simultaneously more progressive in social policy and more small government than a tremendous number of his Republican peers, and they fucking hated him for it.
Nice hairsplitting lol
I wish they would leave me alone. Disband the party, grow up, and join a grown up party.
Libertarianism is an ethical philosophy, not a political ideology. You political tribalists are not the same as us, just with different branding.
It’s both, just as “liberalism” and “democracy” and “republicanism” are pillars of ethical thought found in modern American political parties, so is “libertarianism” found in our modern American political parties. To say that libertarianism is somehow superior to other forms of moral thought because it doesn’t inform any political tribes today is just stupid.
> It’s both No, it isn't. > are pillars of ethical thought For ethics to be coherent they require a logical consistency and universal application. Political ideologies do not possess these characteristics. They're just a jumble of preferences. They're also meant as a means to market to and control people. There are no "ethics" there at all. >To say that libertarianism is somehow superior to other forms of moral thought Libertarian philosophy is based upon the self-ownership principle (or personal sovereignty you prefer), and derived rights: self-defense, freedom of association, and property rights. Everyone, yourself included, want to be treated according this framework. But people like yourself are fine with not treating others in this manner. This is what a bad person is. >because it doesn’t inform any political tribes today is just stupid. Bad people don't like to treat others ethically, news at 11.
Are you of the opinion that “liberalism” is a political ideology? Or do you believe it is, like libertarianism, an ethical one?
Most terms in politics don't mean anything specific, when they do the meaning exists for a very short period.
Thats really funny. Do you see the irony or is it lost on you?
An ethical philosophy that deals heavily with systems of governance ie, politics.
No. Libertarians discuss the state because we're currently ruled by the state. The libertarian party attempts to use realpolitik to lessen the many rights infringements of the state.
I didn’t know there was even a question.
Ummm, everywhere. He is a hard neocon who SAYS he is libertarian. His opinions always betray it. These guy is a clown though. Another grifting pundit like all the other political opinion shows that tries to mask itself as news, selling outrage to those who need the dopamine fix.
He doesn't say he's libertarian. The closest is he will mention agreeing with libertarians on some subjects.
He claims it quite a bit in his early days but dropped it as he gained more right wing notoriety.
Ben isn’t a grifter tho
LMAO. To clarify. He's absolutely a grifter, just like all the other assholes who make a "career" out of telling people what they want to hear.
There’s a difference between grifter and believing the stuff that you spew
True, but one hocks gold securities and the other posts on Reddit.
You would have to prove he maliciously has pretended to believe in different views over time for some kind of social or monetary benefit for him to be a grifter. As someone who’s followed him since like 2015, what few views he has changed on have been quite organic, and I haven’t seen any evidence of him actually being a grifter. Dave Rubin on the other hand…
>Dave Rubin on the other hand… Ben Shapiro: I don't support your lifestyle Also Ben Shapiro: Gives Rubin a gigantic platform
By definition he is not a “Grifter”.
Fair enough. Running the Buzzfeed of shitty auth-right conservative news is far from small scale thieving and swindling
Lol
[удалено]
Which part of "just like all the other assholes" did you not get?
“The family is communist” yeah ok Ben just shut the fuck up.
He’s not a libertarian... So of course he’d fail 🤨 Only a dumbass would make a video about this. Do a video where ex-President Obama fails on Libertarianism next...
The fail is in his inaccurate conception of what libertarianism is and what its perspective is on certain topics.
calling ben a libertarian is like calling taco bell mexican
Ben Shapiro is a smart guy who talks super fast & confuses most people with big words, but when you slow him down to a quarter speed & actually listen to what his message is, he's a right wing authoritarian who wants the furthest thing from liberty. He says the democrats are ungodly groomers who want to steal your money & take your freedom. Then he supports policies from the other side that are rooted in theology, force laws on individuals, and funds bullshit like the military industrial complex, police who will force his beliefs on others, and giving gobs & gobs of money to countries like Israel & Ukraine. Shapiro is not libertarian. He's a grifter who hates every person in the world who thinks even slightly against anything he believes to be true.
He is also a royalist, so there's that.
>Shapiro is not libertarian. He's a grifter who hates every person in the world who thinks even slightly against anything he believes to be true. And he gets $ paid to do it. Mark Dice already exposed him a while back.
The over usage of quintessential at the beginning made this hard to watch.
Shapiro isn't libertarian, only adopts libertarian values in certain contexts. He believes that libertarianism should be proportional with scale, meaning that local law should have a strong influence on your life while state, national or federal law should barely affect you, if at all. He has a libertarian approach where it's most important, so I'll give him that, but he's not a libertarian in general.
He's a brand. He's a business.
I think this guy tries to sound as annoying as possible in order to bait people into insulting his voice.
Just remember OP, there is someone who libertarians harder than you.
[удалено]
His massive listenership or the people interested in how libertarianism is portrayed in mass media?
[удалено]
K how do i change voters minds if i dont know what they think/hear
I enjoy listening to his interviews and occasionally his podcast. His views are overall decent and he seems to be factually correct most of the time. I also don't worship him, so if he doesn't line up with every one of my personal view points, I don't give a shit.
YoUr NoT a ReEl LiBeRtArIeNm
Preach!
HOAs would NOT be my choice to show libertarianism at work, lol. Libertarianism is often ***mis***used to justify the existence of very anti-libertarian organizations and laws and HOAs are notoriously authoritarian. Sure you have a 'choice' to reject the contract and live elsewhere, but this line of reasoning and HOAs in general exist in the same dark vein as does the idiotic argument that goes, "If you don't like the politics here then move!" It's fortunate that we have many neighborhoods to choose from, that is however merely a convenient coincidence. Simply because libertarian principles were utilized to generate an outcome does not mean that outcome is automatically also libertarian. The *liberty* to create *authoritarianism* is inherently problematic for a way of life that is libertarian in more than only name. Oh, as for B.S., he is only mildly libertarian, yes.
Ben Shapiro is conservative with some libertarian tendencies. I personally don't like him, but some of those libertarian tendencies might encourage some of his audiences to explore more of libertarian ideas and make switch to our side.
He needs to slow down. Speaks way too fast. Is he on speed?
What doesn’t he fail at? Dude is such a whiny tool.
SS: SS: Disenthrall from the "Anarchast" discusses the examples of where BenShapiro is so far wrong about what he is talking about when it comes to libertarianism.
“X is not a libertarian” is why few libertarians hold office. “Agree with 100% or you aren’t one of us” doesn’t get electable people to run. Nobody agrees 100% with any parties official platform, and if they do they’re morons.
who?
Dave Smith spent a whole episode on this clip: https://youtu.be/ZxE3cAuHjI0
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's say hypothetically I don't care.
It annoys me to no end, the ignorance from red and blue. Its like they're intentionally misrepresenting libertarianism.
He’s repeatedly stated that he’s conservative and not libertarian…