Who Needs Economic Freedom When You Can Vote?

why do you need the right to decide how to spend your own money you can vote some people say that economic liberties are not all that important what’s important is that you get an equal say government so you can help make the rules in other words many people think that political rights such as the right to vote or run for office are more important than economic rights such as the right to own a business own personal property or make financial plans for yourself but that’s puzzling if we care about people’s autonomy we want to give them as much control over their own lives as possible I’ve made many autonomous decisions in my life what color toothbrush should I have so I hold off buying new clothes so I can buy myself a fancy guitar or should I save more instead should I go back to school what kind of careers I pursue should I try to start a business or should I work for someone else in each of these cases I make the decision whatever I decide stands this is important because each of us has a different conception of the good life the good life does not come in one size fits all we value different things and pursue different ends we have different ideas about how to make trade-offs among the various opportunities and costs we face when we give everyone an extensive sphere of personal economic Liberty we give everyone the power to shape his or her own destiny economic Liberty is not just about dollars and cents it is crucial and ensuring that people can lead a life they regard as authentically theirs now suppose these choices have been taken away from me and given over to democratic decision-making even if I had an equal vote in this democracy I would face a severe loss of autonomy why is this in every election or decision my vote by itself is extremely unlikely to change the outcome this means I don’t have much power or autonomy at all the group will decide for me I’m more likely to win Powerball a few times in a row than to change the outcome of a congressional or presidential election so unlike my right to buy whichever toothbrush I want or my right to choose which career to pursue my right to vote does not imbue me with significant autonomy or control over my here’s another example in most democracies citizens have a right to observe whatever religion they choose imagine instead the democracy chose one religion for all but gave each citizen an equal vote that would not be a way of empowering citizens in most democracies citizens also have a right to choose their own occupation again imagine these choices were made for us through the democratic process that wouldn’t be a way of empowering citizens even if everyone had equal rights to an equal vote in these cases we recognize that giving a person to vote is not the same thing as giving her much control over her life the way we ensure people have autonomy is by making sure each person has an extensive sphere of personal liberty that is not subjected to democratic control in Western democracies when we exalt democracy what we mean is constitutional democracy and the constitutional part is more important than the democracy part democracy has to be limited democracy’s usually do a good job ensuring most people have a large sphere of personal autonomy they do this not just by giving everyone the right to vote rather they do it by making sure that many issues including economic decisions are taken off the political bargaining table so that no one gets to vote on them want to learn more about Liberty click on some of our other videos if you’d like to do more than just watch videos click on the link for more student opportunities and other resources

100 thoughts on “Who Needs Economic Freedom When You Can Vote?

  • Could you please define what "natural wealth" is? And while you're at it, you could also define what constitutes sufficient housing and food. Because those same poor you mentioned are wealthier and have more luxuries then the average citizen in Europe, Asia or Africa. They have a longer life-expectancy and larger average living space. Virtually all of them have televisions and refrigerators, many also have game consoles, computers, and even a few have jacuzzis.

    So define "poor".

  • The type of system you propose is an attempt at utopia. An attempt which has been tried and an attempt which has never succeeded.

    When people are not responsible for their own care and needs, they are not productive. When they are not productive while others are, you will end up with people who have only the minimum given to them while others have much.

    Kind of like where we are now.

  • Do you have a solution?

    As a side note, I'm not trying to be mocking. I really am curious about if you have some idea of how to solve this problem or not.

  • The monetary system would of course have to be changed, but we cannot let the Banksters control it again, or we will go all through the same things again. There are even a few other monetary systems discussed here on YouTube, and some of them even sound plausible. Of course none of the solutions are plausible, until Americans Wake up to what's really going on, and that has not happened yet, some believe the Government and MM BS completely, and become angry to hear truth and attack the messenger.

  • What do you mean by changing the monetary system? Are you talking about something simple, like going back to the gold standard or eliminating the Federal Reserve, or something more drastic?

  • I am not making up figures. MSNBC reported that 4% of the bottom 20% reach the top 20% in their lifetime, and that was a statistic which was spun to make income mobility seem overestimated.

    But I would love to hear how numbers tell us who is working harder than others, because it seems like if you do not work hard you will never achieve a high income without coming into money (in which case you still need to work hard to maintain).

  • Like I said there are many alternatives, I am not pushing any of them, they are out there and can even be found on this YouTube, please feel free to Research them, if that is your interest, good luck and take care. By the way, what we have as a monetary system right now, that I find drastic and impossible to sustain. The FED is a Bankster Gang, they manipulate in the dark, and you and I know not what their doing, it's all one big secret, our government is moving that way also, it is not right.

  • Living off of interest is a rather limited way to live. You would live better by investing that money, which helps the economy.

    I did google "US social mobility", and what I learned is that that statistic I gave about 1 in 25 of they very poor becoming very rich is still true. It is just comparatively small. What else I found in the Huffington Post and Business Insider articles was that the solution to helping fix this problem is much what the Learn Liberty videos encourage.

  • It goes both ways. The government is taking further control by making deals with these big corporate powers.

  • Just the way I see it but, through the years Corporate and Banksters, extremely large donors, lobbyist, revolving doors, etc, have played a major part in US politics, to the point where we have reached now. Special interest and the US Government are difficult to tell which is which. Because of this, the US Government and the special interest, have taken over the US and it no longer represents "We the People", but it does represent "We the the top of Corporate US". Change is needed or enslavement

  • Most rich people are actually very moral, intelligent, and responsible individuals, it is the FEW amongst the elite who are in control of the government. They use government policy to make themselves richer for doing NOTHING. Their are leeches on every single level of society, the issue is is that we do not pay attention.

  • No.. it really is the full spectrum. Anytime you further your own goals, in a capitalistic society, in order to do so, you MUST serve your fellow man in some capacity. Regardless of ones intention, at its core, you do the social responsible thing by virtue of pursing your own self interest.

  • Do not remember saying one word about rich individuals, I was only speaking about the slime that are rising to the surface of the pool so to speak. (Personally have nothing against rich people) Please speak for yourself, I have been a witness to the rot at the top, so it is not everybody who has not paid attention, we are powerless to do much about it until the rest wake up, and we are still not there yet, the majority love to bend over at a constant unending rate with no thought of it.

  • Anyone who is rich is considered Elite by most in our society, so, I have to interpret it that way. and I know about the corruption too, I've been asked to get involved in either politics or corporate business multiple times for my skill and have been considered a "friend" by powerful people on both sides of the spectrum of morality. I instead have invested myself in making sure I can't be brought down by others ignorance and spreading information.

  • Good for you, all rich people are not the elite, however as you say it is difficult to tell who is the elite truly. Some think they are the elite and are just doing the bidding for them, these I would term Puppets, this would include 90% or more on Capitol Hill. The misinformation is usually spread by those who truly believe they are counted within the elite. Bernanke would be one who thinks he is in the elite, but probably not, he is full of misinformation and just plain BS.

  • Get rid of this unnecessary, obtrusive music. It is very distracting and anyone who is interested in the video does not need to be entertained.

  • Your point is valid, if I understand it correctly. Your society your society is more your state than your federal, more your city than your state, etc.
    If we shrank the Federal Government, cut FEDERAL dollars than States can tax and have their own social welfare programs and economic structures. We forget that we are 50 countries united under 1 precursor to the United Nations. You don't see Denmark, Sweden or Finland with state vs fed. They don't have a federal gov to contest with!

  • But at what point do you consider someone rich? Rich is a relative term. Our lower class is richer than most other countries' lower class. Therefore there is a flaw in your logic. No offense.

  • I go by our society's standard of what rich is. I don't try to follow an objective term of it or the standards of other societies for I do not live amongst them.

  • Right because if you looked at it from any other perspective besides America, you're than classified under the "rich" category. And that would mean you are part of the elite. Which you know you aren't.

    So perhaps simply saying the "rich" is elite, is a fallacy based on perception instead of an actual definition and facts. While I believe the elite are "rich", I do not believe all rich are elite. And to believe so is limiting your own intellect, thought process and increases class warfare.

  • You are trying to look at it objectively, as I told the guy I was originally responding too I am using the words based upon the definitions of the American People. If we all simply used our own definitions then their would be much confusion.

  • We do use our own definitions. Left, right, Libertarian, Statist. Its everyones point of view. That's why its so easily manipulated.

    Its how you have a statist "left" and a statist "right" party now. And apparently ANYTHING non-federal is extremist. Apparently rewinding to a more peaceful and prosperous america is extremist. Apparently our country was born from extremists… but those people don't know shit. lol

  • Couldn't agree with that more. I'm just pointing out that just saying the elite are the rich is the same as saying all those twist-able titles of left, right, republican, libertarian, etc, etc.

    I don't know about you but I hope to one day be one of the rich and if you knew me, you'd know I'm no freakin' elite. lol 😛

  • NO to democracy, YES to republic and a bigger YES to voluntary society.
    "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
    John Adams

  • i learned alot from this video… but isn't the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) "religion" ment just to be an insult to other religions?

  • Here is a brain twister for you people out their in youtube-land: Who determines what is, and is not, acceptable to be voted on?
    The majority? A powerful elite?

    In either case, one thing is certain: there will be people who disagree and see their individual rights being violated. Perhaps we should move the discussion away from controlling and limiting the government, to how ought we solve our collective problems in the absence of violence.

  • Yes I agree voting is an ideal system in a perfect republic, but we don't have that.

    How can one say voting is the answer to term limits and voicing democracy when our Congress is bought off by bigger more powerful corporations and we are end off left with shitty voting choices (Obama and Romney; uugghh…)??

  • Stop right there, when you give everyone unlimited economic freedom, what you're really doing is giving everyone the right to exploit others as they see fit. This is why capitalism is the most Darwinist, cold hearted system imaginable, and this goal of only working together so far as it meets individual needs is what will ultimately doom it.

  • Not true at all, and there are many videos on Learn Liberty that deal with the very things you're saying. Watch the video Does Capitalism Exploit Workers. What you really have a problem with is Crony Capitalism. If the playing field is truly level, then exploitation can't happen because you can't be forced to work for someone. The only reason you stay at an employer is because you think you're better off for it. That's freedom, being able to choose what is best for you without unfair limits.

  • Wrong. The playing field will never be level because capitalism endorses competition, and only rewards profitability. Laid out in a logical manner.

    1. Capitalism Rewards profitability.
    2. Profitability leads to more money
    3. Money can be used to buy power and influence with the government
    4. Power and influence with the government can be used to increase profitability
    Conclusion: Capitalism rewards using money to buy power and influence with the government.

  • Furthermore, if you want true freedom, then you must have democracy, otherwise you have things as they are run now, which is an oligarchy, which if that's fine with you, okay but don't go around spreading bullshit about how what's going on is "crony Capitalism" when it's just the logical conclusion of capitalism. Exploitation is a basic function of the system that rewards only profit, even without government buy offs.

  • So, bottom line, be fine with your hypocritical Democracy for one sector, tyranny/oligarchy for the other or embrace one system in both.

  • The only reason capitalism seemed to work for so long is that the exploitation was going on elsewhere for so long and the people in charge were kind enough to let the proletariat play for a while. Well I for one do not think that we should rely on the kindness of peoples hearts when the core reinforcement is only for profitability, which leads to horrendous acts, such as reduced wages for the lower classes, love cana, cochabamba, and an endless string of other offenses.

  • Also your basic premise is false, under capitalism you only have the options of which employer to sell your labor to, and what products to buy, but not the form in which you interact with the economy, it's all capitalism. That's a rather shallow definition of freedom, especially even when the best and kindest of employers are in some way exploiting their workers, not all exploitation takes the form of sweatshops.

  • Nah, those guys are too kind hearted, I was thinking Bachman, or bush, or hell barack, he seems to like killing small children.

  • I fail to see what the problem with exploiting resources is. In this case you're talking about exploiting human capital, the time and skills that you bring to a company to sell. Isn't that the entire point of having a job? You also fail to mention that if you don't want to work for someone else, you are free, in a perfectly free market which we do not have, to start your own business. Free markets are good for human society. Voluntary exchanges are what build wealth and create value.

  • Wow, where to start…

    Not everyone has the opportunity to start their own business, and even if they were it's a moot point given the exploitation of the worker. Under capitalism you are free to chose who to work for and what to buy, but not under which economic system you use to interact. so by far capitalism is really nothing more than shallow freedoms, which encourage worker exploitation. It's a system that favors the top and steals from the bottom.

  • Again it really sounds like you're talking about Crony Capitalism. I didn't say everyone has the opportunity to start their own business, did you not see the part where I said that's only true in an actually free market? Also, the only way anyone gets to choose what economic system to live under is by moving to another country. If you want to talk about worker exploitation look at communism. Under capitalism a worker gets payed what their work is worth to the market.

  • That brings up another question though, I'd like to know what economic system you would replace Capitalism with, since you seem to hate it so much.

  • You are talking the difference between a flawed theory, and reality, the reality is that capitalism is cronyism.

    Also, strawman, there never is nor has been a communist, or socialist state. there have been fascist states that use the term, but they are not what they protest to be.

    and finally, what your work is worth to the market, is bullshit, the market works on supply and demand, meaning the common man gets shafted.

  • You are one of the most pessimistic people I've ever talked to. That and you ignore facts. I don't want this rather interesting discussion to degenerate into any name calling though. So I'm going to ask you a question instead. Since you obviously hate capitalism, what system would you propose replace it?

  • I believe that Democracy is above all, superior to all forms of control thus far practiced. Today the economic sector is run as an oligarchy, an aristocracy if you will. I would see this replaced with democracy, that the people whom exploit are held accountable to those they are exploiting, instead of to the all mighty dollar.

    Also what facts did I ignore?

  • Um, I think you misunderstood my question. I asked you what system you'd replace capitalism with, which is an economic system, and you answered Democracy, which is a political system.

    The fact you ignore is that there is a stark difference between healthy capitalism and crony capitalism. Cronyism comes from the government gaining too much power over the market. In a truly free market economy the government has no power over the market at all. No subsidies, no regulation, nothing.

  • The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter

    -Winston Churchill

    Democracy isn't successful, its a way to propagate the selfish ignorance of the masses. Politicians in democracies feel they are obligated to give money to the people who already have money because of their power. Democracy, in its purest form, has only been used for a period of 2-5 years, and that was in ancient athens. Democracy doesn't work, even its creators know that.

  • yeah because autocracy totally doesn't lead to a select few doing the same, stealing more peoples money, for the benefit of a few. I suggest you go john galt, the civilized world will not miss you. You will be replaced with someone who has a soul.

  • And some information to support your claim would be beneficial. Im interested in facts not accusations as to the presence of a soul in me. And also, one should make decisions with their brain, not a metaphysical "soul".

  • Political freedom is not only about voting, an Individual with a right of political freedom can also run for office, he/she can voluntarily form political parties to run for office, lobby or criticize goverment policy to change, and can peacefully protest to change any public policy by competing with other parties.. And that can give a lot of empowerment to individuals…

  • Well it is not the same thing just because you can vote, I can see why you would say that. The root difference is that in a democracy you can vote to take rights or stuff from people with for example green eyes, 51% rule the other 49% in a republic minority is protected from majority and vise versa. The individual is the foundation of society. Of course that system does not exist anymore.

  • I see what are you trying to say. My country is known a "Parliamentary democracy" and when we have a referendum (witch is direct democracy every democratic state has it) and people vote it must be respected even though the constitution doesn't allow it, it is useless it is written to protect the government from the people.

  • In the US everybody has to be like a lawyer, know the obsessive city laws, state laws, federal laws and tax codes. The punishment of not, getting sued, screwed or thrown in jail. Just one example of the limited freedom here, and the fact so much our country seems to be filled with the legal/business law field. Most people just try to cheat and circumvent the rules as well to avoid obligations or get benefits.

    I guess one easy indicator of an over-bloated bureaucracy and restricted economy.

  • U.S Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…"
    The word "democracy" is never used within the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. The more we become a democracy, the less we become a Republic, and vice-versa.

  • Cry some more, libertarians. The rest of the nation is waking up to the fact that you are nothing but a bunch of rich white people (overwhelmingly male) armed with a Just-world fallacy and a myopic obsession with microeconomics.

  • Hmm….If Libertarianism would only help rich white men….why are so many rich businessmen vehemently opposed to it?

  • You sure shut me up… Great video, well justified points. Can't really add anything into it, gotta keep researcing for more to see it you are really right. SO far 100% with you! +1 like. 😀

  • This should be taught in schools. Not that weath gap BS with it's bogus statistics and it's Marxist agenda. .

  • You do realize that taxes are the price of having a goddamned society, right? No taxes, no roads, water, military, police, firemen, etc.

    It IS ok for the group to vote away SOME personal rights, like putting arsenic in the cereal, or "no smoking in public buildings or restaraunts (but not "no smoking anywhere, period"), because those actions are harmful to the group as a whole. It's, again, called "society" You don't like it? Go live in a goddamned cave.

  • (1) Again, does that mean we should allow the ones doing the providing to put arsenic in the cereal?
    (2) …your point being…?
    (3&4) You're half right-half wrong. You're forgetting how complex society has become over thousands of years. Such a juvenile understanding was fine when we lived in small communities in caves. And as I said, if you don't wish to participate, go live in a cave.

  • Voting with your dollar means ef-all if another guy who is diametrically opposed to all of your ideals has a net worth of billions.

  • 1. You're right, it is a good thing the FDA isn't privatized.

    2. The state is society. Every dollar that is spent on the state, save politicians salaries, goes right back into the economy in the form of wages, public works construction, public services such as fire protection and police, etc. Go live in cave if you don't want to contribute.

  • I'd say no to the first two, and yes to the final.

    Yes to a voluntary society… no to the very concept that a human being – or any number of human beings – can dictate another by force, fraud, or coercion – as is the very concept of government, even a Republic.

    Republic is the "lesser of two evils"… but I'd rather not have to deal with the evil to begin with. Why settle for "good enough"?

  • Like it or not the society is so damaged that we can't go to a voluntary society right now, we have to gradually transition to it. I would like to go to it right now but we have to be realistic.

  • This is why I hate the Young Terks. They keep calling us a democracy. Some people think we can hand over our rights for safety and we're somehow more free than the next country because we can vote which is BS. The United States is a Republic.

    "To the Republic for which it stands."

  • Another stupid fuck that doesn't know the definitions of a word. I understand you went to a public school so that is why you are ignorant and don't care about the definitions of words so you assume and make shit up. Go watch Ray William and leave the stuff you know shit about.

  • LOL ANOTHER RON PAULER. Yeah because we should only have Private schools and let everybody else get home schooled. A Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. So I guess you don t live in a Democracy then? When John Adams speaks that quote hes talking about Direct Democracy. All democracy's are republics, but not every republic is a democracy.

  • Democracy =/= Republic. In a democracy (Direct of representive) majority rule decides how we live most if not all of our lives. In a constitutional republic there are sertain principles that trump democracy (such as freedom of speech). And as for privite schools and home schooling… anything else is not real education (I say that having gone to a public school).

  • 1.) Collecting taxes =/= being payed
    2.) The state is soceity? A strawman argument, you saying that because we beleve in a stateless (more or less) society, we dont believe in society at all.

  • Btw. the FDA is the pharmicudical industry's bitch. What wiimooden was talking about is a consumer "regulation" agency that run for consumers as a service (like Hotels.com is for finding good hotels that are resonably priced)

  • These arguments are often used to excuse the MASSIVE LACK of economic freedom of the majority.
    Somebody below the poverty line does not have economic freedom, and any attempts to grant economic freedom to the disadvantaged are attacked as being against the freedom of people that are already far more free, even though it would cost them almost nothing.
    Look at it like this:
    Northern Europe is one of the most liberated areas in world history.
    It has GREAT economic freedom, with access to opportunity for all. It's a powerhouse of invention and productivity.
    It ALSO has a social safety net ALSO unparalleled in human history.
    The cost?
    Relatively high taxes, removing that "economic freedom" with those tax dollars.
    No amount of individual financial freedom is going to build roads across nations, or ensure schools for everyone, or a standard of healthcare. Using the state for things that can not be sensible done by individuals isn't a loss of freedom, it's essentially using a wholesaler. Sure, you can shop around for a deal, but a wholesaler can sell in bulk and beat almost any deal.
    Amusingly, when you look at disposable income between "high tax" places and elsewhere, I don't see much difference, and the high taxed places don't have so many expenses. Living standards are just straight up better, and economic freedom greater for most individuals.
    So, this argument for liberty seems to me to be focused on liberty for the few, at the expense of the many, rather than liberty for the many at a small inconvenience for the few. Having a high marginal tax rate still leaves people with more money than those that earn less than them, especially when considering professional accountancy, which leads to higher earners paying far less than that.

  • Democracy… yeah I want a bunch of uninformed people who have though about all the issues for a combined 5 minutes choosing between a bunch of people who have as their best qualifications is that they can talk on TV or in front of a crowd. When the election is over the elected officials will be thoroughly at the mercy of bureaucrats and lobbyists anyway. Why not do away with the charade of elections and just have complaints/praise lines to the bureaucrats?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *