My name is Henrik Jönsson, and I am an independent, libertarian entrepreneur and … That’s how I usually start my videos every week. But what is Libertarianism? How do you look at social issues as a libertarian – and what do I REALLY mean when I describe myself as a libertarian? These are the issues I address in this week’s video. If you appreciate my movies, you help me continue making them by supporting me through one of the payment options out here on the left. My channel is completely self-funded, and would not be possible without your continued voluntary support. Thank you. Also check out my English channel above, and don’t forget to subscribe below if you haven’t. Also, don’t forget to click on that miserable bell icons and choose “All” so that YouTube possibly sends you a notification when I release new videos – which I do with religious honor – every Saturday morning at 8 AM CET. Today I talk about law, life and libertarianism! Stay tuned! I want a good society. A just society. An honorable society. I want a society to be proud of, a society in development, individually and in solidarity with other people. I want a society characterized by development, courage and meaning – where we learn from our ancestors and teach our successors. I want a society where our families are safe, a society where our peculiarities are tolerated and where tomorrow carries a promise of a better life. A society in which we try to leave and better the world to our children, than the one we inherited from our parents. I want our short lives on this planet to mean something. Mean something to those who are close to us, but also to one another as fellow human beings – in the larger common mosaic where each of us constitutes a small speck of color in the larger picture of development, progress and meaning that describes humanity’s history. I believe that these desires are universal, and that all attempts at coexistence between and anyone else aspire to these goals, whether expressed in the form of nomadic societies, feudal states or parliamentary democracies. I now want to try to explain why, for me, libertarianism has long been bet to realize these goals. What a piece of work is man! How Noble in Reason? How infinite in faculty? In form and moving, how express and admirable? In Action, how like an Angel? In apprehension, how like a God? That’s how beautifully William Shakespeare paid tribute to man in his play “Hamlet” over 400 years ago. However, Hamlet’s monologue darkens as he paraphrases the preacher verse 2:23 and concludes that man’s goal is still an emptiness chase after the wind. This duality carries within the human being: a potential to change the world – like a god, and at the same time, facing one’s own mortality – helpless as a lonely child. To embrace these two seemingly incompatible conditions in a good life, an honorable life and a meaningful life are civilizations discovered, and I want to start in the cradle of modern Western civilization: with Aristotle. Aristotle’s philosophical deed is difficult to overrate: 400 years before the birth of Christ, he constructed modern thought methodology, founded logic, shaped ethics and laid the cornerstones for both modern science, art and philosophy. Aristotle’s opposed his teacher Plato’s notion of a transcendental world of ideas, and instead asserted that man was capable of understanding reality through his senses and through reason. Aristotle not only laid the foundation for modern civilization, but also showed what it meant to be CIVILIZED. And in addition: that man was meaningful. That human civilization was meaningful, desirable and valuable. “You matter to someone, you matter big time!” If one, like me, confesses to this view, the consequence inevitably becomes that man wish to further develop this civilization. That in the short time that man is dressed in fragile flesh to wander the earth, the power of his full being’s capacity supports the human world with his utmost effort. You are needed. You can make a difference. Your best efforts are valuable. Not the second best, the third best, or the one you can’t make right now because you’re too lazy and hungover – but the very best energy and effort your whole being owns. If my role is to be just a shattered stained glass in the corner window of the mighty cathedral of human civilization, then I want to be a shining stained glass and illuminate its vast arches with what little color stands in my power. In the sweat of his face, man deserves his bread, and it is only through countless generations of hard-working people that humanity today enjoys the unmatched privileges that are so easily taken for granted. Look around! You are probably sitting in a heated room, with lighting you can control with the push of a button, and with a tiny little machine in front of you, where all the world’s knowledge lies at your feet. It is nothing short of a miracle that we as a species lift ourselves out of the mud “There is some lovely filth down here! Oh, how do you do?” to create all this for our own because we wanted to, because we could, because it served us and because it was good and right to do! For hundreds of thousands of years man lived day-by-day, naked he traveled the world to find food. Thousands of years of poverty, scarcity and violence finally exploded in the late 18th century in a truly unique wealth increase where not only the rulers or the aristocracy became richer – but where normal people suddenly lifted themselves out of the mud and income quadrupled in just a few short generations in many places. Prosperity did not arise because of colonialism, violence or conquests. History is littered with occupations and abuse that in no way created any lasting wealth increase. Neither did wealth arise because of strong institutions, or because of a strong state power – history is full of strong state powers whose population lived in poverty. The reason for the sudden prosperity was innovation. New machines, materials and ideas laid the groundwork for huge productivity increases, which in turn accelerated the emergence of further new ideas and inventions. The innovativity and the dramatic increase in wealth were the result of a new application of two old ideas: FREEDOM and HONOR. Economic freedom gradually replaced the feudal society – simply because a person who owns something takes better care of it – and thus also becomes more profitable and more productive, which benefits society as a whole. The return on English arable land increased up to 30% in many places, after the farmer who used the land was allowed to own the land himself. The second factor was CONTRACTS. It became a social stigma to break agreements, which basically made people keep what they promised. This made the entire population exponentially more efficient. To imagine a society without contract units, imagine that you can’t trust the bus to leave at twelve o’clock, so the person you decided to meet at one o’clock can’t trust you to come, so you might not meet at all. Maybe the ticket you bought doesn’t even apply – and think about all the accidents just because the traffic rules are not respected? Without these socially honored contracts, civilization crashes into mistrust, unpredictability and chaos. If you, like Aristotle, consider that human civilization is important, then you want to support the forces that spur ingenuity. And if you want to motivate innovation, then you support the ideal of HONOR and FREEDOM. Libertarianism is the ideology that most clearly articulates these two values. That’s why I’m a Libertarian. Libertarianism exists in many different variants, but usually, libertarians want to limit the influence of the state to the maintenance of the fundamental security of society, both internal and external. But otherwise, the state should have no power over the citizens. Libertarianism’s small but effective state is responsible for the judiciary, police and defense. The judiciary maintains equality before the law, and handles disputes between citizens. The police force enforces the law, and fights crime. The defense protects the free society from threats and attacks, and keeps track of who enters the country. This construction rests on the so-called “non-aggression principle”, which in short means that aggressions such as violence, coercion or threats of violence are not allowed – but this does not mean pacifism. If a citizen of a Libertarian society is attacked, he or she can defend himself by force. “There’s only so much the victim can take until he snaps.” The one who first violate the principle of non-aggression have forfeited their right not to be subjected to violence. People’s behavior and interaction in a free state is based on free will rather than on coercion. The state has no views on what this society will then look like. It is okay to create a socialist, or a segregated state within a libertarian society as long as the principle of non-aggression is upheld, everything is done by free will and citizens finance their way of life themselves. Other than that, man is allowed to be who she is, and is free to articulate her need for meaning and creativity in the context of her choice. Communities arise naturally and without control – due to the simple reason that people generally want to voluntarily coexist with other productive and competent people who share beliefs and goals – whatever these may be. A society that needs to use coercion, violence and threats to stay together, and which forces people to live a certain way is not only a restricted society, it is also a cold and stagnant society – without FREEDOM nor HONOR required for courage, risk-taking and innovation. The opposite of this libertarian model of society are collectivist, authoritarian and socialist states. I have understood that the concept of “socialism” is confusing, since in Sweden it has been associated with the left in general for many years and social democracy in particular. This is wrong. When I criticize socialism, this does not mean that ”all the blame should be on the Social Democrats.” The socialist concept is obviously greater than the Swedish party designations: all Swedish parliamentary parties have pursued or are still pursuing socialist issues in the sense that they are backed by the monopoly of violence in order to claim the citizens’ money with the ambition to redistribute them however they please. Therefore, let me simplify my line of argumentation by calling this term ”governmental rule” instead of “socialism”. It is governmental rule that gives Public Service 8.6 billion SEK of citizens’ money every year. It is governmental rule that through citizens’ money keeps the established media floating in the form of media- and distribution support. It is governmental rule that, for ideological reasons, attracts welfare immigration without economic and social impact assessments – which is funded with citizens’ money. It is governmental rule that, with the citizens’ money, supports and finances various types of religious communities. It is governmental rule that hands out welfare to people who do not contribute, and let themselves be exploited by scammers and impostors at the expense of honest people. It is governmental rule that spends citizens’ money on an apple core in chrome, on new municipal audio identities and on gender certification in our universities – while cutting back on elderly care and more and more municipalities failing. Because the ever-expanding state power, neither freedom nor honor is understood, and it is the antithesis of every honest, hard-working citizen. The question does not apply to the content of the government, but its principle: government rule is inherently wrong – whether you agree with its priorities or not, as every tool the government is granted access to also comes to all future rulers – even those you disagree with yourself. Governmental rule is a weapon aimed at the people. The question is: do you want to disarm it – or do you want to be the one who holds it? Because free, honorable individuals make better decisions than monolithic, political bureaucracies – regardless of who controls them. “So you’re the fat f*ck that runs this show?” Do you think that a free and honorable society is preferable to a state-controlled society? In that case, I think you should share this video with your friends – and why not subscribe to my YouTube channel? Do you have your own experiences of freedom, honor and government? If so, please share in the comments section below – I appreciate all respectful communication. My name is Henrik Jönsson, and I choose freedom and individualism before government and collectivism. Thank you for listening!