A Guide to Classical Liberalism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- In this video, I introduce the key thinkers and theories of Classical Liberalism as well as tracing its origins in the history of ideas. Thinkers discussed included: Machiavelli, Bacon, Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, the Federalists, Rousseau, Condorcet, Paine, Hume, Smith, and Burke.
Sources:
John Gray, Liberalism, 2nd edn. (1989; Buckingham: Open University Press, 1993)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (various entries): plato.stanford...
Ian Shapiro, The Moral Foundations of Politics, Yale Lecture Series (2011): • 1. Information and Hou...
Jason Wyckoff, 'Rousseau's General Will and the Condorcet Jury Theorem', History of Political Thought, 31:1 (Spring 2011), 49-62: www.jstor.org/s...
João Carlos Espada, 'Edmund Burke and the Anglo-American Tradition of Liberty', Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 58 (May 2006), 213-30: www.cambridge....
---
My Patreon: / academicagent
My MakerSupport: www.makersuppo...
0:00 Rules and assumptions for the video
1:30 Map of the most important Classical Liberal Thinkers
1:35 Context
2:28 Nicolo Machiavelli (1st anti-utopian thinker) corruption, checks and balances. Control free will.
4:07 Francis Bacon envisioned technocracy
4:45 Thomas Hobbes: Social Contract. Absolute Monarchy. Egalitarian conception of individuals.
6:29 Baruch Spinoza, Freedom is the supreme end of every individual. Freedom comes when Reason conquers the passions.
8:00 *John Locke* Tabula Rasa “Blank Slate” most men are peaceful and good because they have been raised by the church. Education for all men by virtuous teachers. Local parish schools, not government schools. Principle of Toleration. Separation of Church and State.
10:24 Natural Rights, Natural Laws given by God. Property Rights. Right of Liberty. Law lies above the ruler.
12:00 Baron De Montesquieu 🇫🇷 . 3 branches of government. Checks and Balances.
James Madison. Cross-Cutting Cleavages. Factions.
14:23 Britain 🇬🇧 vs France 🇫🇷
15:15 Jean Jaques Rousseau (Noble Savage, General Will, “Man is Free but everywhere he is in chains”)
17:06 Condorcet (Jury Theorm= “Majority Rules”)
18:51 The difference in lines of thinking
19:34 Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine
20:27 (Empiricism) Edmund Burke (Generational View of Social Contract), Adam Smith (Laissez-Faire) David Hume , Alexander Hamilton, John Adams.
24:33 James Madison, Federalist #51
25:21 Conservative, Moderate and Radical distinctions
26:15 Utilitarianism and High Toryism
Did you miss Kant? That's crazy sauce. Kant is the pinnacle of the enlightenment.
Super helpful. Thank you.
Classical liberalism is a grand idea, it is so successful however that it leads to the end of itself by openly embracing people who do not accept classical liberalism as such a good idea as 'equals'
paradox of tolerance
It reminds me of an interesting comparison that Morgoth made in one his blog posts a while back discussing the limitations of the ideology put out by self-proclaimed 'Classical Liberals' such as Sargon.
"The Liberal mind is pretty much tied in a paradoxical knot here, the unfettered individual free of prejudice can exist in an ethnically homogeneous society where all of the individuals have similarly disregarded collectivist thinking as, after all, it wouldn't really be needed. However, it is precisely because of that lack of prejudice we are unable to stop collectivist racial aliens entering our own living space. Liberalism is a snake eating its own tail."
But it survives and repropagates.
@@TheKjtheDj he said as the ship was sinking
It sounds like you're confusing moden libtardism or neoliberalism for classical liberalism. Classical liberals are into national sovereignty. They sort of invented it.
Good video. Classical liberalism has been thrown around too often by people who just see it as “lulz I love free speech and science” without taking their time to understand the perspectives around human nature, property, natural law and classical economics.
To be fair, most people don't get into the complexities of their beliefs before they believe them lol
Ah, you refer to the "I fucking love liberalism!" types
"“lulz I love free speech and science” without taking their time to understand the perspectives around human nature, property, natural law and classical economics". Guys watch out, you can't just love free speech and science like that, it's not okay. You need to take your time understanding the perspectives around human nature, property (DON'T ASK ME WHY) and economics, before you can love free speech and science.
Seems legit!
Follow the Snail Trails Yes I would recommend actually understanding the philosophy that you advocate.
'Luv de science' on human nature tho.
AA pumps out more high quality material than my favorite half dozen highly endowed think tanks. That such individuals can pop up unexpectedly is a delight.
Barry Milliken thanks so much Barry!
The other superstars running rings around think tanks are Tony Heller, Manhattan Contrarian, Matt Ridley. All are compelling, well researched, articulate, cogent. Maybe there are others. On less controversial topics I would add The History Guy.
BTW, Burke was not Catholic, although sympathetic to them, he was a member of the Church of England. Also if Burke was a RC, he could never been a MP at that time!
Oh that's right, he was more High Anglican.
Keep up the good work I enjoy the historical information!! Please do more of the political ideological history. Thanks!
I have to hand it to the presenter. He was right. I yelled at my screen the moment he panned over to Spinoza.
Excellent. This is a much needed video. I've been thinking for a while that I need to do something like this, but political thinking is not exactly my field. This introduction is something we can build on.
A completely trivial aside for you (being a George Sanders fan myself). Galt and Simpsom used to play a game called 'what is George Sanders doing now?' The joke was in the most unlikely answer, such as: 'lighting a Capstan Full Strength, having just missed the pink on table no. 2, in the Bognor Billiards and Ale Club', rather than 'driving to the De Vries villa in his Bentley on the outskirts of Monaco' - that sort of thing....
Great summary, by the way. Every avenue we explore reminds us of the role that religion plays (re: Locke) and is taken for granted all the time.
Just want to thank you - this has been one of the most influential RUclips videos for my thinking as of recently
I was about to mention Mill but I see that's going to be in a followup. Looking forward to it.
Great work, this term is so often misunderstood that videos like this are necessary.
Very nice video.
It also would've been nice if you'd included classic liberal German thinkers such as Samuel Pufendorf or Wilhelm von Humboldt as they were also quite influential.
Pufendorfs works for example influenced the founding fathers, and von Humboldt was praised by John Stuart Mill as being "as great as Socrates".
One pet peeve I have with the video is your portrayal of Condorcet as a radical. It’s true he was a rationalist and quite utopian but he was part of the Girondins which advocated moderate reforms.
Robespierre would’ve been a better example as he directly led the reign of terror and was later admired by socialist revolutionaries.
Fascinating subject. I’ve skirted around this for several years and this is a superb summary.
One subject which should be broached in any philosophical discussion of classical liberalism is the social responsibilities which come with the belief in controlling one's passions. The video touched on it ever so lightly, but I do not think most viewers (and self-described "classical liberals" in the 21st century) fully comprehend what that means.
Philosophers such as Locke didn't think people should be governed by large, social engineering government bodies. They preferred people be free to do as they will from government influence and with that comes a responsibility for people to control their passions. That control of passions is one of the least thought-about aspects of their philosophies: it is self-repression to a very great degree in order to maintain order in society and peace between men. That is why Locke believed education should have a religious angle to it: people needed moral guidance in order for a free and liberated people to function peacefully in society. If people did not act morally, they wouldn't be able to maintain order as a liberated people in a liberal, low-government control society.
This includes sexual repression and having a moral duty to fellow man. It means acting as a religious (preferably Christian) moral being. Tell me: how liberal can a society be without strong religious influence providing moral guidance? I imagine Academic Agent can elucidate on this after reviewing Hume and perhaps Jonathan Haidt's work (especially since Haidt more or less destroys the dreams of the 21st century "classical liberals").
Locke's principles can be applied in the current age to just mean morally grounded in terms of education. He was a Christian and a main school of thought for any religion is that other competing religions are inherently wrong in some way. This includes, funnily enough, the Roman Catholics when compared to Locke himself.
Do you follow Celtic religion?
@Northern Observer No, it doesn't. Society without religion isn't necessarily amoral or nihilistic society.
@Northern Observer If a book written thousands of years ago and priesthood equally sinful if not more is the only thing keeping you away from 'sinful' life, then you have to practice more thinking and reflect on the fact.
Dear AA,
Thank you for enlightening us on the topic. On a side note, Liberalism did _not_ "pave the path for the abolition of slavery for the first time anywhere in the world in any known civilization"; slavery was already abolished by the Achaemenids. There are thousands of cuneiform clay tablets (mostly held at the University of Chicago) were some of them depict detailed worker wages and conditions for the construction of Persepolis.
It's interesting just how A.A. changed over time.
It's pronounced 'Low-key' - Adam Racewarski
What a trash fire he turned out to be.
Hey Academic Agent, loving these kinds of videos. Just wondering if maybe you'd consider doing a video like this on Nihilism. I've begun to see it more and more often and I'm beginning to think that it may be what is leading to some of the degeneracy we've been seeing, which is disconcerting for me as I've always been a bit of a Nihilist myself.
Good on you, my guy.
That's what happens when rhetoric is removed from context of original discussions.
Sorry I don't understand what you're referring to.
Nihilism, often the first goto for satire and strawmanning.
Ah, gotcha.
ugh...what would be the point?
Excellent job! Thank you very much for the time you put into this.
It’s interesting to read the accounts of British (and French) explorers of Australia in the 18th century. They talk explicitly about Rousseau’s idea of the idyllic state of nature not being supported by their first-hand observations.
“I am astonished, after so many examples of cruelty and treachery which are related in all voyages of discovery, to hear sensible people aver, that men in a state of nature are not wicked…”
A very nice look the history of Classical Liberalism. Great work, good sir. You have earned a subscriber for your hard work.
Great class, sadly lots of scholars try to mud this historical chronology to their own advantage. Thank you. There is a great book ‘Liberalism Old & New’ by an Brazilian author, José Guilherme Merquior, which is a fantastic book on the subject.
This channel is a gem. Subscribed
this really puts into perspective the fact that we will never “go back” to some other idilic time. chaos and violence(proverbial) ahead.
Would you put the likes of Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Sowell into the moderate category?
Frédéric Voltaire Bastiat Later on it becomes “conservative”, “liberal” and “socialist”. Friedman and Hayek would both be liberals, Sowell is a liberal-conservative hybrid.
Definitely 110 thumbs up for them being in reference. Too many talk about Madison and Jefferson like they were completely opposite bitter rivals, they were literally sitting across the table from each other in 98% agreement and playing devil's advocate on most things.
What is you opinion on marxism?
@@romankirdyashow6771
I suspect the liberal consensus is it's pretty terrible.
You put a very big emphasis on the Englishness of the moderate and conservative wing, despite the two biggest ancestors being Italian (Machiavelli) and Dutch (Spinoza).
Would like to know more about where later thinkers fit into this - like Jean-Baptiste Say, Basiat, and Herbert Spencer.
Aristotle came up with social contracts dude hobbes just used it
Also remember that the term Libertarianism was used in 1789 by William Belsham, and eventually was used by Classical Liberals of the 19th Century to rename themselves as "Libertarians" as suggested by Murray Rothbard and Leonard Read since during the FDR era and sometime after the label of Liberalism was co-opted.
Nice work AA nice to lay down some of the differences between classical liberalism and conservativitism
One major difference is the nature of society.
Classical liberals believe in whig historiography while conservatives believe it is cyclical. This main difference stems from the fact that conservatives sees man as cruel, brutish, and emotional whereas classical liberals believe man is always improving towards a better tomorrow and logical.
The communist say the best place to 'perfect' man is: The Gulag
Thanks for posting this. One more flipping stream on the memo was going to see me committed to an institution. As a history major, and all but thesis grad student, these sweeping narratives soothe my cynical soul. As an aside, Machiavelli isn’t a trustworthy historian, but as a philosophical observer he is valued. He was quite busily sucking up to the Medici in his History Of Florence, but his observations about power and how it is wielded, in The Prince, were very cogent.
One more thing, Rousseau reads, once one is old enough to know better, like a silly teenage girls diary. Utopian and authoritarian in the same breath, since their dreams are only possible through force. Jefferson was almost as silly, but not as silly as Paine. Jefferson was such a gadfly that his silliness is almost understandable. Paine started out well, and then began to wander around a field picking daisies and thorns, and calling them the same. He pissed off Franklin far more than Jefferson .
I hate Rousseau. I had to read the origin of inequality and it was so bad, that I ended up throwing the book across my room after I hit a massive contradiction half way through it. The point where he directly contradicts his notion that society causes inequality, by agreeing that individual differences were the reason society does this, despite denouncing the idea on the first page of his book. Never picked it up again.
he sounds like a proto marxist
I remember when I used to believe in governmental justice, I will never understand how I called myself a lover of freedom but wanted to restrict people's rights by imposing taxes.
I'm a classical liberal because it advocates for legal equality, private property, and formal equality. It's as simple as that. I simply do not concern myself with criticisms about hierarchies.
Then you really aren't a classic liberal.
@@zayan6284 what makes you a classical liberal
Ever since Rousseau said that we are noble savages, French intellectuals have been talking bs. ‘The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!’ And we could have all continued grubbing a living and facing anything we worked for being stolen, no rise in living standard or security, ever. And that’s what the socialists want to return us to, ask someone from the former USSR.
You said that you believe that the strong central government in France is why the French Revolution was so much violent than the glorious and American revolutions, but could it have been that people in France had fewer rights to things such as free speech and that France as a monarchy made it impossible for people to be involved and effect their government as in a democracy. So the only way for political change was violence. " Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
FANTASTIC summation! TY!!!
I miss the young, optimistic AA.
The one person on this list who managed to discover and then embrace principles that found the right balance between protections for property and human rights was Thomas Paine. I describe Paine as the primary architect of the principles of cooperative individualism. Paine extended Locke's distinction between "liberty" and "licence" into the realm of property, calling for the elimination of privilege. Paine's insights are set forth in his essay "Agrarian Justice". The one very important defender of individual liberty not included in this brief video analysis is Henry George, who extended Paine's analysis using a more scientific analysis of the laws of production and distribution as developed in political economy of Smith, Ricardo, Quesnay, Turgot and Mill.
The right response to socialism, or communism, or anarchy, or fascism, or monopoly privilege (i.e., what we too easy refer to as "capitalism") is found in the writings of Henry George. Remove all monopoly privileges from the systems of law and taxation and the result is cooperative individualism: full equality of opportunity, full individual liberty, within a cooperative social framework. To paraphrase Adam Smith, the role of government is to ensure that a fair field with no favors exists. Markets operate efficiently and fairly when none of the participants enjoys privilege. Few understood better than Henry George the true nature of privilege and what must be done to remove all forms of privilege from our socio-political arrangements and institutions. Of these, he counted "rentier" (i.e., landed) privilege as the most destructive to the promise of democracy.
Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A., Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
I do not accept George or Mill as defenders of liberty.
Fair enough. What in their writings convinces you they did not possess a sound understanding of what constitutes liberty?@@AcademicAgent
15:20 Rationalism is too arbitrary to come to any definite, or logical conclusions. Just because a person can rationalize doesn't mean their conclusions will be logical, or moral. That's why thinkers of a purely rationalist background are dangerous. I've gotten into so many arguments with idiots who thought they were right merely by virtue of having used mental-gymnastics. And at the end of the day, they think the world revolves around their personal interpretation of reality.
This was something I figured out for myself when I was 21 in college, ffs. It's frankly disturbing how many people still latch onto this though, but I think it's just because they think calling themselves "rationalist" makes them sound smart. *glares at the Skeptic Community*
I think that's why so many rationalist thinkers arrive at solipsistic conclusions. It's downright Manichean in its seductiveness and hostility to reality.
Son of Tiamat PLS GIVE AN EXAMPLE
Qwerty are you really going to make me google thAT BRO
Ok listen. How do you know these gr8 philosophers didn’t experience cartesian doubt, and then came to the truth and that truth being the principles of classical liberalism? If some youtube commenter could manage this why not the greatest philosophical minds of recent history?. Are u cArTeSiaNing yet bro?
Qwerty Liberalism /capitalism has proven itself time and time again. It works, in a pragmatic realist sense and philosophical.
I somehow made it at 26. They say it gets harder to change your mind as you age. :(
TL;DR
Liberals talk about power a lot; British empiricists are better liberals than continental rationalists.
You really need a video which details your Empirical Left project, along with potential criticisms and responses already!
Great video. Looking forward to the next one.
Thomas Aquinas is worthy of mention on this list.
He was conservative , the base to liberalism
Looking forward to the followup video.
Fantastic video. Really, really great.
classical liberalism- an ideology created mostly by John Locke,Founding fathers of america ,John Stuart Mill,Jean Say, Jeremy Bentham, David Ricardo. Now adam smith is the guy labelled as the father of capitalism. But i think a debate could be had that these were the guys that really pushed main theories as well as institutions of LF - capitalism. (Moreover Jean Say disagreed with smith on LTV and pushed his other theory for utility determining the price.) A lot of arguments for entrepreneurship , free markets, free trade , the usual masturbation of freedom, advocacy for minimum gov regulation in the markets except for provision of laws,military and some "public works". can be found in their books /essays. Now many of these ideas were kinda radical for their time(especially in John Locke's time) but has become more and more accepted into the mainstream and integrated into the status quo. So much so that Keynesian economics had to develop as a reaction to the above mentioned liberal economics. Now conservatism is nit so much as an ideology as a tendency. (Its kinda a mixture of both) so u wanna preserve the status quo. Now seeing how my two propositions work if u r a classical liberal say u r very savy about these guys andu agree with them on most of the issues. Then u have what u wanted. U have capitalism with the above mentioned manifestation of economic liberalism u r satisfied with the status quo and want to preserve it therefore u r a conservative.
So there u go all classical liberals are conservative.
conservatives are all just liberals is what your trying to say, liberalism is the most ineffective politics one could possibly deploy today.
I take exception to the notion that Francis Bacon was somehow a technocrat, none of what he says embodies modern notions of technocracy and certainly does not have the emphasis on technology and systems theory on how we should orient society as well as the attempt to free people from the drudgery of work they do not wish to do if its not needed to be done by human's at all. Much of what Francis Bacon drew in his allegorical work of the New Atlantis (was primarily more of a theory of how America is the fabled Atlantis that we hear about in myths and why the tribal nations there did not exhibit advanced societies like the ones here than being a proper political treatise) from the writings of Plato, primarily the ludicrous idea that only the philosophers and intellectuals should run society. Technocracy is more of a socio-politico-economic understanding that the only valid way to orient society into further modernity is to view it a set of systems and emphasize the use of most advanced technology. There are no set ways to deal with this, which is why you have various differing disagreements on what is and isn't the best approach to get to that point.
so that actor - george sanders (fuckin love dorian grey), is he the guy your logo is based upon?
I was really enjoying this video and the speaker is clearly knowledgeable, informed and lucid, but I had to stop because the piano in the background was driving me up the wall.
Please could we have a version with just the voice?
Really informative video ! Thank you !!!
Exceptional video.
16:10 Rousseau 8:04 Locke 17:40 Rousseau and Condorcet
Jefferson was not a utopian. He understood that the United States was a Christian country and that the natural rights tradition that began around 1700 would absolutely embrace Christianity. It is obvious to me from learning of the books in his library that he must of known of the pre-Enlightenment natural rights thinkers even if you do not.
As far as I know, Burke was an Anglican (he belonged to the Church of Ireland, I believe.) His mother and sister were Catholics, however.
Knights of the Holy Family yeah this was a slight mistake from me
It was a great vid. It got a lot of history and a nice way to see the breakdown of thinkers in the liberal tradition into a short video, which is a great achievement.
Libertarianism originated 5000 years ago in India with the first writing on Libertarianism the Bhagavad Gita. These philosophers mentioned in the video were very much aware of those writings and they were very much influenced by the philosophy of libertarianism as taught in the ancient text. Libertarianism should never be taught without proper discussion of the origination of Libertarianism in India.
I see no reason to include a discussion of Indian philosophy.
@@AcademicAgent Of course you don't because it's important to further the narrative (intentional or unintentional) that the great philosophical ideas on liberty, freedom and happiness that we celebrate in the US were based off of Western/white/ male/Christian/Catholic ideas only.
I understand you can't include Indian philosophy in a large portion of the video, that's not the point. The point is that you are claiming these men "laid the foundation" when in fact the foundation was laid thousands of years prior in different regions of the world and these men were fully aware and influenced by these very brilliant thinkers years later. A side note, intro or shout out is in order to pay homage to the original thinkers.
@@arrinstoner nothing is new under the sun. all philosophies were derived from ancient ideas after being rediscovered and contextualized to the current times. no body is denying that liberalism has ancient roots, like im sure every system does, but its modern framing originates with the men he discusses in the video.
@@arrinstoner how exactly is Bhagavad Gita Libertarian?
@@gabbar51ngh When people say liberalism originated from classical Greek, Latin and ancient Asian texts I can only laugh. The renaissance was inspired by Byzantine texts. That does not mean they were liberal. One could derive other ideologies from the same texts. Liberalism started with western philosophers end of story.
Burke wasn’t a Catholic, he was Anglican I’m not sure how you could get that wrong to be honest.
Great, many thanks
Where is the Sargon of Akkad comment?
Thank you - from which film(s) are your George Sanders sequences please?
I believe the scenes are from the terrific film 'All About Eve'.
It's a cop out - I just a liberal. The classical is just my out standing fashion sense.
I have a really hard time concentrating when I smoke weed
Weed turns me into a focus god.
Friended FOREVER I’m going to try switching to sativa haha.
It's not meant to be for concentrating, but I've found that if you take a little bit of it you can improve at creative tasks such as music and art. There are other drugs out there that improve concentration, even LSD when microdosing.
Don't know why people would get butt hurt by Locke. He was a very reasonable person in his time.
1:19 and geography also?
This is great stuff. Thanks.
i thought that general will of rousseau was abolishment of civilization.
I'd like to hear your justification about Spinoza being an Empricist.
Honestly, I've thought that about Descartes for sometime.
Maybe you could make a video with textual evidence/analysis sometime?
I also find it a bit strange of your classification of Rousseau being a Rationalist, when I've always thought of him to be more of an "anti-rationalist" or Romantic/Emotivist. I wish you would have spoken about that a bit as well.
You should do a video on lysander Spooner vs Oliver Wendel Holmes
Not an accurate description of Hobbes, whom I understand quite well and have thoroughly studied. There’s no “social contract” in Leviathan. The very idea is incoherent because there’s only contract if there’s a sovereign to coerce enforcement. Contract can’t exist in the state of nature. Therefore, you can’t go from state of nature to a monarchy via a social contract. The relation the people have to the sovereign is one of submission to authority , not a contract among equals.
What do you think about democratic republicanism?
5:45 Based???????
Ideas don't matter for shit. This is my idea and I'm sticking to it.
What's the background music?
Rousseau was more of a social and even "green" liberal, rather than classical one.
Rousseau is clueless.
Great political philosophy, not the best, but a great one
All of that is just stuff AA made up yesterday. The 36th sentence was accurate though. Nyuk, nyuk.
Huh
20:59 to 21:01 , when will you make this video?
thanks, but what unites all these thinkers?
~13:44 -- As an atheist, really the only two concepts that I find troubling (I won't say 'problematic' haha) with Locke's view are *inalienability* and the concept of *(self-)ownership* .
When defined as such because you are unable to give up rights afforded to you by God, *inalienability* does pose an issue with regard to slavery and the right to life, for example. I'm in a bit of catch 22, for if I say it must be disallowed to sell oneself into slavery I surely must also be against assisted dying (which I'm not). The logic here appears to follow, and I don't have a silver bullet for this one.
*(self-)ownership* is also a bit tricky, and this is mainly an issue in justifying ownership in the first place because once one has justified self-ownership, ownership and property rights of individuals logically follows. In other words, Locke saying that without self-ownership the self is owned by somebody else is actually coming in at stage two, when one wants to justify the very concept of owning things. If this was justified by God owning everything due to having created everything then does that make children their parents property? A rather self-serving argument for property rights is that actions are attributed to individuals, such as crimes. But that has the effect of saying ownership is justified by ownership, a tautology. The best argument I've heard probably would involve the relationship with individual agency and directly controlling one's self.
Locke's _tabula rasa_ doesn't really bother me at all; times move on and we gain a better understanding of the world around us--not to mention Locke wasn't completely wrong given that brainwashing, for instance, is a thing. I also completely dismiss Locke's theistic stance, that which his own logic regarding freedom to choose different religions destroys, as fundamentally opposed to individual liberty.
Stretch
I am astounded at how you got Classical Liberalism so completely wrong.
The primary influence on Classical Liberalism came from classical writers such as Socrates, Xenophan, Aristotle, Cicero, Cato, Brutus, Plutarch and of course the Bible.
Your essay about classical liberalism is the foundations of Modern Liberalism.
PS: Machiavelli was actually despised by most classical liberals.
PPS: Edmund Burke was not the father of "Conservatism." This is very easy to prove.
The actual father of Conservatism was ... I probably have to create my own youtube videos.
Not talking about Socrates was his biggest mistake to be fair
Have you read much Lysander Spooner? Would you be interested in making a video on anarcho-capitalism? Your style of video is among the favorite content I've consumed.
I most identify with the radical French tradition of classical liberalism.
I hope you are referring to people like Bastiat. Not the delusional ones like Rousseau who has been proved wrong SO many times.
@@MG-tc5bo My views have changed a lot since I wrote this. People still comment on old videos lol
1:05 in. I made sure I was subscribed which I was and prepared to take notes.
Can anyone give me some current philosophers specifically focusing on crowd mentality and social media? It is a fantastic subject.
Ma-kya-vel-li*
Locke was not totally in line with christian tradition or beliefs, he had a radical view on human depravity. He did not perscribe to original sin or the depraved heart of man.
8:14 Locke
15:54 Rousseau
Paine was also an early promoter of basic income :)
This 'Tabula Rasa' that people attribute to John Locke. Can anyone quote a passage in Locke's work where he uses that term?
Love this!
I like the liberalist core values and agree with a lot of the philosophy but I don't think you and Sargon understand how corrupted the term liberal is in America, you cannot disassociate progressivism from liberal here. You would probably have an easier time convincing people that Nazi is just national socialism and there is no racial component
I expected from the start that using a name so similar to Liberal would be a mistake, for the simple fact that most people go for colloquial interpretations and will instantly take them to be the same thing. And lo and behold, then I found that the youtuber Mark Dice has been selling Liberalism T-Shirts for a while already, and it's not Sargon's kind of liberalism for sure. I've commented this on Vee and Sargon's videos but I'm not sure they noticed.
Ultimately I still think it's not a bright idea to even label themselves in the first place, but that's another story.
There is one simple solution to the "liberals" in the US. Call yourself a liberal. Then call yourself a liberal again. Then again, and again, and again, and again, until everyone knows that liberalism means property and freedom. After all, how do you think the left managed to get liberalism associated with bureaucracy and repression?
I think the people who actually tainted the word weren't the ones on the left, but the ones on the right. They keep calling the regressive left Liberals. You can either swim against the current and keep pointing out how the far left isn't liberal and the right is misusing the term, or you can let things take their course, but then any name you choose to label yourself with will still have that same weakness.
Qwerty, most people don't make a distinction between liberal and social liberal or liberalist, and maybe not even classical liberal.
And yes, they are. It's what I keep seeing, _"Liberal", "Libtards", "The Left", "Liberalists", "Lunatics",_ etc, all being used interchangeably both by right-leaning media, and by some right-leaning youtubers and the people in their comments sections, for years now.
Like I said before, Mark Dice even has T-shirts mocking Liberalism, and it's not Sargon's Liberalism™.
When I say most people, I mean the people who aren't really thinking of what "Liberal" means in their daily lives, and just have a colloquial or even self-defined interpretation of it, either from having heard it here and there (those that aren't politicized: the majority), or from hearing their favorite youtuber saying it (the politicized minority).
For some it means the SJWs (those from the audiences of Mark Dice, Rebel Media, steven crowder, etc), for some others it means being a classical liberal (those in the audiences of Sargon, Vee, TAA, etc), and for the majority it means _"being for freedom or something"._
And as it seems to me, if you asked the people of the former and the latter of those three groups what is the difference between a liberal and a liberalist, they'd be like _"wait, there's a difference?"_
And what I've been seeing is the former of those, using those terms interchangeably (and even some of the second group). That's all I'm saying.
What’s the song?
Thoughts on neoliberalism?
What is the music?
Well done
Is your avatar Mr Addison from "All About Eve"??
Isaac Shultz indeed!!
@@AcademicAgent any particular reason?
Isaac Shultz I think he’s cool
@@AcademicAgent cool, I Like your videos, especially the one about unions
You say that Burke had a bit of food with Paine - what was it? Like, a pizza? Shepherd’s pie?
You stopped before getting to John Steward Mill. :(
Where does Kant fit into this?