What is Liberalism? (Political Philosophy)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2022
- An explanation of the four central tenets of philosophical liberalism, as well as objections to liberalism.
This series examines five positions in political philosophy and discusses whether US politicians that claim that label actually support policies that are in line with the underlying philosophy. The series is brought to you by our new book: Are All Lives Equal? (#Liberal #PoliticalPhilosophy)
Learn more about the book: www.carneades.org/are-all-liv...
Buy the book now on Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B0B4SJH2Q9
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Philosophy by Topic:
Epistemology: • Epistemology
Metaphysics: • Metaphysics
Political Philosophy: • Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion: • Philosophy of Religion
Ancient Philosophy: • Ancient Philosophy
Philosophy of Science: • Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language: • Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Art/Aesthetics: • Philosophy of Art (Aes...
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/store/carneade...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more!
The more you learn about governmental systems and political ideology, the more you realize that the average American has the political literacy of a 5th grader.
I thought this was gonna be some dumb ass comment but this is so true liberalism is not the left north right liberalism is America against it basically your anti-liberal that means you’re against freedom of speech press every right that’s from America. It means right f***ing matter yeah you use the trans you use oh security all that stuff but you’ve only stolen it from liberalism. You have to be very careful on how people recognize and speech and stuff like that, right side like the left is winning, but truly the liberalism
My upbringing twisted terms such as liberal and equality so much that it took years of self-study to neutralize them and many others. Dogmatism is a horrible thing to impose on a child.
Explain to me what liberalism is
thank you. Great clear points. I am a visual thinker. While listening to you clear and precise points, I was visualizing whatever you were saying. I think it will be helpful if there are visual animations representing your already clear cut points. If you give me permission, I want to use your audio to make animated visuals. The easier it is to understand, the more people will pay attention and learn. Thank you for your effort.
Congratulations for your new book 🎉
Thanks, this was really helpful for school!
This was accurate. Good video!
It feels like we have to reinvent the wheel in terms of liberalism. Just that there are also a square and a triangle, both claiming to be a wheel...
No, but we have to reinvent the understanding of what these terms are like freedom of speech where they came from the context behind them because both the left and right and miss used them so much. They stole those ideas from liberalism freedom of speech that liberal is a lot of people don’t understand that I think it’s because of the French revolution.
Cheer~~willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own--- openness to new ideas.😊
Not a Liberal here: what does the government have to do with settling "moral disputes?" What does a government have anything to do at all with morality? This objection to Liberalism implies governments are capable of determining what is good, being moral, and imparting morality on on us. Terrifying
To be clear, classical liberalism does not think that the government is in charge of expressing or imparting any moral claim, but rather that the government should prevent anyone from imposing their morality on anyone else. The only "moral" claims that liberalism makes are that: people should be free, it is the government's job to ensure that they are free, everyone should have equal access to freedom, and government decisions should not be made based on any individual's personal morality or ideals. Liberalism is explicitly a rejection of government as a moral authority, claiming that we should all be free to have our own morality (just not free to impose that morality on others).
That said, self proclaimed "liberal" politicians do not always adhere to these values, and have been known to attempt to impose their values on others, but that isn't liberalism. It is illiberalism disguised as liberalism.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene sorry, the lack of moral stances thing was a critique of liberalism you listed in the video, I just didn't understand if it was some sort of common position that governments should be arbiters of morality.
Do you know what’s actually terrifying is that you didn’t actually listen to this video research anything about liberalism in general because of you’re being an anti-liberal you’re against freedom of speech you’re against every right of America. You’re right the vote you’re right to have free press you’re right to all that type of stuff would be gone and an anti-liberal system so you feel like well it’s kind of terrifying and the government a government under anti-liberalism now that’s terrifying.
I would describe myself as a liberal in the Continental tradition, meaning that I favor a robust state precisely as a means to protect the freedom -- and, mutatis mutandis, the quality of life -- of individual citizens. But that raises a question, one often heard, if implicitly, in the North American context: to what extent is freedom a necessary precondition for a "good" quality of life -- "good" either in a subjective meaning sense, and/or in a moral or existential state of being sense -- and to what extent is the possession of freedom equivalent *to* quality of life? And relatedly, how is freedom assessed, to say nothing of being measured?
You have no idea how much I will be spamming friends and families with this video! Great explanation!
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing! There is an important question about the relationship between freedom and well being, and how to measure both. Thanks for sharing the video!
These are great questions, but then you have to understand what freedom of speech came from. It came from liberalism liberalism built America right if you’re thinking that you liberal then you must believe in freedom speech you must believe in the freedom press and the rights of all these rights that we have as much power as the presidentis more powerful as powerful as you have to understand those terms of liberal
It's important to note, on the economic question, the existence of the libertarian-socialist advocacy for usufruct property rights, and the corresponding notion that capitalism is dependent upon the state. The general idea there is that a maximally liberal condition would be one in which nobody's claims to exclusivity over any particular objects were validated, so anybody would be free to take and use whatever they like. It is therefore a decrease of liberty to validate any such claims: it takes state action protecting your claims to private property for you to have private property at all. So rather than requiring the government to "violate the liberties" of the rich for the benefit of the poor in order to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, all that's needed is for the government to *stop* violating the liberties of the poor by preventing them from just using that wealth themselves uninhibited.
Nobody I'm aware of actually advocates for the *total* invalidation of all claims to property, but rather a reconceptualization of property called "usufruct" (literally "fruit of use"), which means that things are the property of whoever habitually uses them: homes are the property of the people who live in them, businesses are the property of the people who operate them, etc. This doesn't mean that the government *takes* homes or businesses and *gives* them to others, but rather that if there is a dispute about who a home or business legitimately belongs to in the first place, and so who has a right to exclude whom (say a 'landlord' wants to evict a 'tenant', or a 'boss' wants to fire a 'worker'), the government mediating that dispute looks at the history of use to judge who is in the right (and so would judge that the 'tenant' is the actual homeowner and the 'landlord' has no claim; that the 'worker' is a shareholder and the 'boss' has no claim; etc).
I myself advocate for something slightly more propertarian than that, more to do with what contracts are valid than what claims of ownership are valid, but it has very similar consequences: by having the government do less, wealth naturally redistributes from those who have more than they're using to those who need more than they have.
if i didnt start smoking weed when i was fifteen, i might have been as eloquent as you.
I’m a fan of your stuff but in my option this is far too cursory to be useful
Nice but can you slowly tell
Hobbes not "Hobbs"
Economic liberalism is an ideology that is an integral part of conservative social thought about minimal government intervention in the economy of a nation and about complete freedom for individuals in the economy.
In history, countries had the highest rates of GDP growth and living standards in those times when the state intervened in the economy, supported domestic producers, subsidized them and provided them with preferential loans. Examples, Russia (period 1929-1955), China, South Korea.
Data for countries around the world whose economies grew at double-digit (almost double-digit) rates for more than 20 years in the 20th century are given below:
1. 13.8% - Russia - average annual growth for 22 years (1929-1955).
2. 11.5% - Taiwan - average annual growth for 27 years (1947-1973).
3. 10.4% - China - average annual growth for 25 years (1983-2007).
4. 10.2% - South Korea - average annual growth for 23 years (1966-1988).
5. 9.7% - Japan - average annual growth for 23 years (1948-1970).
6. 9.2% - Singapore - average annual growth for 24 years (1966-1989).
Thus, in the twentieth century, the world's largest national economic growth for more than 20 years was achieved in Russia in 1929-1955 (minus four war years). During this period, real wages grew 4 times, citizens’ deposits in savings banks grew 5 times, and the economy grew 14 times.
And:
- First place in the world in terms of the share of mechanical engineering in the total volume of industrial production.
- Complete technical and economic independence of the state has been ensured.
- First place in the world in terms of agricultural mechanization.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of absolute industry size.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of labor productivity in industry.
- The latest industries and advanced technologies: nuclear, space, rocketry, aircraft manufacturing, instrument making, radio engineering, electronics, electrical engineering and others.
And sanctions did not prevent such economic growth in Russia!
The amazing vitality of the neoclassical paradigm and its
popularity in big business circles, generously
sponsoring the imposition of the resulting way of thinking on the public consciousness is explained by economic and political interests. Neoclassical economic theory plays the role of the scientific basis of the ideology of market fundamentalism and liberal economic policy, in the implementation of which large capital is interested, seeking to minimize state regulation of its activities. This ideology substantiates his claims to dominance in society, since it reduces social relations to the power of money. It also justifies modern forms of neocolonialism, which allow issuers of world currencies (primarily the American dollar) to exploit all the unequal exchange of unsecured banknotes for real wealth. Therefore, it is vigorously imposed by Washington through both direct political pressure and indirect methods, through international institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.) and funding from the expert community, to national ruling elites in order to exploit the countries they rule!
As an economist I have to say you are very wrong. All your example have one thing in common - a start from a low base. Of course you can grow 10% a year when you are start by nothing. Bringing toilets to all people in a country where there are none will do that. Increasing a fully developed economy by 0.5% is much harder.
@@herpaderppa3297 What am I doing wrong? The correlation coefficient between the growth rate over the past 10 years and the size of GDP in 2012 is -0.0348, which indicates a weak inverse relationship on the Chaddock scale.
Great vid! Although I take issue with the passing account of neoliberalism 😅
Thanks! A future video will be needed to cover neo-liberalism and its malcontents more fully. There's a reason it was caveated with "is sometimes referred to" since I didn't want to go down too much of a rabbit hole. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene definitely a contested concept. But the link with laissez faire capitalism always seems odd since, in one of its formative moments, the "neo" was added due to an explicit **rejection** of free-market absolutism
@@CasualPhilosophy The distinction, or rejection as you said it, of free-market absolutism is merely a facade. Neoliberalism is entirely about upholding the spectacle of competition, but in practice-as seen most clearly in Latin American countries whom have had neoliberalism forcefully thrust onto them via American led or sanctioned coups-it largely functions the same as free-market capitalism (though the states usually work/are bought off by the companies which control the primary means of production, so these companies can always rely on being bailed out by the state as opposed to being left out to dry as they would if it were truly laissez-faire).
A Zeitgeist.
I am not from america. The version of liberalism I understand as such does not include equity (that is socialism) or state support of basic needs (also socialism).
This mix of two different ideologies under one label in american politics is baffling to me.
But given how wrong classical liberal ideas are it is what you can expect that it ended going to the left.
As we note in the video, both equity and basic need support are independent of philosophical liberalism at its core. As we see in the sequel to this video many American self proclaimed liberals don't actually uphold those viewpoints.
What do you think are wrong with the ideals of classical liberalism? Do you think that people don't have moral status? That they should not have the right to personal freedom? That we should not have equal rights for all? That people should not be free to think and reason as they wish? Most seem very intuitive. Do you have an argument against them? Do you want to live in an autocracy with no respect for human rights? Where people persecute you for who you are? For what you believe? Why?
I think it I think it kind of shows how people don’t understand liberal liberalism built freedom of speech. They built these rights. They did all of this stuff now that the left stole it now that the right stole the stuff it’s like wait what is liberalism I thought liberalism was about individualsnow look at it. It’s not about individuality. It is a part of it, but it’s about the man that’s what it is. It comes from the enlightenment error which created liberalism.
I think it I think it kind of shows how people don’t understand liberal liberalism built freedom of speech. They built these rights. They did all of this stuff now that the left stole it now that the right stole the stuff it’s like wait what is liberalism I thought liberalism was about individualsnow look at it. It’s not about individuality. It is a part of it, but it’s about the man that’s what it is. It comes from the enlightenment error which created liberalism. Being anti-liberal which maybe you are I think kind of cuts to the idea that you don’t quite get it.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I completely disagree if you’re whole notion that it’s not a liberal philosophical thing because like it built that type of stuff, the left start the right store as well because anybody saying not true liberals
I'd agree more with the category of liberal that rejects laissez-faire economics & advocates for a strong social safety net, although I don't fully agree with either. Politics is one area that I'd definitely call myself a skeptic.
Why would you prefer a worse outcome? That's a despicable thing to wish for.
@@novinceinhosic3531 the bourgeoise, Poles and the Jews like in a real strong socialist economy xd
@@novinceinhosic3531 the strong social safety net of the USSR 😍😍😍
@@novinceinhosic3531 it's not. It's based on your comment. The comment that I responded to. How is your question to me related in any way to the original post? 😂
@@resgresg worse than the mass starvations that have occurred every time laissez faire has been briefly implemented before being repealed?
Gee whiz, that sounds bad.
4:13 "People are free to do as they wish so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others."
This sentence is devoid of any meaning. The whole question is, what is a right and what isn't? In Turkey, for example, it is a crime to insult politicians, and this is justified by the same liberal principle, namely that your rights end where mine start. They tell you that you need to find a way of criticizing the politicians without insulting them, since everyone has the right to be free from insults. Insulting a person is considered analogous to swinging your fist where their nose is. Whereas, in the US, the most conspicuously liberal country, insulting politicians is considered a fundamental human right. It's not a crime even to insult ordinary citizens. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me." If someone protests too much, they're considered "thin-skinned", analogous to their nose standing where you had the right to swing your fists. Both legal systems are perfectly consistent with the aforementioned same liberal principle. Hence, it is devoid of any meaning. Its information content is no more than "everyone is equal before the law". One man's freedom is another man's tort.
I agree that the sentence can be complicated. What freedom means in the context of politics can get tricky. But in a nutshell an example of, "People are free to do as they wish so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others" would be:
-Supporting the rights of people to practice whatever sexual things they want within the privacy of their own homes.
-Allowing people to consume any media they want within the privacy of their own space.
" If someone protests too much, they're considered "thin-skinned", analogous to their nose standing where you had the right to swing your fists."
That's completely different than the Turkey situation (where my parents are from, lol). In the case of Turkey, it's a *policy* whereas in America, it's just people reacting to you protesting by giving their opinion, without enacting any policies. People being mean to you is not a political policy. Everywhere you go, people will react to things you say/do.
@@absurdturk About your first point, what if the people in your country believe consentual gay sex invites God's wrath and collective punishment that includes them as well, as mentioned in their holy book (viz. the Sodom and Gomorrah story)? Then, people may not be considered to have a right "to practice whatever sexual things they want within the privacy of their own homes" because they're offending God and endangering innocent people by engaging in certain kinds of sex.
Likewise, what if the media you want to consume within the privacy of your own space involves terrorist propaganda according to your country's definition of terrorism and designated terror organizations? Or what if it contains advertisement of drugs and alcohol? The public may think that an alcoholic or a drug-addict is a potential threat to the public as well as a burden on the scarce public resources. So, they may argue that their rights are being violated by your exposure to ads that promote drugs and alcohol. Or what if they think that normalizing drug and alcohol consumption will lead some consumers to look down on others who abstain from consuming these products and they don't want to have to deal with that, so they just pass a law that prohibits any promotion of drugs and alcohol on TV and allow only counter-propaganda?
Or what if you are noise-sensitive and believe that you have a right to be free from noise, but your country believes construction activity can take place until 10 pm? Or a mosque in the next block blasts a call to prayer at 5 am every morning, messing up with your sleep every f*ing day and harming your health and making you naturally irritated because your health is being harmed and you feel like being bullied by your government and fellow citizens who protect the mosque and its imam? If you publicly protest these practices and argue, for instance, that the adan should be banned on the ground that "your rights end where mine start", you will risk being assaulted by some Muslims, which the law enforcement in Turkey will probably do nothing about.
Or what if a factory is polluting the atmosphere to make a product that benefits the public? The residents around the factory may complain that their rights are being violated, but the public that benefits from it without being harmed by it might think otherwise. In a reasonable country, a compromise might be reached between the two parties, where the factory is compelled to install some filters that bring down the pollution to a "reasonable" level (in the opinion of a judge), but the residents might have to suck up any remaining amount and be told to move elsewhere if they need clean air so much. And what if they don't have the money? What if they've lived in that area for many generations and the factory showed up later? Are the laws then violating the rights of the residents in your opinion?
So, we come back to the same issue: the whole question is what is considerd a right and what isn't in your country. It's all politics. It's all culture. Whether everyone is equal before the law, i.e. whether everyone's rights are protected equally strongly and whether every violation of someone's rights is punished equally strongly, is an altogether different question. "Your rights end where mine start" is a meaningless statement, without defiining what rights people have. And that's where politics starts.
It is well known in the psychiatric profession that there is a link between liberalism and emotional instability.
Undoubtedly the two most consistently found relationships are the positive effect of conscientiousness on right-wing voting and the positive effect of openness to experience on left-wing voting. Conscientious individuals are theorised to be more conservative because they take greater heed of social norms, valuing order and accomplishments that are socially proscribed. Open-minded individuals are more accepting of unconventional social behavior and unorthodox economic policies that are generally associated with the left.
There has been reasonably consistent evidence that a third trait, emotional instability, often called neuroticism, increases one’s chance of left-wing views.
I think you mixed the American definition of a liberal with classical liberalism.
Here's the counter-intuitive thing:
Liberalism not only maximizes benefits for the individual, but also due to the poverty fighting power of unfettered markets, it provides the best overall society as a whole.
@@novinceinhosic3531 trade makes people better off. If I have apples but prefer bananas, and you have bananas but prefer apples; when we trade both parties are better off. Everyone wins. Some win more than others, but in socialism everyone loses
@@novinceinhosic3531 my example was simple, yes. But wages are just another trade.
Prosperity is lost in socialism and in every step towards socialism. Ultimately resulting in starvation.
@@novinceinhosic3531 there is a direct trade-off between prosperity and starvation. See the fall of USSR. See Venezuela.
In production the workers trade time for wages. This works the same as commodity trades.
@@novinceinhosic3531 less prosperity = more starvation. I'm not sure what you are looking for.
Like I work 40 hours a week. I trade that time for wages.
@@novinceinhosic3531 the outcome of my labor is that I get a paycheck.
I wonder how many Americans actually understand this.
YOu will notice that families and children do not factor into the liberals considerations.
First
A woman in a hot air balloon realizes she is lost.
She lowers her altitude and spots a man fishing from a boat below. She shouts to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consults his portable GPS and replies,
"You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
She rolls her eyes and says, "You must be a Republican!"
"I am," replies the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answers the balloonist, "everything you tell me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you're not much help to me." The man smiles and responds, "You must be a Democrat."
"I am, replies the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," says the man, "You don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.
You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and now you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."
R.I.P english 😅
Australian here, our main right of centre party is the Liberal Party. People often think it’s strange but it actually makes sense. They are the flavour of liberal that you mentioned, where economically they prefers more laza-fare approach. I’d say they actually closely conform to your definition despite being the right of centre party. It’s quite interesting.
Finally