I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you are the absolute reason society is becoming what it is becoming. and if you ever watched any of hip Hughes other videos, you will understand why.
@@toomanydrugsinmysys5414 yepp everyone crying about how bad things are....pretty much all I've heard all the way through my life.... I think it's great, constant progress.
@@terryrowe6738 I blame Obama and trump and all douche bag presidents along with the house, the president isn't a king don't think trump is doing all this on his own. Trump used fed bank to pump 6trillion into already crashed economy.
Discourse in politics is growing more combative rather then the intellectual volley is should be. So I appreciate the didactic style here...it's refreshing.
When I call myself a liberal, I consider it to mean that I believe: - that a government should be constitutional, as in it has limitations which it must follow (i.e separation of powers, separation of church and state) -furthermore, the government should not regulate speech, the press, sexuality and things like guns and drug use should only be regulated to a certain extent -that a society should provide equality of opportunity, meaning that discrimination of employment based on race, gender, class, creed or religion should be banned, healthcare should be offered to all by a single-payer and education should be properly invested in. -morality should be derived from reason, not tradition -institutions that have become outdated need reform -the economy should be mixed: markets need to be free to be competitive, but to ensure the freedom of the markets, monopolies must be broken up and consumers need to be protected. Certain industries should be government run, such as the military, education and healthcare. Redistribution of wealth through taxation and spending should be used to the extent that insane income inequality is prevented. This is important for the protection of the working and middle class.
Only one thing wrong with that. It's 2020 and ALL of you're dems are extreme. Republicans and Independents are the knowledgeable people. Dems are just as extreme as they can possibly be because they know that there party is dying.
Pedigree 1-2-3 no, that’s the most boomer thing someone can say. You saying that all dems are extreme is grouping people like Bernie Sanders with neoliberals like Pete buttigieg. If all dems are extreme you would not see blue dog democrats who sometimes vote along with conservatives.
@@devilfruittrafficker4108 I disagree, the parties are totally divided. At this point dems believe in running the country one way and republicans believe in running it another way. Trump is doing a great job even statistically, and democrats can not stand it. So in my opinion you are ride or die with your political party at this point and if you call yourself a democrat then you are following the most powerful ones such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who are 100% against Trump and hate his guts.
That's because he's a Liberal himself and believe we are too insignificant to know their true plans. Liberals are filled with little white lies cause they don't want to hurt our feelings as they take our sovereignty away. Cause you know they know what's best.
Before we insult this guy for his definitions of subject matter we clicked on. Listen to him. He’s really explaining it well. And he may be a liberal himself (I am not) but that is still important to hear the perspective. It’s very important that as we navigate everyone’s views we stop this senseless arguing and insulting each other’s opinions. That’s what makes our country so great
I think it's that people want to be able to put these labels onto political parties for whatever reason. So people who hold more left wing views are called liberals and people who hold more right wing views are called conservative. I mean neither party actually fit very well into the true ideas of conservatism or liberalism but people see political views as right wing or left wing and so equally they see the need to slap the conservative/liberal label onto the parties without acknowledging that neither may particularly buy into the ideas. I hope that might make some sense. Fingers crossed
As simple as it sounds, I love your videos because you just explain what these views ARE. Trying to just learn about political views is a minefield of hate and aggression, lmao. Thank-you!
"As simple as it sounds" LOL Its called The Dictator Trap. "Trap"; because "more government" sounds scary but it's the opposite. More "checks and balances" (three branches of government) Are all more government. It is what America just is. Who would want to drive on our roads with no rules and regulations. No stop signs and red lights. No airbags and seat belts. "LeSs goverNment" People fall for the Trap every time (all through history). Over and over again. "LeSs governMent is gOod" (single). but yet that is exactly what a dictatorship is (single). Down is up. Less government is bad. (Single). And how does this "down is up" happen (The Dictator Trap). How do we run to "less government" every time. as if that is a good thing. Well, that would take greater thought. Not to fall for the Dictator Trap. Able to post a post at thousands of words and to be able to read that long post. To avoid the Dictator Trap. The Dictator Trap goes for CEO's as well (single). Never elect a CEO as your dictator. Never work non-union for a dictatorship. To stay in power dictatorships have to construct fake realities. They make mistakes on beliefs of those fake realities. People in power tend to get their information from people who have not received their job through competence but their brown nosing abilities, yes men. People who if they cross their CEO's; they lose their livelihood. So they lie to their boss to save their jobs, there by creating alternative realities. Then these alternative realities CEO's control the politicians AKA the CEO's control the police policing them. For example, A policeman pulling over his boss to give him a speeding ticket. Who? Who is incharge of America? With Citizens United in place. AKA money in politics. The people living in alternative realities are running everything. This is why a political stants of more regulations AKA "more government" comes from. To stop authoritarian. A check and balance. Frankly policing by clear headS. More government means more authoritieS. Those headS free of money in politics opposed one (single) authority. Citizens United needs to go. To avoid the Dictator Trap. Every person mathematically can afford their own products. The word is "inflation". A fast food worker can afford his own product. "Inflation". And the math is same at an expense restaurant. The Chef's making more money at a fancy restaurant, there by making it possible to afford their more expensive products, because their more expensive paycheck AKA "inflation". Just like every construction worker can and should be first in line to buy their own products. And a highly skilled yacht Craftsman being paid more then the average construction worker should now be paid more to buy their more expensive products. A highly paid yacht craftsman buying there own highly expensive yacht. The formula known as inflation. AKA not everyone making a single amount paycheck. It's called math. Money making money screws inflation math up. A violation. If you work at a expensive resort, you get paid more then working at a cheap resort. Both resorts will be on a balanced budget. Not rewarding "investors". Just like a skilled chef makes more money. There by making their services more expensive. Up is up. No. Not everyone is created equal. Plural. Some make more money then others. From trained skill. Schooling, Minus investors. Let me be clear. Investors bring everyone making the same money. The investors are taking the differences. It's called math, throwing inflation out of control. For example. Investors buying in on oil investments pushing up the price. Making investors happy, and at the same time, making everyone buying gas unhappy. And the same goes for everything else. Another example, real estate. Investors moving in on real estate pushes the price up. Making everyone needing a home to stay in or a business to occupie real estate sad. Investors happy at the same time everyone sad. The Economic Trap. Paradox. It's a human right violation; investors taking the workers gains.
I agree! Was thinking the same while watching this; he just stated the facts and doesn’t try to influence anyone nor does he state his personal feelings.
As much as they think they are a liberal is not a person who defends, supports and panders to a totalitarian ideology (islam) which is diametrically opposed to liberality.
The reason there are more conservatives “triggered” is because most of the nation are conservatives. There are very few libs in ratio but they scream & cry so much louder and get so much more attention.
In the book "Ten Books Every Conservative Must Read" by Benjamin Wiker, he describes liberals as people who believe that humans are blank slates, that all of our natural flaws can be programmed out of us through education. He defines conservatives as people who believe we are inherently flawed and that we must take that into account when designing our institutions. He says Aristotle is the father of conservatism. Needless to say, evolutionary psychology emphatically supports the conservative view.
Christianity supports conservatism. I guess the older I get the more conservative I get... I believe in capitalism & limited government interaction in the lives of its constituents...
I’m conservative and I don’t believe people are inherently flawed! Quite opposite, I believe we are all created equal and should have the ability to live in our means as a free people, of course with exceptions for the handicapped and diseased. And government should be balanced in terms of regulation, not in debt economically, and limited in control of personal liberty and civil rights.
@@gregjohnson5194 same here! I’m black…many don’t understand we blacks are very conservative, but vote with liberals due to the civil rights aspect of it all, and racism. Anyhow, I agree with you completely.
@@stevie586 I always though of all people, blacks would be conservative, because if the Liberals go any further left they’re heading straight towards socialism and that is just communists in disguise, which to me is another form of slavery and black Americans know more about that than most! And as far a racism goes again I believe it’s more the liberals wanting to keep this country angry at each other and they us racism as the tool to do it. The only way we get over racism is we become Americans no matter what, we love each other because we are Americans, we’re always going to have a skin color difference that’s just life. But if you and I go to the UK they would immediately know we are Americans doesn’t matter skin color they know who we are, I’m sure Africa would be the same way they would call you an American just by the way we talk and act. So we all have to bring the pride of our country back be glade we changed our horrific ways of the past and build a bright new future where politicians serve the people not the corporations. Stevie586 thanks for your view point have a great day.
It’s called bettering yourself in society. Not coming to a stop with living off the government. Being lazy and weak .You respect things more when you earn it.
I'm here to be exposed and learn and allow my current view to be updated and improved, not see if what you have to say agrees with what I already believe to be true.
I like this channel as well. An unbiased sanity explaining or shedding light on things that are sometimes otherwise. And you don't really take sides, just explain and let the viewers decide.
Got to say Keith, love your videos. The energy you put into and the love you have for taking us on a journey is quite wonderful. If we could clone more teachers like you, how much better we'd be as a society is unknown, but would be exciting to see. Thanks a bunch!
I'm glad you made the distinction between classical liberal and modern liberal since many people seem to not understand. as liberal and Conservative changed over time. For instance during the American Revolution the founders were liberals and the Conservatives were the Monarchists. It would be anachronistic and inaccurate however to apply our modern meanings of the words to what they meant back then. This video does a good job of explaining the shift.
A liberal is someone who want to help the poor and help the seniors and help those who can't help themselves without lifting one finger or donating one penny. They want to help others with other people's hard work, other people's time, and other people's money.
If you don't want to be helpful, thats okay. The thing is though, cooperation makes an economy a lot stronger. If you give a sick person medicine, then the person is going live longer, he is going to be able to work more before he dies. He is also going to be healthier, so the work he does, is done better. If we help the seniors, then their children doesn't have to worry about them as much, and the children can instead focus on something that they want to do. For example, drawing, playing in a band, playing videogames or go to sports events. All of these gives money to small or big companies. There is something wrong when the bottom 80% of the population of USA earns only 7% of the nations total wealth in my opinion.
your argument is invalid as liberals pay taxes, many very wealthy liberals that pay a shit ton more than you likely do Todd Boden, and they are still OK with doing that because they are fine with some levels of redistribution to social safety nets that are more stable than the fickleness of the charity fairy to do all the heavy lifting.
ubuu7 You should avoid using fancy words when you dont know how to use them, because your message becomes unclear. In this case the message was very unclear.
mcNogard I used no fancy words at all. fickleness of charity is fancy? The term charity fairy is fancy? Perhaps the meaning is unclear, but it's certainly not fancy, it just mocks the libertarian and conservative notion that charity alone is enough to pick up the slack for people on the bottom in modern times. I do not believe it is, I think it's a completely fantastical belief, hence, my derision of the belief of them by saying they believe in the charity fairy.
ubuu7 Paying taxes is not helping the poor. You proved my point. Liberals as a whole spend less on charity than Conservatives because they believe paying taxes is enough to help the poor. LIke I said, liberals want to help the poor with other people's work and money.
Exactly. Through tech and mass communication we could probably come up with something better that's not as likely to be manipulated... still could be manipulated though
Jeff Allcock i dont understand comments like this i consider myself a conservative and a classical liberal in that. But i disagree with the idea that the government can effectively modulate economies and i certainly disagree that government influence makes things more fair i think that is picking winners and losers i believe that in a free country focused on the INDIVIDUAL the government has no right giving anybody any money no subsidies for anyone including business, no safety nets, no insurance and no lobbying. The government has specific responsibilities imo namely: Establishing order (liberal laws like voting for every individual regardless of groups, government staying out of peoples marriages, and upholding natural rights like personal property), defense and clear and concise regulation.
Biting the hand that feeds them? Are you serious? The State can only give that which it has already taken. The liberal mind is incapable of thinking. It is not capable of conceptualization. It is the end result of arrested development. The liberal holds the belief that survival of the individual is to be achieved through mutual parasitism.
Sune Pedersen Unfortunately, Progressive Liberalism is implicitly authoritarian, so it's kind of incompatible with Classical Liberalism, which is known by most today as Libertarianism
Sune Pedersen No. "Progressive" is authoritarian. It requires strong government. Classical Liberalism is against strong government. Besides, progressive isn't the opposite of conservative; liberal is. These both politically refer to the governments role in the economy. (Left - right) Authoritarian is the opposite of Libertarian and politically refer to the government's role in the social structure. A "progressive" is one who believes in a strong government presence in both the economy and the social structure. (North - south). A Liberal Authoritarian. (North & left) A "classical liberal" is one who believes the government should have a limited presence in both the economy and the social structure. A Conservative Libertarian. (South & right). Most of the founding father's were classical liberals.
Well people who take the political compass quiz like myself can get a more official designation. I am a liberal myself, but I prefer not to start an argument with people that I know I have a good chance of losing.
CAPITALISM!!! So thankful for all We have. We are so privileged to live in such an amazing capitalist society that is THE PINNACLE of science, technology, innovation, and culture in general.
A large chunk of those technologies came from our socialist policies and were paid for by tax payer money and developed by the government. Like the internet or the tech in our cell phones.
One of the great paradoxes of neoconservatism. They criticize the Keynesian view that government spending stimulates the economy, while simultaneously arguing that war is good for the economy.
Richard Wagner One of the great paradoxes of modern progressives. They profess all sorts of tolerance for individuals whose contribution to society is negative, but them seem to lose that view when it comes to religion, babies, and the freedom to own firearms. It's an awful solution, but historically war has stimulated the economy. Dumb to go to war for the sake of economy though.
Strider Mccleod Any government spending will cause at least short term economic activity. With war, you do see GDP growth, but it always pales in comparison to the amount of debt accrued. When the war ends, there's usually a nasty recession that follows.
@@stridermccleod5449 go listen to Micheal Hudson...a classical liberal " no one told us that in order to have fully free markets we have to kill everyone who opposes us" -neoliberalism
ziffulmyer The test is pretty shitty, I answer almost all economical questions, claiming no need for government intervention and they barely put me on the right.
This man is actually one of the most unbiased economic teachers I've watched on RUclips. He doesn't go into too much explicit detail to overwhelm the audience, however, he explains each ideology without regurgitating government propaganda. I'm sick of people telling us that socialism requires the State and big governments because there are many variants of socioeconomic systems.
Frail Minds Or Im a highly trained government propagandist who is flying under the radar co-opting kid's ideological souls in order to bring in the New World Order.
+Frail Minds Whether you like it or not, socialism DOES require an enormous state to enforce it's ideal upon the people and it uses it's might to keep people enslaved to their system. That is true about EVERY socialist country from Russia North Korea China Cuba Argentina , every one of them. But of course your version of socialism would work right? This cat hasn't said anything but crap. Telling you left is right and up is down.
You obviously have never heard of libertarian socialism; workers control the means of production. What's "my" version of socialism? I never advocated anything in my comment. Read Proudhon or Bakunin.
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.” - George Carlin
+TheNewEmphinix Okay, that may be true to an extent, but I, frankly, don't want to live in a world where other people have to feel ashamed for being themselves. If this guy says that PC isn't all that it's cracked up to be, then what's a better deal? Surely you don't expect the minorities of this country to "suck it up" and "deal with it?" No, that is NOT what this country is about. If PC isn't the answer, then fine. But I don't see you or anyone else coming up with better ideas that benefit, not just some people, but ALL people.
Don't know if I'm a liberal, anarchist or what. All I know is that I'm anti-authoritarian and I hate the privileged of this country. I'm all about expression and against oppression. Economic Left/Right: -4.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13 Let me know where belong on the grid, because I don't think I was covered in Libertarian, Anarchism or Liberalism.
Reubin I know little about him but if his ideas are close to mine I'm interested just stating who I was closest to but from what little I've heard about him that being all positive doubt it can you elaborate how he ruined India?
Yes. i wouldn't mind elaborating. But could you use punctuation and send the whole message once more like a normal person? I couldn't decode whatever you were trying to say.
Reubin Google voice doesn't really do punctuation besides it's a waste of time you already sound rude calling me a abnormal person think I'd rather just end the conversation here
When Keith describes his little map, why is the right "going towards capitalism and free markets" whereas going left is NOT "going towards socialism and controlled markets", but instead is "going towards a mixed economy with some role for government." I'm not sure this is quite a balanced description. if you are going to describe one side in terms of its extreme, also describe the other that way as well. He seems, instead, to be describing the left as a moderation of the right, and the right as simply extreme. In reality, there are extremes on both sides.
Another criticism which classical liberals have of social liberals is the latter's insistence on government force to correct human faults such as prejudice. So strongly do modern liberals feel about racial prejudice and other flaws in human nature that they would advocate the use of force on people who are free in other ways, ways which are less visible, to continue their prejudice. The result is hatreds that build instead of working themselves out over time. Classical liberals, on the other hand, attribute real progress in civil rights to the civil rights movement which was created spontaneously; not the laws that came about through political means.
The liberal would say though, what good is the civil rights of others if they are not being upheld voluntarily. So without the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are we supposed to just wait for market forces to get Bull Conner to open up the registration tables? What about waiting for the board of a private college to awaken to the humanistic concerns of those marching in the street? And the liberal would say without government coercion, the powerful would always take advantage of the disadvantaged, low wages, terrible conditions... the argument of saying that person should move, or find a better job doesn't always pass the smell test when compiled with generational poverty, a weak educational system and a hungry belly. I think its that "over time" phrase which can sometimes leapfrog the very day to day pains of the underbelly of the lower classes. I would think that without governmental frameworks to buffer the side effects of a free market system we could see some very real revolutionary ripe statistics. But without a doubt the classic liberalists has the same objectives when it comes to liberty. I think that for their to be productive dialogue both sides need to tip their hat to the commonality of upholding equality of opportunity and freedom/liberty as an objective. Its the debate over the role of the collective not the existence of the individual and the collective. Only a radical anarchist would argue their is no collective. And only a Stalinist would argue their is no individual. From what I can tell their is more commonality than differences in our arena, only the differences have been exploited by both sides for the betterment of their own position. If that makes any sense....
Keith, Again, I compliment you on your video and I think you are right in your comment here about how liberals would respond to my challenge. But later on you used phrases like "I would think" where you leave the environment of teaching. So if I may I would like to argue those points. Bull Conner was part of the government. In fact most of the Civil Rights Act was government correcting itself. Do we praise government for that? The part classical liberals object to was making it illegal to refuse service in a privately held enterprise such as a restaurant or private school. The problem is that there's an infinity of ways that free people can continue the bad behavior. They could prepare the food badly, they could be rude. That it didn't happen very much, I credit the Civil Rights Movement not the law. The property-rights-abridging-law just gave bigots an excuse to continue their hate. Note that constraining government institutions in their bigotry is appropriate since they exist without the discretion individuals are allowed. Notice how effective unforced desegregation happens when it becomes apparent that one is better off by hiring the Jacky Robinsons or selling to black customers. Branch Ricky and others were civil rights pioneers that led the way so that the market could recognize the value. That change was done without coercion. For the most part, our acceptance of gays in society is proceeding without coercion from the state; activists, TV, comedians. . . this is how you affect change.
Walter Clark I think you are downplaying the hearts and minds that changed as a result of government action. Integration forced people to "know" each other by allowing those who were previously denied an opportunity to express their liberty in their lives in the public square. I don't give gov. action to much credit but I do not think that as a society we would have the same type of exposure to alternative ways without having that foundation of equal access through the force of law. But again, its not the only factor and not the most influential, which will always remain in the hearts and minds of the individual. But to say their is not a collective responsibility to protect each other from discrimination as best we can without too much intrusion into others liberty? We always do that, but I tip my hat to your libertarian observation about human beings and rationality.
So Liberals see themselves as superheroes that see government as incompetent while dictating what's best for the public even if they have to bypass the legal system to make it happen. And I suppose we the public are suppose to love our servitude to these self proclaimed heroes for saving the world? Liberals are fucked in the head!
the state and business are two of the vehicles that channel human action and interaction. The vehicle can't move by itself, it has to be driven. Let's stop thinking about whether you prefer the blue car or the red car and start concentrating on whether the person behind the wheel is fit to drive.
No anticapitalist criticisms of liberalism presented? A little disappointed at that Still. Pretty well explained, helps me put some things into context
The U.S. Democratic Party should just change its name to the Social Democratic Party, have a rose as their symbol, and change its ideology to "Social democracy".
+Light of Judgment Do you really think they're social democrats? The current Democratic Party are totally for unregulated capitalism and against a solid welfare state. They're nowhere near actual social democrats. I do agree that 1930s-1970s Democrats should be called social democrats. But ever since the Clintons and the "New Democrats" took over, they've been centrist liberals.
I believe there should be as few regulations as possible. The free market is a beautiful thing. That being said, nothing is that simple, and some things do need a little regulation. For example, if we had no regulations on prescription medicine, or food production, then you would have a lot of collateral damage. Lots of people dying from untested / cheap / substandard ingredients. However, on the financial side of things, I believe regulations harbor corruption.. We see this in the whole "pay to play" Hillary scandal with the Clinton Foundation. To be completely fair, you asked an extremely challenging question that you could probably answer either way. I do not believe this is as simple as "black and white".. rather more shades of gray.
It would be helpful and less confusing to distinguish "liberal" from "progressive", instead of using the word liberal to describe two dissimilar concepts.
But what if its private forces stopping your liberty to kill defenseless animals? Would you advocate for the collective, the gov. to protect your liberty? Even if meant taking away my liberty to discriminate against hog murderers? I have a feeling, you would just shoot me too. :)
No. I wouldn't kill anyone. I'm thinking of forming a coalition of hog hunters with the purpose of educating the population of the benefits of hunting for food. I believe that every american has the right to hunt for food. We believe that hunting is a basic human right. I think we could get a lobbyist to represent us in Washington.
ReinSman100 how 'bout becoming a vegetarian!? Humans don't need meat to survive anymore. And hog hunting isn't ethical. What if an alien species came to earth and decided to start hunting humans?!?!?! Your ass would do everything in your power to try to stop them... shooting a defenseless animal ain't cool
amistry605 feral hog are an invasive species. If the population isn't culled, they completely destroy agriculture. They're also not sentient, so your alien analogy doesn't work.
John Nolan The only reason they're invasive is because of humans... we cause messes, and then dont know how to fix them. and you know where i was going with the alien analogy...
The misinformation... it burns. @ 07:25 What Madison was talking about was the justification for a republic over a democracy. Which is why we are a republic and not a democracy. Along with other early American leaders Madison was in Favor of a republic. Im confident this man knows this. But he wants to misrepresent this so he leaves it unsaid. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” ~Benjamin Franklin
John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows: "...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'."
+Virtual Me What....no? The Schengen Agreement made it legal for Europeans to cross the borders freely so you can live in the Netherlands and work in Belgium. Still our wages are high as usual. How would no worders equal low wages?
+Virtual Me Like America and Mexico? Then you get some nationalist uprisings like in Germany, France, Poland, Britain etc and everybody would get their own little Trump and that´s how the world will end :D
So many criticisms. I think the spectrum presented here isn't very pragmatic and the terms "left" & "right" are never clearly defined. It seems that "left" is equated with "collectivism" but "right" is not explained. I suppose one can assume that "right" is equated with "individualism", being the polar opposite of "collectivism"...but isn't that anarchy? And if so, then wouldn't the left be tyranny or authoritarian? And what is the collective and who decides what is and is not the collective? It's split into 2 axis, social & economic, but Libertarian & Authoritarian are political terms. I think the better spectrum is that one used by our Founders: Liberty on one side and Tyranny on the other. No need to split things up between social/economic axis especially since modern day Liberal-Progressives (ie modern day Liberals) are authoritarian on all fronts and they're only Classically Liberal on things depending on which way the wind blows or some other arbitrary assertion. There is no consistency to the Liberal-Progressive or end to their "progress" which tends to be regress. A Liberal of 60 years ago (eg JFK) would be considered a right-wing Conservative extremist by a Liberal of today. A Liberal of 40 years ago would be considered a right-winger, slightly Conservative but maybe not an extremist by a Liberal of today. A Liberal of 20 years ago (eg Bill Clinton of 1995) would be considered a Moderate right-of center by a Liberal of today. So no, this does not explain modern Liberalism (ie Liberal-Progressivism.)
Only came here to learn if I was a liberal, was called one so now I'm researching. I was speaking about how I'm in the middle of socialism and capitalism. I like the idea of every being equal and being free but I also like people working for themselves and building themselves up. What they work for, they deserve and if they ever need any help then sure they can get some help. I always hear shitty things about liberals so thanks for educating me but sadly I still don't know where I fall on the political scale.
I believe in complete freedom for me and everyone, if it doesn’t cause physical harm then there’s nothing wrong with it, and I believe in everyone should have a right to protect their selves, loved ones, property and business even if it means deadly force, I believe everyone’s home and business is there’s to do anything they want without interference. What am I on political classification is it authoritorium, liberal, republican, democrap or what
Politics explained: Politics is a skewed mash up of (Dis)Agreements. Everyone has their exceptions on what they (Dis)Like, and all the people in power are after money.
Spencer Charlie New Liberals are not socialists, just as Conservatives aren't real fascists and Libertarians aren't real anarchists. New liberals accept capitalism as a legitimate economic system; they put most of their eggs like libertarians on the individual, they just see room in the collective for some guarantees for equality of opportunity. True socialists reject the notion of the individual in comparison to the state and its need to act collectively. Like I said in the video pretty much everyone is dancing around that center.
Keith Hughes Contrary to popular Neo-McCarthyist propaganda not all Socialists are statists.For instance,I`m a social anarchist.Specifically a mix of Mutualism,Green anarchism and Anarcha-feminism.I believe in a free market system and mutual banking.I also believe rent,usury and interest are state exploitation of the working masses.Also,if you believe all socialists are collectivists I strongly suggest reading Clarence Lee Swartz,Benjamin Tucker,Josiah Warren and Kevin A. Carson.All of whom are profound influences on my political ideology along with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,Emma Goldman and Joseph Dejacque.That is not to say that I share all their positions on issues.In many cases I do not.But they have influenced my views nonetheless.
Generation Films theres two type of socialism lol Regular socialism lol is the normal one the one you want to avoid is Nazism (National Socialism aka Nationalism)
ayy lmao We should try to strive to live in the real world. I know that this is uncomfortable for you, but Facism is facism. It isn't liberalism. It isnt conservativism, it isn't left, it isnt right. Its facism. American conservatives and liberals alike tend to put a high value on individuals. Facism and communism put a high value on the state. The simillarities end there. Facism is an industralized capitalist statist society. The state interferes with industry by empowering indusries the state supports (ones which are ideologically in the same camp, i.e. IG Farben towed the nazi line in 30s germany and was a supporter of their party) and crushing ones that do not agree with the party line (such as the jewish-run indusries) That said, the indusries that are empowered are greatly empowered, and capitalists are encouraged to move to the country (so long as they agree with the policies...) in order to increase the country's wealth. Communism is an industrialized socialist statist society. The state owns all property and distributes it, uneavenly, to the populace. They are both STATIST societies. Liberals in the US are more prone to have slightly larger states, but not anywhere near the level of fucking Hitler or Stalin. Facism is like if you took republicans and made them statists. This is so alien to the concept of republicanism, rejection of it makes sense, because Facists are Not Republicans. Facists are statist. Communism is like if you took democrats and made them statists. This is so alien to the concept of democrats, rejection of it makes sense, because communists are not democrats. Communists are statist. Make sense yet? Can the hyperbole.
The diagram is false - you can work this out just by moving to the right which requires a free market unleashed capitalism. You can only get to this by having a free market with limited legislation, and limited state control. As such the more you move to the right the less authoritarian the nation will be. The vertical line should be at a 45 degree angle going from the top left to the bottom right and much of the upper right disappears and much of the lower left also disappears.
Several of your premises are flatly incorrect. For one thing, contemporary liberalism is inherently collectivist, meaning that we are decidedly NOT born free, but rather belong to the so-called "society" in which we live at any given time. This is, of course, absurd on its face for reasons that should be clear, but may not be to many whose base presumptions are on another planet. The analysis goes downhill from there, I am afraid. Current liberalism is highly authoritarian along the most basic lines, seeing government as not only absolutely necessary, but as unquestionable in its authority, so long as the standard list of "social" freedoms are respected. Disregard of social freedoms not on that list is not only acceptable to liberals, it is often deemed as required. For example, the liberal will go on tirelessly about women's rights, those of homosexuals, atheists, "minorities", and so forth, while from the other side of their mouths they not only turn a blind eye to the repression of Christians, perhaps Jews, "Conservatives", and of course the evil libertarian, they often explicitly call for the "state" to oppress those voices with which they disagree. This is textbook contemporary liberal thinking and the attendant behavior. Also, liberals will go on endlessly about "equality" while having not the slightest clue as to the proper meaning of the term, either in the general sense or the more specific political idiom. They advocate for equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity, once again being completely comfortable with state-sponsored violence perpetrated against those not on board with their personal agendas. We could go on for volumes, describing the ways in which liberalism as currently constituted is almost a tightly-coupled analog of NAZIsm, the parallels between the two being rather shocking when each is analyzed using a common language set of nouns to describe their respective constituent parts. This brand of analysis brings to the fore a clearer picture of the nature of the things analyzed and the relationships of the parts to each other, as well as the basic functional roles and how each operates in the context of the whole. A key aspect of the clarity that this type of analysis provides lies in the stripping away of the emotionalism engendered in the commonly employed labels, the descriptive nature of which tends to mask some truths while leading one to implications of character that are, in fact, not in evidence in the functional reality of the thing operating in the real world. Calling a piraña a puppy-dog, while invoking mental imagery that makes many people feel warm, fuzzy, and gives rise to feelings of regard and perhaps even affection, does not make the fish any less dangerous to go swimming with. Your analysis is rife with these sorts of fallacious and patently untrue premises regarding many of the assumptions under which you have labored. I do not accuse you of having made these errors with any malice aforethought, but rather that you have employed a very common set of gravely flawed fallacies in carrying out what I shall assume is an otherwise well-intended analysis. Methinks you need to revisit this one, taking greater care in how you choose the elements upon which you base your deductions. Good luck.
+Andrew Vida Thanks for a thoughtful post. However, you showed your hand and true intent early on with this, :)For example, the liberal will go on tirelessly about women's rights, those of homosexuals, atheists, "minorities", and so forth, while from the other side of their mouths they not only turn a blind eye to the repression of Christians, perhaps Jews, "Conservatives", and of course the evil libertarian, they often explicitly call for the "state" to oppress those voices with which they disagree. This is textbook contemporary liberal thinking and the attendant behavior." There are some liberals who are as strong in their beliefs as there are on the right, most liberals are not that way. Specifically, your comment above is incorrect and not true, and there is not evidence to support your assertion. Many liberals are Christians, Jewish, and religious. HIspanics and black Americans are mostly liberal and democrat and those 2 groups have very high percentages of belonging to the Christian religion. Your assertion that liberals "turn a blind eye" to the "repression" of Christians and Jews, is thus wrong at the onset. There is no such repression nor is the a war on Christianity from the left, not in the least. Show some actual evidence that liberals are engaged in any repression of Christianity. There isn't any. No liberal has ever said that any religion should be shut down, banned, watched closely, or not have a right to exist. That has never happened and never will. Questioning the use of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or other religious based teachings as evidence for the creation of social policy or other legal matters is something liberal do and will continue to do. That is because liberal accept and believe our Constitution that church and state remain separate. So, liberals will fight when religious groups want to use their scripture in order to create laws and rules that they want to apply to everybody even when those teachings are not part of everybody's point of view. There is NO restriction on practicing one's religion, nor are there liberals asking for certain religions to be above another, or to ban one religion over another. It will never happen, because liberals know there it is fundamental to freedom to allow all religions to be practiced by any American citizen. In contrast, it is the conservative right wing that wants to impose it's evangelical and mostly protestant beliefs into our national culture through our legislative system. These same would also legally ban any non Christian religion if they could as they already said they would. The attack on Islam in this country does not come from the left or liberals, it is coming directly from the conservative Christian right and their belief in their spiritual superiority because they are Christians. Liberals accept all religions and their equality to be practiced in our country. So your argument about liberals and religion are FALSE, utterly.
You have attempted to make a single example, that of religious bigotry, into the broader argument. That fails. It was only one of many possible avenues the typical liberal takes in their hypocritical positions. There are "conservatives" who do the same thing. However, these tend to be the extreme religious fundamentalists. The typical conservative is far and away more cognizant of the rights of individuals and respectful of them. They also tend to be far better mannered. There are exceptions to all averages, obviously.
David C Your response makes no good sense. Firstly, I didn't say any such thing. More importantly, there is nothing at all wrong with "bias" when it is adopted rationally. Perhaps you should look up the meaning, because I suspect it may not mean what you think it means. For example, I am biased against child molesters. Would you call that "bad" as your use of the terms implies? If I am wrong for being biased against child molestation, then please elaborate on why. Thanks
The stereotypical hippie used to illustrate this page is a little 'off' -hippies generally looked down on liberals as compromisers and supporters of capitalism, propriety, and sobriety; to the extent that hippies had any ideology, it was usually some variety of anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism.
Ppl still fail to realize that it doesn't matter if you're Democrat or Republican because BOTH parties divide the ppl and Both parties want the same thing which is power over the people.
I think the difficulty in defining what is liberal and what is not rests in the fact that terms get hijacked over time. They get purposefully misused and/or simply change with the times. Words get obfuscated and because we all grew up in different environments and different situations and have different views offered up or rammed down our throat, it’s very difficult. In addition to that words get stolen by the media (and the powers that truly control the game) and purposefully used to manage people and their emotions.
This just talks about liberalism in terms of economics. I thought it would be more about Mill and his Harm Principle and ideas of free speech and Locke and secular gov't and individual rights.
I think that matrix needs another axis: how is your hungry for change. Conservatives tends to keep the status quo, Radicals want fundamental changes in society. That is actually where the terms radical and conservative come from
Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67 Just thought I'd share, halfway to the left and a little bit down. TBH I'm still not 100% sure on what this political jargon means, I never was very politically savvy
I took the test, but my problem with it is that on some questions I have no position (not knowing enough about that issue), but there was no "no opinion" choice to check.
I have a theory that most politically active people, that is those who regularly vote and stay current on political events don't know a lot about the complexities that make a liberal or a conservative BUT that they mostly fall into one group or the other based on only one or two key reasons; you either approve of robbing Peter to pay Paul or you dont and your lack of belief or belief that you can get ahead in this country with your own hard work.
The government has destroyed opportunity for people at the bottom; that's why the gap between rich and poor has grown, people connect to the upper tiers of government hand outs grow wealthy. People at the bottom of government assistance become dependent and their will to pursue opportunity is destroyed. The middle class gets destroyed; either going up or down, mostly down while carrying most of the water to keep it all going. For the most part they are being taxed down into that lower category. The ones that learn how to connect and leach off that system go up. Example slum Lord's peddling section 8 housing grow wealthy. But the people actually using the housing grow poorer. And the middle get pushed out because of artificial housing demands subsided by a government they fuel.
There are two distinct types of liberals. 1. Classic Liberal- believes in smaller government, but more than the libertarians. 2. Progressive Liberals- who believe in larger government, and policy should be based whims of society over logic. A progressive tends to rule on emotion. I am a classic liberal. I guess my best example is seat belt laws. As a classic liberal I don't agree with seatbelt laws. Unless those laws involve minors. What I dislike about progressive liberalism like communism it only 100% works in a post scarcity society.
9 лет назад
Economic Left/Right: 2.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95
Each nation seems to define this differently. In Australia, the Liberal party of Australia is authoritarian in its policies, compared to the other major political parties.
Every one here is arguing trivial superficial differences that the two parties put forth to keep you busy, when the real issue was just explained by the narrator Keith Hughes. Hamilton was concerned about "the tyranny of the majority" . THAT'S YOU THE PEOPLE. In the Federalist papers No. 10 Madison argues against a democracy and speaks in the interest of what we call the one percent today when he says "They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
almost, and in some definitions perhaps. classic liberals believe in court systems to uphold human rights and the military for defense. I believe some anarchists believe in the same.
Between watching videos and reading comments...I'm terrified at what society has become. It's actually scary.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you are the absolute reason society is becoming what it is becoming. and if you ever watched any of hip Hughes other videos, you will understand why.
@@toomanydrugsinmysys5414 yepp everyone crying about how bad things are....pretty much all I've heard all the way through my life.... I think it's great, constant progress.
Blame that piece of shit Obama for one.
Fakenews is making the society these days, bots and algorithms. Social media is killing society. It's more a-social media.
@@terryrowe6738 I blame Obama and trump and all douche bag presidents along with the house, the president isn't a king don't think trump is doing all this on his own.
Trump used fed bank to pump 6trillion into already crashed economy.
I got called a "liberal" so now Im here...
🤣🤣
I’m sorry, that is the most offensive word to be called in todays society in my opinion
Discourse in politics is growing more combative rather then the intellectual volley is should be. So I appreciate the didactic style here...it's refreshing.
Well what do you expect when we allow Joe Biden to steal the election without kicking his ass out of the country?
When I call myself a liberal, I consider it to mean that I believe:
- that a government should be constitutional, as in it has limitations which it must follow (i.e separation of powers, separation of church and state)
-furthermore, the government should not regulate speech, the press, sexuality and things like guns and drug use should only be regulated to a certain extent
-that a society should provide equality of opportunity, meaning that discrimination of employment based on race, gender, class, creed or religion should be banned, healthcare should be offered to all by a single-payer and education should be properly invested in.
-morality should be derived from reason, not tradition
-institutions that have become outdated need reform
-the economy should be mixed: markets need to be free to be competitive, but to ensure the freedom of the markets, monopolies must be broken up and consumers need to be protected. Certain industries should be government run, such as the military, education and healthcare. Redistribution of wealth through taxation and spending should be used to the extent that insane income inequality is prevented. This is important for the protection of the working and middle class.
Only one thing wrong with that. It's 2020 and ALL of you're dems are extreme. Republicans and Independents are the knowledgeable people. Dems are just as extreme as they can possibly be because they know that there party is dying.
@@Chase_H how are they extreme?
Pedigree 1-2-3 no, that’s the most boomer thing someone can say. You saying that all dems are extreme is grouping people like Bernie Sanders with neoliberals like Pete buttigieg. If all dems are extreme you would not see blue dog democrats who sometimes vote along with conservatives.
@@devilfruittrafficker4108 I disagree, the parties are totally divided. At this point dems believe in running the country one way and republicans believe in running it another way. Trump is doing a great job even statistically, and democrats can not stand it. So in my opinion you are ride or die with your political party at this point and if you call yourself a democrat then you are following the most powerful ones such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who are 100% against Trump and hate his guts.
Pedigree 1-2-3 agreed
starts at 2:50 youre welcome saved you time from this guy running his mouth
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks
He spoke for fourteen minutes and still didn't answer the question.
thank u i still don't understand what it means
That's because he's a Liberal himself and believe we are too insignificant to know their true plans. Liberals are filled with little white lies cause they don't want to hurt our feelings as they take our sovereignty away. Cause you know they know what's best.
Before we insult this guy for his definitions of subject matter we clicked on. Listen to him. He’s really explaining it well. And he may be a liberal himself (I am not) but that is still important to hear the perspective. It’s very important that as we navigate everyone’s views we stop this senseless arguing and insulting each other’s opinions. That’s what makes our country so great
ruclips.net/video/_pduGqRGuiU/видео.html
Sounds like a liberal to me
Why are theocrats called conservatives, socialists called liberals, state run capitalists called republicans, and actual liberals called libertarians?
Libertarians are only "actual liberals" if you believe that negative liberty is the only type of liberty.
because America.
That's my question.
I think it's that people want to be able to put these labels onto political parties for whatever reason. So people who hold more left wing views are called liberals and people who hold more right wing views are called conservative. I mean neither party actually fit very well into the true ideas of conservatism or liberalism but people see political views as right wing or left wing and so equally they see the need to slap the conservative/liberal label onto the parties without acknowledging that neither may particularly buy into the ideas. I hope that might make some sense. Fingers crossed
Soupy THIS.
As simple as it sounds, I love your videos because you just explain what these views ARE. Trying to just learn about political views is a minefield of hate and aggression, lmao. Thank-you!
@Proud Troll you know what?
YOU...are...not actually wrong...huh.
.
"As simple as it sounds" LOL
Its called The Dictator Trap.
"Trap"; because "more government" sounds scary but it's the opposite. More "checks and balances" (three branches of government) Are all more government. It is what America just is. Who would want to drive on our roads with no rules and regulations. No stop signs and red lights. No airbags and seat belts. "LeSs goverNment"
People fall for the Trap every time (all through history). Over and over again. "LeSs governMent is gOod" (single). but yet that is exactly what a dictatorship is (single). Down is up. Less government is bad. (Single).
And how does this "down is up" happen (The Dictator Trap). How do we run to "less government" every time. as if that is a good thing. Well, that would take greater thought. Not to fall for the Dictator Trap. Able to post a post at thousands of words and to be able to read that long post.
To avoid the Dictator Trap.
The Dictator Trap goes for CEO's as well (single). Never elect a CEO as your dictator. Never work non-union for a dictatorship. To stay in power dictatorships have to construct fake realities. They make mistakes on beliefs of those fake realities. People in power tend to get their information from people who have not received their job through competence but their brown nosing abilities, yes men. People who if they cross their CEO's; they lose their livelihood. So they lie to their boss to save their jobs, there by creating alternative realities.
Then these alternative realities CEO's control the politicians AKA the CEO's control the police policing them.
For example, A policeman pulling over his boss to give him a speeding ticket.
Who? Who is incharge of America? With Citizens United in place. AKA money in politics. The people living in alternative realities are running everything.
This is why a political stants of more regulations AKA "more government" comes from. To stop authoritarian. A check and balance. Frankly policing by clear headS. More government means more authoritieS. Those headS free of money in politics opposed one (single) authority. Citizens United needs to go.
To avoid the Dictator Trap.
Every person mathematically can afford their own products. The word is "inflation".
A fast food worker can afford his own product. "Inflation". And the math is same at an expense restaurant. The Chef's making more money at a fancy restaurant, there by making it possible to afford their more expensive products, because their more expensive paycheck AKA "inflation". Just like every construction worker can and should be first in line to buy their own products. And a highly skilled yacht Craftsman being paid more then the average construction worker should now be paid more to buy their more expensive products. A highly paid yacht craftsman buying there own highly expensive yacht. The formula known as inflation. AKA not everyone making a single amount paycheck.
It's called math.
Money making money screws inflation math up. A violation.
If you work at a expensive resort, you get paid more then working at a cheap resort. Both resorts will be on a balanced budget. Not rewarding "investors". Just like a skilled chef makes more money. There by making their services more expensive. Up is up.
No. Not everyone is created equal. Plural. Some make more money then others. From trained skill. Schooling, Minus investors.
Let me be clear. Investors bring everyone making the same money. The investors are taking the differences. It's called math, throwing inflation out of control.
For example. Investors buying in on oil investments pushing up the price. Making investors happy, and at the same time, making everyone buying gas unhappy. And the same goes for everything else. Another example, real estate. Investors moving in on real estate pushes the price up. Making everyone needing a home to stay in or a business to occupie real estate sad. Investors happy at the same time everyone sad. The Economic Trap. Paradox.
It's a human right violation; investors taking the workers gains.
I agree! Was thinking the same while watching this; he just stated the facts and doesn’t try to influence anyone nor does he state his personal feelings.
I love the fact that there are more triggered conservatives in the comment section than there are liberals
JustinCage that's because liberals don't want to know facts so they don't watch these videos.
As much as they think they are a liberal is not a person who defends, supports and panders to a totalitarian ideology (islam) which is diametrically opposed to liberality.
Well they have their liberty of posting their opinions here, that's part of Liberalism, freedom for everyone.
I dont get "triggered" I do get pissed off at liberal crap!
The reason there are more conservatives “triggered” is because most of the nation are conservatives. There are very few libs in ratio but they scream & cry so much louder and get so much more attention.
In the book "Ten Books Every Conservative Must Read" by Benjamin Wiker, he describes liberals as people who believe that humans are blank slates, that all of our natural flaws can be programmed out of us through education. He defines conservatives as people who believe we are inherently flawed and that we must take that into account when designing our institutions. He says Aristotle is the father of conservatism. Needless to say, evolutionary psychology emphatically supports the conservative view.
Christianity supports conservatism. I guess the older I get the more conservative I get... I believe in capitalism & limited government interaction in the lives of its constituents...
@@jamellfoster6029 me too.
I’m conservative and I don’t believe people are inherently flawed! Quite opposite, I believe we are all created equal and should have the ability to live in our means as a free people, of course with exceptions for the handicapped and diseased. And government should be balanced in terms of regulation, not in debt economically, and limited in control of personal liberty and civil rights.
@@gregjohnson5194 same here! I’m black…many don’t understand we blacks are very conservative, but vote with liberals due to the civil rights aspect of it all, and racism. Anyhow, I agree with you completely.
@@stevie586 I always though of all people, blacks would be conservative, because if the Liberals go any further left they’re heading straight towards socialism and that is just communists in disguise, which to me is another form of slavery and black Americans know more about that than most! And as far a racism goes again I believe it’s more the liberals wanting to keep this country angry at each other and they us racism as the tool to do it. The only way we get over racism is we become Americans no matter what, we love each other because we are Americans, we’re always going to have a skin color difference that’s just life. But if you and I go to the UK they would immediately know we are Americans doesn’t matter skin color they know who we are, I’m sure Africa would be the same way they would call you an American just by the way we talk and act. So we all have to bring the pride of our country back be glade we changed our horrific ways of the past and build a bright new future where politicians serve the people not the corporations. Stevie586 thanks for your view point have a great day.
It’s called bettering yourself in society. Not coming to a stop with living off the government. Being lazy and weak .You respect things more when you earn it.
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54
I'm here to be exposed and learn and allow my current view to be updated and improved, not see if what you have to say agrees with what I already believe to be true.
same
You're a rare human...in a good way
I've literally said almost the same thing before
I know Shakespeare when I see it.
@@artnwityr what is the source it came from i’m intrigued! just a girl turning to learn for the better lmao!!!
I like this channel as well. An unbiased sanity explaining or shedding light on things that are sometimes otherwise. And you don't really take sides, just explain and let the viewers decide.
Bravo Mr. Hughes. I just discovered you a couple hours ago. Great stuff. I've learned a lot already. Thanks dude!
Did you learn anything today
Got to say Keith, love your videos. The energy you put into and the love you have for taking us on a journey is quite wonderful. If we could clone more teachers like you, how much better we'd be as a society is unknown, but would be exciting to see. Thanks a bunch!
I'm glad you made the distinction between classical liberal and modern liberal since many people seem to not understand. as liberal and Conservative changed over time. For instance during the American Revolution the founders were liberals and the Conservatives were the Monarchists. It would be anachronistic and inaccurate however to apply our modern meanings of the words to what they meant back then. This video does a good job of explaining the shift.
Finally someone mentioned that! Thank you.
A liberal is someone who want to help the poor and help the seniors and help those who can't help themselves without lifting one finger or donating one penny. They want to help others with other people's hard work, other people's time, and other people's money.
If you don't want to be helpful, thats okay. The thing is though, cooperation makes an economy a lot stronger.
If you give a sick person medicine, then the person is going live longer, he is going to be able to work more before he dies. He is also going to be healthier, so the work he does, is done better.
If we help the seniors, then their children doesn't have to worry about them as much, and the children can instead focus on something that they want to do. For example, drawing, playing in a band, playing videogames or go to sports events. All of these gives money to small or big companies.
There is something wrong when the bottom 80% of the population of USA earns only 7% of the nations total wealth in my opinion.
your argument is invalid as liberals pay taxes, many very wealthy liberals that pay a shit ton more than you likely do Todd Boden, and they are still OK with doing that because they are fine with some levels of redistribution to social safety nets that are more stable than the fickleness of the charity fairy to do all the heavy lifting.
ubuu7 You should avoid using fancy words when you dont know how to use them, because your message becomes unclear. In this case the message was very unclear.
mcNogard I used no fancy words at all. fickleness of charity is fancy?
The term charity fairy is fancy? Perhaps the meaning is unclear, but it's certainly not fancy, it just mocks the libertarian and conservative notion that charity alone is enough to pick up the slack for people on the bottom in modern times. I do not believe it is, I think it's a completely fantastical belief, hence, my derision of the belief of them by saying they believe in the charity fairy.
ubuu7 Paying taxes is not helping the poor. You proved my point. Liberals as a whole spend less on charity than Conservatives because they believe paying taxes is enough to help the poor. LIke I said, liberals want to help the poor with other people's work and money.
Any system that utilizes humans as the judge, jury, interpreter and enforcer of the law is flawed, no matter how good it sounds on paper
Exactly. Through tech and mass communication we could probably come up with something better that's not as likely to be manipulated... still could be manipulated though
Good data. It definitely increased my understanding. I personally am inclined towards libertarianism or, at least, closer to that ideology.
Hello beautiful how are you
Same right here.
Biting the hand that feeds them: I'd bet that none of the posters herein have failed to profit in some way from the liberal legislation they deplore
Jeff Allcock i dont understand comments like this i consider myself a conservative and a classical liberal in that. But i disagree with the idea that the government can effectively modulate economies and i certainly disagree that government influence makes things more fair i think that is picking winners and losers i believe that in a free country focused on the INDIVIDUAL the government has no right giving anybody any money no subsidies for anyone including business, no safety nets, no insurance and no lobbying. The government has specific responsibilities imo namely: Establishing order (liberal laws like voting for every individual regardless of groups, government staying out of peoples marriages, and upholding natural rights like personal property), defense and clear and concise regulation.
Biting the hand that feeds them? Are you serious? The State can only give that which it has already taken. The liberal mind is incapable of thinking. It is not capable of conceptualization. It is the end result of arrested development. The liberal holds the belief that survival of the individual is to be achieved through mutual parasitism.
@@patrickgrengs7594 I don't understand why they would be incapable of conceptualisation
Love this channel. Brilliant.
+Sam Bennett Love this comment!
@@hiphughes Brilliant!
@@LexxLucious he pulled the power move now known as the Keanu Reeves
Nice
Liberalism is not an ideology, it's how life should be
A classical Liberal is a Libertarian.
+Zach Miles yeah, a slightly conservative Libertarian.
+Zev Hoover I'd say a progressive libertarian
Sune Pedersen Unfortunately, Progressive Liberalism is implicitly authoritarian, so it's kind of incompatible with Classical Liberalism, which is known by most today as Libertarianism
Progressive as opposed to conservative
Sune Pedersen No. "Progressive" is authoritarian. It requires strong government. Classical Liberalism is against strong government. Besides, progressive isn't the opposite of conservative; liberal is. These both politically refer to the governments role in the economy. (Left - right) Authoritarian is the opposite of Libertarian and politically refer to the government's role in the social structure. A "progressive" is one who believes in a strong government presence in both the economy and the social structure. (North - south). A Liberal Authoritarian. (North & left) A "classical liberal" is one who believes the government should have a limited presence in both the economy and the social structure. A Conservative Libertarian. (South & right). Most of the founding father's were classical liberals.
Very insightful breakdown, wish more people could wrap their mind around this point of view
1- Ayn Rand is no libertarian. In fact, she detested libertarians.
2- Most people who self-identify as "liberal" (ie "new liberals") are not.
Well people who take the political compass quiz like myself can get a more official designation. I am a liberal myself, but I prefer not to start an argument with people that I know I have a good chance of losing.
I think that this video needs to be played in schools so people know the difference .
CAPITALISM!!! So thankful for all
We have. We are so privileged to live in such an amazing capitalist society that is THE PINNACLE of science, technology, innovation, and culture in general.
Our system isn't capitalist anymore it has all gone the top 1% of population :(
@@pugsymalone4009 and the majority of that 1% fund the Democrat party.
A large chunk of those technologies came from our socialist policies and were paid for by tax payer money and developed by the government. Like the internet or the tech in our cell phones.
I'm really trying to understand these people's mindset. It's perplexing to me how people think like this.
All military/defense spending, including WW2 & every war since then are, by definition, considered to be military Keynesianism.
yup.
One of the great paradoxes of neoconservatism. They criticize the Keynesian view that government spending stimulates the economy, while simultaneously arguing that war is good for the economy.
Richard Wagner One of the great paradoxes of modern progressives. They profess all sorts of tolerance for individuals whose contribution to society is negative, but them seem to lose that view when it comes to religion, babies, and the freedom to own firearms.
It's an awful solution, but historically war has stimulated the economy. Dumb to go to war for the sake of economy though.
Strider Mccleod Any government spending will cause at least short term economic activity. With war, you do see GDP growth, but it always pales in comparison to the amount of debt accrued. When the war ends, there's usually a nasty recession that follows.
@@stridermccleod5449 go listen to Micheal Hudson...a classical liberal " no one told us that in order to have fully free markets we have to kill everyone who opposes us" -neoliberalism
took the test - I'm near Nelson Mandela, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama on the chart - lol
I must be a hippy O.o
Lmao me toooo!
I already knew i was a hippie doe...
No, you are just rational. No worries.
ziffulmyer The test is pretty shitty, I answer almost all economical questions, claiming no need for government intervention and they barely put me on the right.
ziffulmyer yea same i was near Gandhi
This man is actually one of the most unbiased economic teachers I've watched on RUclips. He doesn't go into too much explicit detail to overwhelm the audience, however, he explains each ideology without regurgitating government propaganda.
I'm sick of people telling us that socialism requires the State and big governments because there are many variants of socioeconomic systems.
Frail Minds Or Im a highly trained government propagandist who is flying under the radar co-opting kid's ideological souls in order to bring in the New World Order.
I pledge allegiance to the United Enslaved Souls of America; where I shall trade my prosperity for servitude and maximum security. Amen.
+Frail Minds
Whether you like it or not, socialism DOES require an enormous state to enforce it's ideal upon the people and it uses it's might to keep people enslaved to their system. That is true about EVERY socialist country from Russia North Korea China Cuba Argentina , every one of them. But of course your version of socialism would work right? This cat hasn't said anything but crap. Telling you left is right and up is down.
You obviously have never heard of libertarian socialism; workers control the means of production. What's "my" version of socialism? I never advocated anything in my comment. Read Proudhon or Bakunin.
State capitalism is slavery too. All statist systems are slavery.
I took the quiz. I'm near the same spot as Ghandi
me too
Ghandi was rasict against blacks
Wasn't Ghandi a racist?
I'm near Friedman
Same here
Fascism, Liberalism and communism are the main ideologies ... all the other terms are offshoots ... modern consvervatism is classical liberalism
EEEEEEEEEXACTLY. Read my top post
Except modern conservatism is pure cancer and hardy relates to Classical Liberals ideals.
Illusive Man Modern conservatism is a buzz word that means nothing
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.” - George Carlin
+TheNewEmphinix Okay, that may be true to an extent, but I, frankly, don't want to live in a world where other people have to feel ashamed for being themselves. If this guy says that PC isn't all that it's cracked up to be, then what's a better deal? Surely you don't expect the minorities of this country to "suck it up" and "deal with it?" No, that is NOT what this country is about.
If PC isn't the answer, then fine. But I don't see you or anyone else coming up with better ideas that benefit, not just some people, but ALL people.
Don't know if I'm a liberal, anarchist or what. All I know is that I'm anti-authoritarian and I hate the privileged of this country. I'm all about expression and against oppression.
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
Let me know where belong on the grid, because I don't think I was covered in Libertarian, Anarchism or Liberalism.
glad i dont associate myself with any of this party mess
This was more helpful than two weeks of university lectures for a introductory course on politics.
Green are are left wing extremists man
Far right extremist trump
These videos are fantastic. Keep them coming!
In any religion or culture or politics, you should be able to express yourself the way you desire and love you love and like what do you like
My Political Compass
Economic Left/Right:
-6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:
-4.41
I'm pretty close to Gandhi
Gandhi ruined India.
Reubin
I know little about him but if his ideas are close to mine I'm interested just stating who I was closest to but from what little I've heard about him that being all positive doubt it can you elaborate how he ruined India?
Yes. i wouldn't mind elaborating. But could you use punctuation and send the whole message once more like a normal person? I couldn't decode whatever you were trying to say.
Reubin
Google voice doesn't really do punctuation besides it's a waste of time you already sound rude calling me a abnormal person think I'd rather just end the conversation here
So am I a centrist?
Economic Left/Right: 3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
As a libertarian conservative I actually really appreciate this neutral as possible approach to explaining liberals. Unlike how Voxx does it's videos
When Keith describes his little map, why is the right "going towards capitalism and free markets" whereas going left is NOT "going towards socialism and controlled markets", but instead is "going towards a mixed economy with some role for government." I'm not sure this is quite a balanced description. if you are going to describe one side in terms of its extreme, also describe the other that way as well. He seems, instead, to be describing the left as a moderation of the right, and the right as simply extreme. In reality, there are extremes on both sides.
Another criticism which classical liberals have of social liberals is the latter's insistence on government force to correct human faults such as prejudice. So strongly do modern liberals feel about racial prejudice and other flaws in human nature that they would advocate the use of force on people who are free in other ways, ways which are less visible, to continue their prejudice. The result is hatreds that build instead of working themselves out over time. Classical liberals, on the other hand, attribute real progress in civil rights to the civil rights movement which was created spontaneously; not the laws that came about through political means.
The liberal would say though, what good is the civil rights of others if they are not being upheld voluntarily. So without the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are we supposed to just wait for market forces to get Bull Conner to open up the registration tables? What about waiting for the board of a private college to awaken to the humanistic concerns of those marching in the street? And the liberal would say without government coercion, the powerful would always take advantage of the disadvantaged, low wages, terrible conditions... the argument of saying that person should move, or find a better job doesn't always pass the smell test when compiled with generational poverty, a weak educational system and a hungry belly. I think its that "over time" phrase which can sometimes leapfrog the very day to day pains of the underbelly of the lower classes. I would think that without governmental frameworks to buffer the side effects of a free market system we could see some very real revolutionary ripe statistics. But without a doubt the classic liberalists has the same objectives when it comes to liberty. I think that for their to be productive dialogue both sides need to tip their hat to the commonality of upholding equality of opportunity and freedom/liberty as an objective. Its the debate over the role of the collective not the existence of the individual and the collective. Only a radical anarchist would argue their is no collective. And only a Stalinist would argue their is no individual. From what I can tell their is more commonality than differences in our arena, only the differences have been exploited by both sides for the betterment of their own position. If that makes any sense....
Keith,
Again, I compliment you on your video and I think you are right in your comment here about how liberals would respond to my challenge. But later on you used phrases like "I would think" where you leave the environment of teaching. So if I may I would like to argue those points. Bull Conner was part of the government. In fact most of the Civil Rights Act was government correcting itself. Do we praise government for that? The part classical liberals object to was making it illegal to refuse service in a privately held enterprise such as a restaurant or private school. The problem is that there's an infinity of ways that free people can continue the bad behavior. They could prepare the food badly, they could be rude. That it didn't happen very much, I credit the Civil Rights Movement not the law. The property-rights-abridging-law just gave bigots an excuse to continue their hate. Note that constraining government institutions in their bigotry is appropriate since they exist without the discretion individuals are allowed. Notice how effective unforced desegregation happens when it becomes apparent that one is better off by hiring the Jacky Robinsons or selling to black customers. Branch Ricky and others were civil rights pioneers that led the way so that the market could recognize the value. That change was done without coercion. For the most part, our acceptance of gays in society is proceeding without coercion from the state; activists, TV, comedians. . . this is how you affect change.
Walter Clark I think you are downplaying the hearts and minds that changed as a result of government action. Integration forced people to "know" each other by allowing those who were previously denied an opportunity to express their liberty in their lives in the public square. I don't give gov. action to much credit but I do not think that as a society we would have the same type of exposure to alternative ways without having that foundation of equal access through the force of law. But again, its not the only factor and not the most influential, which will always remain in the hearts and minds of the individual. But to say their is not a collective responsibility to protect each other from discrimination as best we can without too much intrusion into others liberty? We always do that, but I tip my hat to your libertarian observation about human beings and rationality.
Thanks for the tip of the hat Keith. I'm looking forward to the next lernin.
Walter Clark Get ready fast, "What is a Conservative" is uploading now! lol
Is this Tom Arnold?
+Alex Wood yes.
Proud Liberal, Socialist, Democrat.
If you're a socialist you're not liberal.
There are so many viewpoints. Why can't people have a serious discussion on this subject and find some common ground?
I was not expecting ICP to be the soundtrack on a politics video. You made my day sir, thank you.
Being a LIberal has it's up's and down's. Its better being a conservative that's for sure.
You never have to change your opinion if you are conservative.
Question-What is a liberal?
Answer-A liberal is a fool.
wait which liberal is a fool?
Yeah, equality, fairness, human rights... All foolish endeavors.
adub4ever
So is the opposite complete control of human beings and other even more dim endeavors that are similar to it. so your point?
Question: What is a conservative?
Answer- A Conservative is an idiot.
2 people can play this game. LOL
Explain? Support? Argument?
This video could have been shorter if he would have explained the difference between a millenial liberal and a Gen x liberal
What about liberal librarians teaching liberalism?
*looks at comment section*
Meanwhile in Sweden...
Is becoming the rape capital of the world
@Peakhelliw False, it has been going down and the USA beats it out.
So Liberals see themselves as superheroes that see government as incompetent while dictating what's best for the public even if they have to bypass the legal system to make it happen. And I suppose we the public are suppose to love our servitude to these self proclaimed heroes for saving the world? Liberals are fucked in the head!
the state and business are two of the vehicles that channel human action and interaction. The vehicle can't move by itself, it has to be driven. Let's stop thinking about whether you prefer the blue car or the red car and start concentrating on whether the person behind the wheel is fit to drive.
No anticapitalist criticisms of liberalism presented?
A little disappointed at that
Still. Pretty well explained, helps me put some things into context
The U.S. Democratic Party should just change its name to the Social Democratic Party, have a rose as their symbol, and change its ideology to "Social democracy".
+Light of Judgment Do you really think they're social democrats? The current Democratic Party are totally for unregulated capitalism and against a solid welfare state. They're nowhere near actual social democrats. I do agree that 1930s-1970s Democrats should be called social democrats. But ever since the Clintons and the "New Democrats" took over, they've been centrist liberals.
@@franchiseboy123 they tried to be centrist but they went the opposite way
I think both parties should delete themselves!
on the test I got authoritarian left. wtf am I a communist? someone explain what that is. thanks
+Satiricality apparently ur Stalin. Please go get therapy. 👍🏻
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) the test is flawed im left liberal
That's what Stalin said. :)
Yes, you probably are pretty close to a communist
I believe there should be as few regulations as possible. The free market is a beautiful thing. That being said, nothing is that simple, and some things do need a little regulation. For example, if we had no regulations on prescription medicine, or food production, then you would have a lot of collateral damage. Lots of people dying from untested / cheap / substandard ingredients. However, on the financial side of things, I believe regulations harbor corruption.. We see this in the whole "pay to play" Hillary scandal with the Clinton Foundation. To be completely fair, you asked an extremely challenging question that you could probably answer either way. I do not believe this is as simple as "black and white".. rather more shades of gray.
It would be helpful and less confusing to distinguish "liberal" from "progressive", instead of using the word liberal to describe two dissimilar concepts.
So… how does liberalism compare to facsism? (I’m referring to the rick and Morty episode, I’m trying to get more clarity on exactly what they meant)
I'm a centrist until the govt tries to stop me from hog hunting.
The line is drawn on the hog baby.
But what if its private forces stopping your liberty to kill defenseless animals? Would you advocate for the collective, the gov. to protect your liberty? Even if meant taking away my liberty to discriminate against hog murderers? I have a feeling, you would just shoot me too. :)
No. I wouldn't kill anyone. I'm thinking of forming a coalition of hog hunters with the purpose of educating the population of the benefits of hunting for food. I believe that every american has the right to hunt for food. We believe that hunting is a basic human right. I think we could get a lobbyist to represent us in Washington.
ReinSman100 how 'bout becoming a vegetarian!? Humans don't need meat to survive anymore. And hog hunting isn't ethical. What if an alien species came to earth and decided to start hunting humans?!?!?! Your ass would do everything in your power to try to stop them... shooting a defenseless animal ain't cool
amistry605 feral hog are an invasive species. If the population isn't culled, they completely destroy agriculture. They're also not sentient, so your alien analogy doesn't work.
John Nolan The only reason they're invasive is because of humans... we cause messes, and then dont know how to fix them. and you know where i was going with the alien analogy...
That's gotta b thee most un nessasary strung out explication I've heard yet
The misinformation... it burns. @ 07:25 What Madison was talking about was the justification for a republic over a democracy. Which is why we are a republic and not a democracy. Along with other early American leaders Madison was in Favor of a republic. Im confident this man knows this. But he wants to misrepresent this so he leaves it unsaid.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
~Benjamin Franklin
John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:
"...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'."
Is classic liberalism same as libertarianism ?
+Asa Saman pretty much!
A classic liberal of the past would NOT believe there should be no borders. Merely free trade.
+Virtual Me What....no? The Schengen Agreement made it legal for Europeans to cross the borders freely so you can live in the Netherlands and work in Belgium. Still our wages are high as usual. How would no worders equal low wages?
*****
Like reverse outsourcing. But people would probably strike and after some years this initial surplus would be incooperated into new businesses.
+Virtual Me Like America and Mexico? Then you get some nationalist uprisings like in Germany, France, Poland, Britain etc and everybody would get their own little Trump and that´s how the world will end :D
That intro looks like the exposition of a Michael Bay movie
So many criticisms.
I think the spectrum presented here isn't very pragmatic and the terms "left" & "right" are never clearly defined. It seems that "left" is equated with "collectivism" but "right" is not explained. I suppose one can assume that "right" is equated with "individualism", being the polar opposite of "collectivism"...but isn't that anarchy? And if so, then wouldn't the left be tyranny or authoritarian? And what is the collective and who decides what is and is not the collective?
It's split into 2 axis, social & economic, but Libertarian & Authoritarian are political terms. I think the better spectrum is that one used by our Founders: Liberty on one side and Tyranny on the other. No need to split things up between social/economic axis especially since modern day Liberal-Progressives (ie modern day Liberals) are authoritarian on all fronts and they're only Classically Liberal on things depending on which way the wind blows or some other arbitrary assertion. There is no consistency to the Liberal-Progressive or end to their "progress" which tends to be regress. A Liberal of 60 years ago (eg JFK) would be considered a right-wing Conservative extremist by a Liberal of today. A Liberal of 40 years ago would be considered a right-winger, slightly Conservative but maybe not an extremist by a Liberal of today. A Liberal of 20 years ago (eg Bill Clinton of 1995) would be considered a Moderate right-of center by a Liberal of today.
So no, this does not explain modern Liberalism (ie Liberal-Progressivism.)
Only came here to learn if I was a liberal, was called one so now I'm researching. I was speaking about how I'm in the middle of socialism and capitalism. I like the idea of every being equal and being free but I also like people working for themselves and building themselves up. What they work for, they deserve and if they ever need any help then sure they can get some help. I always hear shitty things about liberals so thanks for educating me but sadly I still don't know where I fall on the political scale.
Wait a second you clearly broke down liberalism (non biased). And there are still people complaining in the comments. You have to be kidding me.
I hope I can meet you some day!
I believe in complete freedom for me and everyone, if it doesn’t cause physical harm then there’s nothing wrong with it, and I believe in everyone should have a right to protect their selves, loved ones, property and business even if it means deadly force, I believe everyone’s home and business is there’s to do anything they want without interference.
What am I on political classification is it authoritorium, liberal, republican, democrap or what
Libertarian
U fokin wot m8???
Politics explained: Politics is a skewed mash up of (Dis)Agreements. Everyone has their exceptions on what they (Dis)Like, and all the people in power are after money.
Do Socialism explained! Its so stigmatized in the US but most people know nothing about real socialism!
Spencer Charlie New Liberals are not socialists, just as Conservatives aren't real fascists and Libertarians aren't real anarchists. New liberals accept capitalism as a legitimate economic system; they put most of their eggs like libertarians on the individual, they just see room in the collective for some guarantees for equality of opportunity. True socialists reject the notion of the individual in comparison to the state and its need to act collectively. Like I said in the video pretty much everyone is dancing around that center.
and you do? Idiot.....move to venezuela, you'll love real socialism
Keith Hughes Contrary to popular Neo-McCarthyist propaganda not all Socialists are statists.For instance,I`m a social anarchist.Specifically a mix of Mutualism,Green anarchism and Anarcha-feminism.I believe in a free market system and mutual banking.I also believe rent,usury and interest are state exploitation of the working masses.Also,if you believe all socialists are collectivists I strongly suggest reading Clarence Lee Swartz,Benjamin Tucker,Josiah Warren and Kevin A. Carson.All of whom are profound influences on my political ideology along with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,Emma Goldman and Joseph Dejacque.That is not to say that I share all their positions on issues.In many cases I do not.But they have influenced my views nonetheless.
Generation Films theres two type of socialism lol Regular socialism lol is the normal one the one you want to avoid is Nazism (National Socialism aka Nationalism)
ayy lmao
We should try to strive to live in the real world. I know that this is uncomfortable for you, but Facism is facism. It isn't liberalism. It isnt conservativism, it isn't left, it isnt right. Its facism.
American conservatives and liberals alike tend to put a high value on individuals.
Facism and communism put a high value on the state. The simillarities end there.
Facism is an industralized capitalist statist society. The state interferes with industry by empowering indusries the state supports (ones which are ideologically in the same camp, i.e. IG Farben towed the nazi line in 30s germany and was a supporter of their party) and crushing ones that do not agree with the party line (such as the jewish-run indusries) That said, the indusries that are empowered are greatly empowered, and capitalists are encouraged to move to the country (so long as they agree with the policies...) in order to increase the country's wealth.
Communism is an industrialized socialist statist society. The state owns all property and distributes it, uneavenly, to the populace.
They are both STATIST societies. Liberals in the US are more prone to have slightly larger states, but not anywhere near the level of fucking Hitler or Stalin.
Facism is like if you took republicans and made them statists. This is so alien to the concept of republicanism, rejection of it makes sense, because Facists are Not Republicans. Facists are statist.
Communism is like if you took democrats and made them statists. This is so alien to the concept of democrats, rejection of it makes sense, because communists are not democrats. Communists are statist.
Make sense yet? Can the hyperbole.
Im in The middle
Im from Sweden "lagom"
The diagram is false - you can work this out just by moving to the right which requires a free market unleashed capitalism. You can only get to this by having a free market with limited legislation, and limited state control. As such the more you move to the right the less authoritarian the nation will be. The vertical line should be at a 45 degree angle going from the top left to the bottom right and much of the upper right disappears and much of the lower left also disappears.
Liberals, republicans, socialists I don't know any of this wth
don’t worry me fellow 13-18 year old man
someone who uses emotions, feelings and made up facts instead of basic logic and reasoning
Just like the GOP.
Illusive Man Uh oh he must have triggered you. The GOP as I see it is far from emotional
Several of your premises are flatly incorrect. For one thing, contemporary liberalism is inherently collectivist, meaning that we are decidedly NOT born free, but rather belong to the so-called "society" in which we live at any given time. This is, of course, absurd on its face for reasons that should be clear, but may not be to many whose base presumptions are on another planet.
The analysis goes downhill from there, I am afraid.
Current liberalism is highly authoritarian along the most basic lines, seeing government as not only absolutely necessary, but as unquestionable in its authority, so long as the standard list of "social" freedoms are respected. Disregard of social freedoms not on that list is not only acceptable to liberals, it is often deemed as required. For example, the liberal will go on tirelessly about women's rights, those of homosexuals, atheists, "minorities", and so forth, while from the other side of their mouths they not only turn a blind eye to the repression of Christians, perhaps Jews, "Conservatives", and of course the evil libertarian, they often explicitly call for the "state" to oppress those voices with which they disagree. This is textbook contemporary liberal thinking and the attendant behavior.
Also, liberals will go on endlessly about "equality" while having not the slightest clue as to the proper meaning of the term, either in the general sense or the more specific political idiom. They advocate for equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity, once again being completely comfortable with state-sponsored violence perpetrated against those not on board with their personal agendas.
We could go on for volumes, describing the ways in which liberalism as currently constituted is almost a tightly-coupled analog of NAZIsm, the parallels between the two being rather shocking when each is analyzed using a common language set of nouns to describe their respective constituent parts. This brand of analysis brings to the fore a clearer picture of the nature of the things analyzed and the relationships of the parts to each other, as well as the basic functional roles and how each operates in the context of the whole. A key aspect of the clarity that this type of analysis provides lies in the stripping away of the emotionalism engendered in the commonly employed labels, the descriptive nature of which tends to mask some truths while leading one to implications of character that are, in fact, not in evidence in the functional reality of the thing operating in the real world. Calling a piraña a puppy-dog, while invoking mental imagery that makes many people feel warm, fuzzy, and gives rise to feelings of regard and perhaps even affection, does not make the fish any less dangerous to go swimming with.
Your analysis is rife with these sorts of fallacious and patently untrue premises regarding many of the assumptions under which you have labored. I do not accuse you of having made these errors with any malice aforethought, but rather that you have employed a very common set of gravely flawed fallacies in carrying out what I shall assume is an otherwise well-intended analysis.
Methinks you need to revisit this one, taking greater care in how you choose the elements upon which you base your deductions.
Good luck.
+Andrew Vida Thanks for a thoughtful post. However, you showed your hand and true intent early on with this,
:)For example, the liberal will go on tirelessly about women's rights, those of homosexuals, atheists, "minorities", and so forth, while from the other side of their mouths they not only turn a blind eye to the repression of Christians, perhaps Jews, "Conservatives", and of course the evil libertarian, they often explicitly call for the "state" to oppress those voices with which they disagree. This is textbook contemporary liberal thinking and the attendant behavior."
There are some liberals who are as strong in their beliefs as there are on the right, most liberals are not that way.
Specifically, your comment above is incorrect and not true, and there is not evidence to support your assertion.
Many liberals are Christians, Jewish, and religious. HIspanics and black Americans are mostly liberal and democrat and those 2 groups have very high percentages of belonging to the Christian religion. Your assertion that liberals "turn a blind eye" to the "repression" of Christians and Jews, is thus wrong at the onset.
There is no such repression nor is the a war on Christianity from the left, not in the least.
Show some actual evidence that liberals are engaged in any repression of Christianity.
There isn't any. No liberal has ever said that any religion should be shut down, banned, watched closely, or not have a right to exist. That has never happened and never will.
Questioning the use of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or other religious based teachings as evidence for the creation of social policy or other legal matters is something liberal do and will continue to do. That is because liberal accept and believe our Constitution that church and state remain separate. So, liberals will fight when religious groups want to use their scripture in order to create laws and rules that they want to apply to everybody even when those teachings are not part of everybody's point of view. There is NO restriction on practicing one's religion, nor are there liberals asking for certain religions to be above another, or to ban one religion over another.
It will never happen, because liberals know there it is fundamental to freedom to allow all religions to be practiced by any American citizen.
In contrast, it is the conservative right wing that wants to impose it's evangelical and mostly protestant beliefs into our national culture through our legislative system. These same would also legally ban any non Christian religion if they could as they already said they would. The attack on Islam in this country does not come from the left or liberals, it is coming directly from the conservative Christian right and their belief in their spiritual superiority because they are Christians.
Liberals accept all religions and their equality to be practiced in our country.
So your argument about liberals and religion are FALSE, utterly.
+Zillogism Excellent rebuttal.
You have attempted to make a single example, that of religious bigotry, into the broader argument. That fails. It was only one of many possible avenues the typical liberal takes in their hypocritical positions. There are "conservatives" who do the same thing. However, these tend to be the extreme religious fundamentalists. The typical conservative is far and away more cognizant of the rights of individuals and respectful of them. They also tend to be far better mannered.
There are exceptions to all averages, obviously.
Andrew Vida so conservatives good liberals bad pretty much sums up your argument. Not biased in any way.
David C Your response makes no good sense. Firstly, I didn't say any such thing. More importantly, there is nothing at all wrong with "bias" when it is adopted rationally. Perhaps you should look up the meaning, because I suspect it may not mean what you think it means.
For example, I am biased against child molesters. Would you call that "bad" as your use of the terms implies? If I am wrong for being biased against child molestation, then please elaborate on why.
Thanks
The stereotypical hippie used to illustrate this page is a little 'off' -hippies generally looked down on liberals as compromisers and supporters of capitalism, propriety, and sobriety; to the extent that hippies had any ideology, it was usually some variety of anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism.
Ppl still fail to realize that it doesn't matter if you're Democrat or Republican because BOTH parties divide the ppl and Both parties want the same thing which is power over the people.
I think the difficulty in defining what is liberal and what is not rests in the fact that terms get hijacked over time. They get purposefully misused and/or simply change with the times. Words get obfuscated and because we all grew up in different environments and different situations and have different views offered up or rammed down our throat, it’s very difficult. In addition to that words get stolen by the media (and the powers that truly control the game) and purposefully used to manage people and their emotions.
"Liberal: A power worshipper without power." -- George Orwell
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46
Now I know who you look like... Tom Arnold
That's prosperous.
This just talks about liberalism in terms of economics. I thought it would be more about Mill and his Harm Principle and ideas of free speech and Locke and secular gov't and individual rights.
I think that matrix needs another axis: how is your hungry for change. Conservatives tends to keep the status quo, Radicals want fundamental changes in society. That is actually where the terms radical and conservative come from
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67
Just thought I'd share, halfway to the left and a little bit down. TBH I'm still not 100% sure on what this political jargon means, I never was very politically savvy
Brandon Standifer I am -8 and -6.62. Just where I thought I would be. It was a not bad quiz
This made complete sense. Thank you for sharing ;)
I took the test, but my problem with it is that on some questions I have no position (not knowing enough about that issue), but there was no "no opinion" choice to check.
I have a theory that most politically active people, that is those who regularly vote and stay current on political events don't know a lot about the complexities that make a liberal or a conservative BUT that they mostly fall into one group or the other based on only one or two key reasons; you either approve of robbing Peter to pay Paul or you dont and your lack of belief or belief that you can get ahead in this country with your own hard work.
Excellent! I need to know WHY i'm a liberal! Thanks!
The government has destroyed opportunity for people at the bottom; that's why the gap between rich and poor has grown, people connect to the upper tiers of government hand outs grow wealthy. People at the bottom of government assistance become dependent and their will to pursue opportunity is destroyed. The middle class gets destroyed; either going up or down, mostly down while carrying most of the water to keep it all going. For the most part they are being taxed down into that lower category. The ones that learn how to connect and leach off that system go up. Example slum Lord's peddling section 8 housing grow wealthy. But the people actually using the housing grow poorer. And the middle get pushed out because of artificial housing demands subsided by a government they fuel.
Man that's a heckin good intro song. Also, nice video. Good explanation.
There are two distinct types of liberals. 1. Classic Liberal- believes in smaller government, but more than the libertarians. 2. Progressive Liberals- who believe in larger government, and policy should be based whims of society over logic. A progressive tends to rule on emotion. I am a classic liberal. I guess my best example is seat belt laws. As a classic liberal I don't agree with seatbelt laws. Unless those laws involve minors. What I dislike about progressive liberalism like communism it only 100% works in a post scarcity society.
Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95
Each nation seems to define this differently. In Australia, the Liberal party of Australia is authoritarian in its policies, compared to the other major political parties.
your political compass org/test is the best kind of horse crap I, as a poli-sci guy; have seen in a long time
Every one here is arguing trivial superficial differences that the two parties put forth to keep you busy, when the real issue was just explained by the narrator Keith Hughes. Hamilton was concerned about "the tyranny of the majority" . THAT'S YOU THE PEOPLE. In the Federalist papers No. 10 Madison argues against a democracy and speaks in the interest of what we call the one percent today when he says "They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Seriously these videos are very helpful! Thanks!
So can a classical liberal be classified as an anarcho-capitalist ?
almost, and in some definitions perhaps. classic liberals believe in court systems to uphold human rights and the military for defense. I believe some anarchists believe in the same.
No. Classical liberals still believe there should be a government.