Man - this is so needed. I have been too focused on what we're fighting, that I haven't put enough effort into what we are trying to preserve. Thank you as always.

“The struggle for freedom is ultimately not resistance to autocrats or oligarchs but resistance to the despotism of public opinion.” ― Ludwig von Mises

@bighomiestevethemetalhead8131

5 ай бұрын

Wow, such a simple yet profound statement!

@seaofseeof

5 ай бұрын

Lindsay should really start reading Von Mises. He's the 20th century most important liberal voice.

@seuk8

5 ай бұрын

It goes deeper. Inner freedom must be the foundation and it only comes through the understanding of oneself

@yuriarlequim

5 ай бұрын

​@@seaofseeofhe is the last Knight of Liberty

@szczesciejestkoloruczarneg749

5 ай бұрын

@@seuk8 innerstanding

This is brilliant. All the other content of what we are up against is so important. But the content of what we are for is even more important

I started down this rabbit hole at 22 years old. At 45 i am glad to see this a topic on the internet today in the face of rampant tyranny and those striving for enslavement.

Thank you again Dr. Uncle Manspreader! May your sword never dull. 🙏🏾🇺🇸❤️

I’m currently taking the free Hillsdale course on Western Philosophy. Highly recommend.

@paulwooton4390

5 ай бұрын

Is it text or audio?

@moozerk1264

5 ай бұрын

How do I sign up?

@allyourbase888

5 ай бұрын

Thanks!

@MissTryALot

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for the recommendation.

This episode of the New Discourses Podcast is accessible in advance for members. It will be made public for everyone on Monday, December 18, 2023, at 2pm ET on KZread.

@KateKing217

6 ай бұрын

Thank you

@BaneClandestine

5 ай бұрын

An immediate downvote, despite liking your work at times. Liberalism, "classical" or otherwise is not equipped to address much less repair the extensive and monstrous damage the very same hegemonic, anti-white, regime imposed upon us. That time has passed. We are the children of ashes, living in the ruins of a once great civilisation, we are not responsible for its demolition. We all know what is necessary to undo this abomination. Going back to a previous era of Liberalism on the same slope is not only useless, but cowardice. Many are choosing a side. Continuing degradation or a turning to a system that will justly end this.

@ezekielbrockmann114

5 ай бұрын

James, you've failed to understand that Liberalism quickly loses in time against faith systems that have no regard for the personal agency of females, nor children, nor even for their men. It's a numbers game. Consequently, none of what you're talking about matters in the face of the horde of (The Green) Islamists who treat women as breeding sows, nor can stand against the horde of (The Red) Communists who treat homosexuals and anyone else deemed "unwell, unfit, or useless" as much worse than lambs to be the slaughtered. Lambs can be eaten, of course and are therefore very useful. On the other side of the coin, the Neo-fascists in the WEF and the economics majors at your local bank branch want to eat popcorn while watching the "Liberal Modernists" fight against the "Red-Green Alliance" thinking they (the banker bosses and their spoiled offspring) will survive the war. -You're not really understanding the situation in full. We are like Julius Caesar at the Battle of Alesia: You're incorrect whenever you fail to see that the WEF, the World Bank, & etc _are totally_ aligned with both Fundamentalist Islam _and_ the so-called "Environmentalists" of the concurrent Global Communist Movement. The WEF, the UN, Fundamentalist Islam, The Communists _and_ the Climate Eschatologists are attacking in concert, and we need two walls to protect ourselves against them They _ARE_ all hitting for the same team, just LOOK. Put the puzzle together & stop sucking at basic exponential growth functions: A Fertility Rate of 1.3 is *_unsustainable._*

Your genius fascinates me! I've been following your podcasts for years,,,, some I've listened to more than 5 times. The more I listen the more I understand how erudite and visionary you are. Thank you for your service! You are also a soldier.

It's important to know main stream media outlets are making us fight eachother, when the real enemies are those behind the scenes that make us want to fight eachother.😢. Working together is the answer. Thank you, James.

TDS seems to have broken Rausch. He’s on my list of disgraced intellectuals: Harris, Tyson, Rauch, Gladwell.

@cursedcancersurvivor

5 ай бұрын

I'm really disappointed in Tyson. I really enjoyed Cosmos:A Spacetime Odyssey too. The signs where there though, when in an interview (I can't remember with who. Joe Rogan maybe) he couldn't answer directly and truthfully about a question about transgenderisim, he just kinda went with some weasly PC answer. When an astrophysicist can't admit biological truths lest he get kicked out from the " support current thing club." all integrity was lost.

@allyourbase888

5 ай бұрын

@@cursedcancersurvivor I suspect he wears ladies underwear as well. 😀

@Robin-xe4yz

5 ай бұрын

Chomsky too, TDS and Covid

@willismcgee5216

5 ай бұрын

​@@Robin-xe4yz a result of the transformation of Noam Chomsky into Garden Gnome Chomsky no doubt...

@ffff7164

5 ай бұрын

Maga is post truth identity politics.

I appreciate you reading these to us as well. For those of us that work alot, listening to stuff is easier as we can listen while we work so basically maximizing our time and how much we can take in within the time we have. thanks. again.

@jackiekjono

5 ай бұрын

Ditto. Frankly, I would have a harder time following if I didn't have my extremely repetitive job to occupy the more distractible part of my brain.

The beginning of the podcast reminded me of a paragraph from the introduction to Murray Rothbard's "Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature" (great essay btw): "In my own particular case, the major focus of my interest and my writings over the last three decades has been a part of this broader approach-libertarianism-the discipline of liberty. For I have come to believe that libertarianism is indeed a discipline, a “science,” if you will, of its own, even though it has been only barely developed over the generations. Libertarianism is a new and emerging discipline which touches closely on many other areas of the study of human action: economics, philosophy, political theory, history, even-and not least-biology. For all of these provide in varying ways the groundwork, the elaboration, and the application of libertarianism. Some day, perhaps, liberty and “libertarian studies” will be recognized as an independent, though related, part of the academic curriculum."

I feel this essay in the marrow of my bones, and I'm literally shivering laughing and crying at the same time with how profoundly true, fair and just these words are.

Ok. I am a critical care RN and am studying for my ICU certification. Something occurred to me. The Anterior Cingulate Cortex of the brain regulates cognitive processing on the back (dorsal) and emotional on the front (ventral). It is then divided into 4 more areas that I believe are being damaged by Critical theory. The first of the 4 areas, starting from the back is the PCC, it considers action selection, fear associated with faces, and learned fear. The next part is the ACC, it is for emotional appraisals, cognitive control and error conflict. Next in front of that is the Pregenual ACC, which is used for affective processing, emotional regulation, and universal emotion, Final the Subgenual ACC, here is the emotional reward value, emotional conflict evaluation, and universal emotions. I believe the people indoctrinated by Critical Theory process things differently than people with Critical thinking skills who can think and act more rationally in a conflict. I would love to see an MRI using radioactive dye to see what areas light up when viewing pictures or talking about Critical theory. I believe they are damaging these areas for the emotional reward value.

@lt7378

Ай бұрын

Interesting. I think you make valid points.

Great episode. Thank you for doing it in audio form. The arguments are excellent. IIRC the first person (in the context of the culture war) I heard saying "bad faith changes everything" is Bret Weinstein. He really seems to be on top of the game.

I love this book. Genuinely a must have, read, and share.

Thank you so much for releasing this one free.

Thanks for this. Sargon has been tearing liberalism apart at the foundations for a while now. I don't agree him but I know he's making some valid points and don't really know how to refute them. This helped me understand the foundations a little better and gave me a jumping off point to start diving in deeper.

@seaofseeof

5 ай бұрын

Sargon's just copying what post-liberals say on Twitter and then tries to pass it off as original deep thinking. His unerstanding of liberalism, or anything, seems surface level deep anyway. The guy argued that liberalism is an incomplete philosophy because it doesn't deal with morality. Which is the equivalent of criticizing music theory because it doesn't teach you how to cook. Besides, there is a philosophy that incorporates both liberalism and morality, and this is called conservatism.

@spambot_gpt7

5 ай бұрын

What would be the counter argument to Sargon? Liberty and pursuit of happiness is nice and will give you a good economy. But it also seems to give you tanking birth rates in its current implementation, so it is actively replacing itself with barbarism by creating a vacuum. Truth in science is good. But in politics and morality, individual and societal survival are more important. Survival of the fittest, not the rightest. At any level. (Because if your ideas are right, but your society cannot compete, then your ideas will still be replaced.) How would you tweak Classical Liberalism to be sustainable? Because it's not there yet... Sadly.

@user-rw5ot1sb3g

5 ай бұрын

@@seaofseeoftell me you assume you know what you’re talking about without telling me 😬🤦🏽‍♂️

@edennis8578

22 күн бұрын

I'm not sure what you mean that Sargon has been dismantling liberalism. Sargon hates what leftists refer to as liberalism, which is miles away from classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is limited government, minding your own business, and low taxes and regulation. Liberalism without the classical, as defined by leftists, is exactly the opposite. Classical liberalism doesn't seek to censor speech, or take children away from their parents because the kid has been talked into thinking they're in the wrong body by leftist "teachers."

James, the brightest star, is guiding us to a better tomorrow

Yes!!!

This is a good summary, I only listened to first half yesterday.

" There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens...." It would be wise to remember that.

Thank you!

Rauch hasn't sold out or been corrupted; he was always a bad guy.

In abstract, this is all very compelling, but the political reality has to be taken to account. It's exactly the discernment between bad faith and sincere criticism that seems to be the problem in USA and under western "liberal democracies" in general, and all political parties have taken turns being a doormat. From the sixties onwards, western marxists pretty successfully co-opted words like "liberation", "equality", "humanity" and even "freedom", subverting their meaning, thus changing the framing in our current political discourse. Also, the neo-cons had no problems overthrowing democracies, starting wars abroad, and supporting STASI like psyops via their intelligence agencies domestically. A supposedly liberal country like the USA was brow-beaten internally during the cold war (arguably with a pause during the Reagan years) into the socially incohesive neo-liberal administrative state that it is now. UK, the birthplace of these noble principles, seems to disregard them even more. I really appreciate property rights, freedom of speech, association and assembly as well as equality under the law. I read John Stuart Mill's essay on liberty quite recently and found it very sound. I just question whether a parliamentary/representative democracy is the best form of government to keep the spirit of classical liberalism alive. Especially in our day and age of totally polarized and warped political media landscape, a lot of voters end up giving power to international totalitarian factions such as the WEF. Whether it would mean suppressing these kinds of voters, or preventing these illiberal totalitarian factions of gaining foothold in a sovereign state, some sort of authoritarian/undemocratic power needs to be wielded. Mill himself wrote that "It is not freedom, to be able to alienate his freedom".

it's not that classical liberalism is being misunderstood, it's that in many cases it's being misrepresented deliberately.

Agreed on Enlightenment!

Doc, thanks for your insight. Honesty is surely missing today.

James, I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ who LOVES the work you are doing!

@gulanhem9495

5 ай бұрын

lmao "follower"? Sounds like you're following some mystic teachings, but I agree it sounds a lot cooler than "Christian". Christians are bigots.

This can all be simplified by individuals taking direct responsibility for governing themselves, and holding one another accountable for violations of others rights. If one cannot or will not manage their own responsible self-governance, they have no authority to delegate in the first place.

Perfect response to Michael Knowles’ recent escapades, I was even starting to buy some of that bullshit. Thank you Dr Lindsay, for keeping reason humble, and keeping faith sane. And a (late) very merry Christmas 🎄

This is all well and good, but there are some serious drawbacks to this, many pointed out by Hans Hermann-Hoppe in his book "Democracy: The God that Failed." If we only have temporary "elected" rulers then said rulers won't be motivated to think long term, instead they'll be motivated to be popular while they're in power, while they enrich themselves and sell out the future of the nation with short-term thinking. There's also the issue with democracy itself that many have pointed out and that's the fact that the more people that are granted power over others with the privilege of voting, the more you will have parasites voting to enrich themselves at the expense of the productive and gullible idiots who are told how to vote by manipulative corporate media elite. Aristotle had stated that timocracy is the best system, which is a long forgotten word for rule by property owners, which is essentially what the US originally was. All of these arguments about ruled by consent and social contract are essentially nonsensical since I never consented to any of this, nor can I be held to a contract I am forced to obey at gunpoint by what's essentially a monopolistic protection racket, nor can the government (protection racket) have any legitimacy if it repeatedly violates said contract if the contract is the Constitution.

@oversizedtrashpanda1100

5 ай бұрын

Whenever you're criticizing a political system, it's useful to ask "as opposed to what?" "If we only have temporary 'elected' rulers then said rulers won't be motivated to think long term, instead they'll be motivated to be popular while they're in power, while they enrich themselves and sell out the future of the nation with short-term thinking." As opposed to what? Rulers who can't be removed from office, and therefore have even less incentive to do what is good for the people as a whole instead of whatever is good for themselves and their inner circles? "There's also the issue with democracy itself that many have pointed out and that's the fact that the more people that are granted power over others with the privilege of voting, the more you will have parasites voting to enrich themselves at the expense of the productive and gullible idiots who are told how to vote by manipulative corporate media elite." As opposed to what? A system in which only the wealthy can vote, giving rulers an incentive to destroy any form of social mobility so that the upper classes can stay rich and the underclasses stay poor? You advocate for rule by property owners. I can only imagine how much worse the housing market would be if only property owners, who have a vested interest in keeping housing prices as high as possible, were able to vote. Your mistake here is assuming that property owners cannot act parasitically, and - to tie this back to the podcast - that property owners are more "godlike" and have a right to rule over the peasants. "All of these arguments about ruled by consent and social contract are essentially nonsensical since I never consented to any of this, nor can I be held to a contract I am forced to obey at gunpoint by what's essentially a monopolistic protection racket, nor can the government (protection racket) have any legitimacy if it repeatedly violates said contract if the contract is the Constitution." As opposed to what? Outright anarchy? Or perhaps an ineffective government funded only by consenting taxpayers and constantly undermined by free riders? Either way, you'll be conquered by the first warlord who decides he wants your stuff, and rule by that guy is bound to be orders of magnitude worse than any ruler a liberal democracy can come up with. The bottom line is that someone, somewhere, is going to hold power over you, and a liberal democracy that chooses leaders through consent is better than an anarchist system that dissolves on contact with the slightest amount of organized force and immediately falls into the leadership of a tyrannical dictator. There's a reason that old Winston Churchill quote about "democracy being the worst system except for all the others" is near-universally brought up in these conversations. Democracy is not perfect, but I have yet to hear a criticism of it that results in a new system that's any better.

@crazywolf5150

5 ай бұрын

@@oversizedtrashpanda1100 When did I say anything about can't be removed from office? Even kings have been removed from office before... what does your statement say about our judicial system?

@oversizedtrashpanda1100

5 ай бұрын

@@crazywolf5150 The opposite of a "temporary elected ruler" is either a "permanent elected ruler" or a "non-elected ruler," neither of which can be removed from office by a population that no longer consents to their rule.

@crazywolf5150

5 ай бұрын

@oversizedtrashpanda1100 Did I advocate for the opposite? At least when a king blatantly abuses his power he risks being overthrown and being executed. Judges and politicians who are blatantly corrupt have been getting away with their crimes and even rewarded for over a century now. The difference is that the population is fooled into thinking that they're free and have any actual choice. I never consented to being ruled over by demon worshipping pedophiles, I never consented to having half of my money stolen through taxation and the other half devalued by inflation, I never consented to having my right to bear arms violated by unelected bureaucrats and my right to freedom of speech violated by tech oligarchs. The modern day patriot just keeps saying: "violate my rights again and I'll vote harder."

James: I am so happy you have kept some of the brlliant and moral aspects of classical liberalism as part of your approach. Without some strong ethics guiding you, you could have gone wokish on the one hand or Christian nationalist on the other hand.

The problem that the state faces is one of ethical justification. If I robbed you, would that be legitimate? No, of course not. If I declared that I have the right to rob you before I did, would that then be legitimate? If I wrote out on a piece of paper that I had the right to rob you, would that be legitimate? If I made it really fancy, using flowery language instead of robbery, would that be legitimate? If I got my buddies to sign it, saying they agree with me that I had the right to rob you, would that be legitimate? No, of course not. Section 8 of the United States Constitution "The Congress Shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes" That is it. That declaration gives the right to rob you to an organization called Congress. No man has the right to give himself, nor other men, the right to rob. Credit to @Larken Rose for the general line of argumentation, I do recommend.

@rclaws3230

5 ай бұрын

This conception of association law falls down the rabbithole of authoritarianism since it PROHIBITS people from voluntarily associating to pool small amounts of individual capital in a public commons in order to benefit their association. And then what of individuals born into an association structure they dislike? No, all governments must accept as axiomatic the paradox of freedom of association. There is no "good" answer to the question of mass government, only a better or worse assertion of association law that does its best to be broadly appealing. Tradeoffs, as Sowell says.

@IgnisW

5 ай бұрын

@@rclaws3230 You have the freedom to associate with individuals who consent to it. You do not have the freedom to force association with non-consenting individuals. That is aggression. That is the claim to ownership over that other person and the use of their body and property. That is slavery. That is abhorrent.

through until 1:00:00 -- this instantly reminded me of Joseph Chilton Pierce's The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, in whose introduction describes what Dr Linds' here named a "contoured canvas, mostly blank". Pierce defines a kind of knowing, distinct to whatever organism has been begot. so, say a kitten has this 'contoured canvas' particular for becoming a cat, not a human, nor a monkey, nor a pine tree, et al. thoughts, anyone? Pierce's second book, The Magical Child, i believe explores this 'contoured canvas' of the human being further. interesting to note that Pierce, for all intents and purposes, came to his realizations in a layman's context, supposedly by simply observing his own children over the course of their development and maturation.

@portumnus

5 ай бұрын

I read both, but years ago. Thanks for reminding me. Might need to reread. Interestingly, though, I’ve been talking about this “knowing” in the same vein as you, on Twitter, just this past week. I hear you!

After listening to the essay on Classical Liberalism I would like to know from where we get the authority for our classical Prussian education system and the morality (values) it should transmit to our children. Dr. James appears to have omitted reference to education and morality in his essay. I read two of his three books and they are both excellent. I would like to hear a comparison/contrast podcast with Dr. Lindsey and Dr. Stephen R. C. Hicks discussing the American (Prussian) education system and source(s) of morality in classical liberalism.

Here's the issue. One can ascribe fully to the principles of Classical Liberalism, but how can one maintain such standards towards people who want to destroy it? I'm going to answer my own question to a degree by asserting what I'm convinced is an axiomatic truth, and that is: no ethics nor morals can survive the commencement of war. You could be the most principled Liberal on the planet and have the most sincere conviction that individual freedom of conscience is paramount, but as soon as someone is willing to use force to compel you away from those principles - in short they're declaring war on you - then the only principle that matters at that point is survival and victory so that you and your principles are not destroyed. And NOTHING is out of bounds. No principle of conviction can stand in the way of ensuring survival and victory. Your enemy is bent on destroying your principles and you along with them and they are not scrupulous about their methods. So you must be prepared morally to do whatever it takes and employ any device/weapon/persuasion/scheme/technology to defeat them, or accept something less than freedom. It's that simple. So it's fine to define and assert our principles, but we are at war with Leftists and other like religious groups who have already demonstrated a murderous desire to destroy us. In the face an intransigent enemy, their destruction is the only principle that matters, because no set of values, ethics, morals, nor laws can survive the necessities of war. So we know what we're fighting for, but that means nothing to the necessity of fighting nor how we fight.

@brittybee6615

5 ай бұрын

Alternatively, you could be a martyr, I guess.

@juliancate7089

5 ай бұрын

@@brittybee6615 I'm an Atheist, so the idea of martyrdom is meaningless to me, much less handing victory to my enemies in exchange for some symbolism. The idea is repugnant. I'll fight to the end, thanks. And if I'm moments away from death, I'll try and take as many of those Woke Queer pieces of filth with me as I can. Thanks for responding though. All the best.

@brittybee6615

5 ай бұрын

@@juliancate7089 hmm, interesting. As a life long atheist to recent agnostic, I never really considered martyrdom to be necessarily religious. On the other hand, I also appreciate a fighting spirit. This gives me some things to think about. You have a good day.

@juliancate7089

5 ай бұрын

@@brittybee6615 Yeah, the traditional definition of martyr means a person who is killed or willingly submits to death for the sake of a religious belief, but I understand. This issue really bothers me though. You see, I am a veteran of war. I've seen the effect war has on the justifications for war. Once the killings starts, it all gets boiled away and you're left with just killing to survive. It's only after you leave the battle that the reasons you were there in the first place have any real substance. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Dr. Lindsey, but we're in a war already, perhaps the prelude to war is more accurate. Once the street brawls start and we're having to patrol our neighborhoods with guns, then in order to preserve these principles, we have to become as inhuman, brutal, merciless, and violent as our enemies. I know, I've been there. The Left loves violence. It's always their first option, so you can't bat an eye and you can't hesitate because of your Liberal values.

@jirehla-ab1671

5 ай бұрын

​@@brittybee6615are classical liberals not against some form of safety nets / welfare?

Im hearing echos of Frederic Bastiat's essay called "The Law" - check it out, its a brilliant read - though he never mentions Uranus.

James paraphrasing the book of Proverbs here

the reason Goarge Washington is on a pedestal is because the merits the man did in life are worth being put on a pedestal

James Jefferson, maybe!

We've already been introduced.

James, you should play an old PlayStation game called Xenogears. It's literally about humanity overthrowing a fake gnostic demiurge and liberating people back to reality. It's very philosophical and very well written. I think you'd get a real kick out of it.

the ontological wall you describedthat seperates us from knowing reality as it is; as ABSOLUTE, not permeable and uncrossable is so on point! And only God can remove that Wall // Veil. We canot remove and should not assume certainty that we can remove that wall veil

Due to inter-generational shifts of parental responsibility, what percentage of Gen X are classical liberal, compared to previous generations?

@gulanhem9495

5 ай бұрын

5%, compared with 8% among boomers (US numbers). Among Millennials it's 2%, and among Gen Z liberalism is less than 1%.

Newton is correct as much as correct is on a gradient. Accuracy is determined via the work employed to increase it. Truth is independent of accuracy.

Idealistic Optimism: the thought school.

Lindsaiysm I like it.

It's interesting that I think that Rousseau is the quintessential enlightenment thinker and you have just defined him out of the movement so that you can be right. Enlightenment necessarily turns into mysticism. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Not to reject any of the rest of your message

If no one has the final say, then why does liberalism get to stay in power? Liberals don't know that liberalism is true, so how can liberals justify forcing this system on everyone? If no one has the final say, then we get to debate liberalism forever. But if we are only allowed to debate, but not allowed to change the system, then what good is liberal "free speech." What liberals mean is "free speech" so long as you don't question liberalism or change the liberal system. So basically liberalism reduces to, "liberalism is true, we are in power, and liberals have the final say on truth. Anyone who questions liberalism is an enemy."

@virginiacharlotte7007

5 ай бұрын

I also question the assertion at about 14:35 that we are somehow automatically endowed with inalienable rights due to the fact that we are not God. I just do not get how that follows from the former statements. Might have to listen to it all again.

@ChucksExotics

5 ай бұрын

@@virginiacharlotte7007 also his other assertion is that by taking what he's calling the "skeptical moral outlook" that somehow magically a great and prosperous society follows automatically. That's a huge claim. I mean, if he is saying no one really has the truth. But then says, "but if we do my classical liberal system, then we get the best possible society!! And prosperity!!! And I know it's true." But how does he know this?

@ChucksExotics

5 ай бұрын

@@virginiacharlotte7007 yeah you're right, that doesn't follow at all. Not being god doesn't mean that we are all on equal footing. You could easily argue the opposite. Especially since he's an atheist.

@virginiacharlotte7007

5 ай бұрын

@@ChucksExoticsthanks for confirming that I wasn’t hearing things incorrectly. I always feel somewhat out of my depth when it comes to philosophical arguments, as I was never trained in it. Still, as a farm girl, and as my good ol’ Dad used to say, it seems that - “I can still know sh!t from Shinola! “

@Johnnysmithy24

5 ай бұрын

How can you force people to be free lol? The only thing “forced” on people would be the fact that they can’t force anything on anyone

Kindly Inquisitors is the shit. RIP Johnathan Rauch.

aaaaalright, Libetarians in the house :).

Under what conditions do humans lose their rights? Age of majority, mental incompetency, coma, etc? Is this a continuum or state?

53:27 2 things: 1- They appeal to Locke as if the guy INVENTED the clean slate, and that te post-modernists learned it from him. They did not; the clean slate is as old as Western philosophy and the ancient Greeks already entertained the idea. No one criticizes the West more than post-liberals, they just dress their criticisms of the West up as criticisms of liberalism. 2 - Liberalism is the Lockean tradition, but not all that Locke said is part of the liberal tradition. Post-liberals cannot distinguish between "liberal ideas" and "ideas from liberals". It's funny how they always try to smear liberalism as a whole by pointing out Locke's mistakes, while conveniently leaving out that they're merely addressing problems with Locke's ideas that had already been solved by other liberals before them.

The liberation of man from the authority of man

James’ arguments here seem to imply a need for, not just *laws* safeguarding privacy, but in fact a Constitutional Amendment. However, it is hard for me to think of what, concretely, such an amendment would say. Would it ban record-keeping on citizens by the Federal Government? Wouldn’t that destroy Social Security, and every taxation authority except sales tax? Wouldn’t it destroy military records, and criminal records? That alone would make such an amendment too unpopular for passage. What about private record-keeping, such as what Google does? Normally, Constitutional Amendments restrict only the government, but a lot of the need for privacy concerns violations by private entities such as Google. But if we banned such record-keeping by private entities, then what about medical records kept by doctors? What about financial records kept by our banks and insurance companies, and the rating agencies - such record keeping makes less expensive loan rates, as well as better medical care. Such an amendment seems impossible to draw up.

Wrt to privacy, as long as I agree to terms of service, why not? If privacy is not fraudulently obtained, it should be considered civil.

For decades, I've tried to always keep in mind Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." The ONLY thing I can know for sure is that I exist in some manner.

@brendanconlon8292

5 ай бұрын

If you ever read some later philosophers, such as Nietzsche, you may become influenced by some of the counter arguments to that claim, and even begin to doubt that.

@metrach8901

5 ай бұрын

you cannot prove your own existence. On top of the the idea of existence requires its negation (non-existence) to set it apart and non-existence is an unknowable idea.

i've watched this like 3 times because these ideas, according to me, are fundamentally necessary for peace. I do not want a civil war. The dialectal opposition between the radical left and radical right and an inevitable war will not produce a better society than we have now. Both sides need to come to the negotiating table and i hope that classical liberalism will do that.

@dontbothertoreply9755

5 ай бұрын

It is war or slavery, stop cucking out, his video is terrible.

I’d love to hear a discussion on classical liberalism between yourself and Neema Parvini from the Academic Agent YT channel

How do you reconcile the individualistic hands-off approach of classical liberalism with the existence of societal challenges that may require a collective hands-on approach. Because even the most liberal society should want to survive. Otherwise liberty will be short-lived. Some challenges apparently aren't handled well right now and part of the reason is that the ones "freely" deciding about the topics don't feel the consequences: - Birth rates (requires different sacrifices from different sexes as well as generations) - Migration (requires different sacrifices from different wealth classes) - Takeover attempts by collectivist states, religious groups and ideological cults (they all divide to conquer) These issues are all connected and I'm not even talking about the climate bogeyman. If classical liberalism isn't sustainable, then it's pointless romanticism.

@jirehla-ab1671

5 ай бұрын

There is a clear distinction between classical liberalism & libertarianism. Classical liberals do still believe in some collective principles. Its the least collectivist.

16:40 "a just government cannot rule, it cannot govern except with the consent of those whom it governs" 18:32 "a just government must be democratic in nature to obtain the consent of those it governs but it cannot secure the rights of the few against the many unless the democracy is Republican in application". Except that there exists a group of people within society who explicitly do not consent to the actions of the government, these people are called anarchists. If you have a philosophy which rejects the explicit non-consent of individuals in favor of a majority, or supermajority of people consenting to the action on those individuals' behalf, then you do not have a philosophy of individual rights, nor a philosophy that rejects rape, nor slavery, nor theft, nor murder.

Hey James (who will never read this) this was very useful in countering the "Post-Liberal Enlightenment" right wingers. Please do more on this, or explain their specific arguments and points against classical liberalism. I listen to most of your stuff studiously and try to explain it to others in a more populist or less academic manner, whether in person, in social media communities or other ways and have a lot of ammunition against the woke left, but am not quite seeing all of the vectors to counter the post-liberal right. Thanks as always!

@spambot_gpt7

5 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, this video is not a counter argument. Because in application, classical liberalism has not shown yet that it can be sustainable. Can we tweak it to ensure stable birth rates? If no, we will unfortunately revert back to less civilized and more coercive models of politics very soon.

@nacetroy

5 ай бұрын

@@spambot_gpt7 - You're making assumptions that are not tethered to any known facts. In all manner of social organization man has reproduced, by contrast to your anxiety regarding sustainability, this is a fact. You may have criticisms, whether legitimate or falsely deconstructive, but no solutions or vision for what might work better, in this point in time, than "classical liberalism." Neither do you have divine or authoritative knowledge of what comes next, but, hey - don't let me ruin your blackpill. LOL

The part about Newton being an Alchemist and a mystic is kinda funny coming from Dr Lindsay considering the videos about Marx and Hegel being mystical and bring it into their philosophy. I don't think he is contradicting himself, but would be nice to address and make clear for the underthought masses why Classical Liberalism is not mystical and Socialism is. Naturally, it would be Dr Lindsay just repeating thing he's said but it would be pulling excerpts from all over his work together.

@edennis8578

22 күн бұрын

Dr. Lindsay goes into great detail on this subject in other videos.

On this week's edition of As Fool's Match Wits .... Alex, Do you think the Confederates in the Civil War were part taking in an insurrection ? @11:48. JFC.... Not sure what happened in the ensuing 3 hours but I am sure it was very very fascinating....

How do you reconcile classical liberalism with the concept of children/minors. I believe classical liberalism applies to adults but for very practical reasons most of us agree that parents should be allowed to exercise reasonable non contractual authority over their children without their child's consent?

@Johnnysmithy24

5 ай бұрын

Classical Liberalism isn’t Anarcho-Capitalism(which does say that kids can do whatever they want) Classical Liberalism is not as radical, and the fact that kids aren’t prepared for the world would be acknowledged. I don’t think it’s restricting freedoms, it’s actually protecting them until they are ready to have freedom

@jirehla-ab1671

5 ай бұрын

​@@Johnnysmithy24are classical liberals not against taxation?

@edennis8578

22 күн бұрын

​@@jirehla-ab1671No, they're for limited government and limited taxation. There's a difference.

41:08 such a guy [eyeroll lol]

Some are never satisfied with the idea that classical liberalism is the winning ideology that has a track record of success. Some are just seeing this as an opportunity to grab power, not realizing that their ideology will not gain traction. There needs to be a return to the American ideals of Emerson, Thoreau, and William James.

@jirehla-ab1671

5 ай бұрын

Are classical liberals not against low taxation?

I’m a conservative, and what a intend to conserve is classical liberalism. There has never been a better ideal to fight for.

@Johnnysmithy24

5 ай бұрын

Do you support Gay people getting married?

@jirehla-ab1671

5 ай бұрын

​@@Johnnysmithy24are classical liberals against taxation or they just want to lower it?

@beishtkione24

5 ай бұрын

​@@Johnnysmithy24define support

How is Pinker a Hegelian thinker? Where exactly does he go wrong? Same with Pageau, where does he go wrong?

23:33 Shhh, don’t give them ideas.

Rauch doesn't go anywhere near far enough he keeps saying that concent should be able to be withdrawn at any time if that is true then we should be able to escape any statute that we do not concent to but then how do we know what is coercive force as opposed to what is merely just self defense and thus what we can force others to not do and thus punish without concent. I propose the answer is Argumentation ethics if you want more information i recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I wish someone, or some organization, would take Microsoft to court over its blatant infringements of our rights to privacy. They have no right to read what ever takes their fancy because they provide the software. This to me is criminal behaviour on a mega scale.

I *am* God! How do I know? Well, one day I was praying and I realized that I was talking to Myself.

⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️

Please can you do a video on what you actually believe, as opposed to a critique of other’s beliefs? I would like to know what you stand for before becoming a member. Do you believe in god?

Government due to the psychosocial imperatives will always attempt to expand its scope , thus the need for checks and balances.

26:20 "The Courts must adjudicate the law with impartiality, favoring neither the greater nor the lesser" So the Court should be impartial as between myself and the legislature to which I never consented? That's beginning to sound quite anarchistic

@edennis8578

22 күн бұрын

You did consent to the legislature. That's what voting is for.

@anonymousAJ

22 күн бұрын

@@edennis8578 I didn't vote

I get the feeling James is not a fan of Deus Ex

@IntegralBif

5 ай бұрын

But possibly a fan of Xenogears?

So what you’re saying is, “I am the science” is not a persuasive liberal argument?

Certainty is possible to man when he uses the proper method. You can make great beef stroganoff if you follow a valid recipe and use good ingredients each and every time. Restaurants would fail if they could not be certain how to make the dish that was ordered. The problem with religious thinking is not that they are certain. The problem is their method of "knowing". They consult old books and go with their unexamined feelings. True knowledge requires using concepts based on sense data, logic and reasoning. Asking people to not "be God" is to insult anyone who knows something and can validate how they.

We shouldn’t mainly identify as anti-woke or anti-communist. A positive identity like classical liberalist is infinitely better.

@Johnnysmithy24

5 ай бұрын

I’ve identified as a Classical Liberal for a while

@zackfair6791

5 ай бұрын

But Liberalism is a failure...and it will fail again if we bring it back post woke. Anti communist is the only thing i have to go on for now.

@Johnnysmithy24

5 ай бұрын

@@zackfair6791 Liberalism IS anti communist. Communism is collectivist and Liberalism is Individualist

Trump/Lindsay 2024

@kenhiett5266

6 ай бұрын

Trump already served his purpose to our democratic republic. If Trump was a real statesman, he'd bow out and endorse DeSantis. Trump has nothing left to offer except another 4 years of maximum division. I say that as someone who voted for him in the last 2 presidential elections.

@kylekatarn5964

6 ай бұрын

Cringe.

@chelebeaqueen

6 ай бұрын

Trump / Ramaswamy 😃🫠

The problem is, James, that What is a woman used to be the most axiomatic of self-evident truths..

Har

We are NOT God! So true!!!

Ultimately I don't disagree theoretically with anything stated herein. However, practically, large numbers of people ARE going to voluntarily contract away their time in the form of needing to watch three corporate/political propaganda videos a day in exchange for access to the internet. Liberalism doesn't know why, just like Communism doesn't know how.

The beginning of wisdom is fear of God

Classical liberalism - the Mary Sue philosophy....'>.......

I don't think non-divinity is a sensible basis for liberalism The Christian notion that everyone is divine (child of God, created in the image of God, etc) is key in the development of liberalism I think a more sound basis is we are all equally God, or equally not-God None of us is ordained to rule over others

"last word" of podcast.... Still with comments, clips and shares there will be more words, perhaps not as last....

"What Locke said..." I disagree. What he said matters, that it was him, or it was said by him does not matter. The validity of a statement is independent of the speaker.

"Because we're not God therefore leave us alone". WHY should the individual be the highest good simply because you can't define divine authority? You missed a step in your logical reasoning because the premise doesn't lead to the conclusion. It could just as easily be said "because we're not God the group, and the good of the group, should take precedence", or "because we're not God tradition, and the continuation of custom, should take precedence". Both those things can be defined without divine authority or justification, and doesn't have to be infallible. You've just taken Americanism, the precedence of the individual, and dressed it up as a universal absolute. This is no less ideological than the left and the weak level of analysis here shits me. Incidentally the encouraging and elevating of individualism in practise encourages people to act as if the world revolves around them and that they are in fact God.

2002 Calling : BTW you know advocating this was tried & people chose otherwise. Looking around after 2 decades it looks like there's even fewer chances the choices would go this way...have there not been any strategic updates at all?

31:50 thats not actually from enlightenment. Science predates enlightenment

I agree we are not God; however, God would have the ability to reveal Himself. There is enough evidence to support a revealed God or a revelatory God. Your explanation would work for everything but that. God reserves the right to speak on His own behalf and to reveal Himself as he chooses. You have the freedom to harden your heart and decide to look after your own interests. I have to continually remind myself that although you seek truth you do not understand whom it is you seek. Carry on.

Virgin Right-Wing Conservative ⛪️👨🏼‍⚖️🏡 VS Virgin Left-Wing Progressive 👨🏿‍🎤👰🏻‍♂️👩🏿‍🎤 VS Chad Center-Right Liberal 😎🗽💵🕊️

“We are not God” reminds me of the first biblical sin “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭4‬-‭5‬

God knows the will of God. And he has told us.

There are no self evident truths, everything we know is defined by the cultural ethos our mind operates in. Look up moral relativism, or David Hume's moral problem. When you talk about God you sound religious, how can you say we could xyz about god or not? based on what Human reason? And you think human reason has any way to know information about the supernatural?