The problem in America is that people call what is not liberalism liberalism. What Americans call liberalism is social liberalism which is a strand of liberalism.

@tommore3263

Жыл бұрын

its now a mixture of postmodern Marxist narcissistic materialism. Or ... hell. The Doctrine of Original Sin has never looked sharper.

@omara6292

8 ай бұрын

What we call liberalism is really neo-Marxism.

@David-fm6go

5 ай бұрын

And what we call conservatism is actually more classical liberalism. In losing touch with the definition of liberalism, we have also lost touch with conservatism.

@rayderplayer2342

5 ай бұрын

Which is more Keynesianism than Liberalism really

@saricubra2867

3 ай бұрын

​@@tommore3263that is not social liberalism, it's social democrazy.

Here in Europe, left consider liberalism as a right wing thing and almost as terrible as far-right. And you americans think liberalism = leftism, because some leftists have claimed that they were liberal. Liberalism isn't conservatism, far-right or leftism. Liberalism is a rich and old tradition on its own. Friedman for example was a liberal neither a conservative nor a leftist. On the economic side, of what i've seen many conservatives have the same goal to reduce the State power by cutting taxes, simplifying rules, limiting the State interventions into economy. But on the civil society side, liberals think the same as in the economic subject, freedom is their value, the only or essential (there is a wide range of liberalism schools) legitimacy of the State is to protect our natural rights, and consider humans as individuals with same rights. Your sexual orientation, skin's color, your political ideology, what do you say or do, none of that is the State business. For some it seems closer to leftist on that aspect but that's not the same. Leftists want to reduce the freedom of speech for fighting "hate speech" (who will define what is a hate speech ?) and "fake news" (who will define what is the Truth and what is not ?). They don't see humans as unique individuals but as determined groups such as "blacks" or "whites" and invented a concept to continue their fight against racism with their fictionary "systemic racism". While Liberals don't judge people by their race and are against any kind of discrimination. It includes "positive" discrimination. And for sure against the censorship of the freedom of speech that leftists do.

@tcskips

2 жыл бұрын

Couldn’t agree more. Friedman was a visionary and didn’t just disapprove of arbitrary discrimination on the grounds of morality but that of the cost to those businesses and people on the grounds of the free market price system where they would miss out on the, perhaps more efficient and effective, segment of the labour market they were discriminating against. A far more solid basis for disapproval of a policy or attitude as shown by people and businesses today that would arbitrarily discriminate based on race when hiring to their organisation. I don’t believe there is any benefit to labelling something as a hate crime to treating it just as ordinary crime as it would give the government the power to define hate and use it to straw man groups they don’t like.

@Johnnysmithy24

2 жыл бұрын

Wow I was uneducated and not aware of this. I was confused because I agreed with some things from both left and right, and disagreed with a lot as well. Now I understand what I am

@shakya00

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Johnnysmithy24 Glad if It can help you to define your political stand ! From the outside I've the impression US politics is only defined by "Democrats" vs "Republicans". It's hard to put words on your political views if you don't fit in either one of them.

@Johnnysmithy24

2 жыл бұрын

@@shakya00 Thank you!

@shakya00

2 жыл бұрын

@Zander Frédéric Bastiat, one of the great figure of classical liberalism.

What do you mean classical liberals can't answer that question? It's been answered by people regardless of their political stance. It's not even a political problem. It's a logical problem. Open borders allows the potential of immigrants and criminals to abuse it. A mass flood of people and increasing population can cause housing problems and homelessness. National and state resources being depleted where those resources could have been to put to better use. Politicians using open borders and immigrants as a driving narrative to further their agenda. Social culture unable to be assimilated causes a division in society. Imagine letting anyone live in your house for free, only difference is this is on a much, much larger scale. You don't need to be a conservative or classical liberal, or whatever side you're on. You only need to see the faulty logic in the situation.

@jillybeangaming

4 жыл бұрын

yeah. i was basically thinking the same thing. he also seems to assume that classical liberals and libertarians are not nationalists, or at least that they don't recognize and value american culture, which i just don't find to be the case. anyway, like you said, the argument against open borders is a pretty clear/straightforward one, and i say that as a libertarian myself.

@cybzer0560

4 жыл бұрын

@Samurai Jack You gotta get back to the past to undo the future that is democrat.

@agisler87

4 жыл бұрын

Well it's still a political problem because there is large number of people who disagree. Including myself. There is a lot of evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens. Since the 70s America's fertility rate has been well below the replacement rate, immigration helps offset this. But I do think some minimum standard of entry is acceptable; proof of housing, some amount of savings etc. As far as state welfare goes, obviously non citizens shouldn't have access to this. So it needs to either be better enforced or gotten rid of. I don't think we should limit immigration because of the welfare state when the welfare state is the problem. While immigrants may not assimilate their children do and are more American then most Americans. The point of "letting anyone live in your house" isn't even a valid point. Of course they are not loving in my house but what you are advocating is for you to decide who lives in the house next door.

@gerhardtblume7354

Жыл бұрын

Definitely! What ever became of liberalism?? Liberals once believed in judging people by “the content of their character, not the colour of their skin”. They now demand that you categorize people according to their racial, sexual or gender identities… Good and evil are now determined not by acts but by identity. If you’re white, you’re an oppressor. If you’re black, you’re a victim. LeBron, the billionaire? Yup, victim. Black violet criminals? Obviously victims. Their crimes give evidence of their victimization. The worse the crime, the more oppression is presupposed… Don’t you feel stupid. You thought evil people were those that committed evil acts. But then, you didn’t learn advanced social theory. Liberals once opposed racial discrimination. They now demand racial preferences. It should be obvious that “preferences” and the lowering of standards it implies, suggests inferiority. Liberals once believed that blacks, once afforded the opportunity to succeed, could and would succeed. (As a great many have.) They now favour dropping “moral, intellectual, and professional standards for blacks” (Dennis Prager). Of course, most people will meet the (low) standards that they are called upon to meet. This is appalling and betrays the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. Liberals have become leftists and betrayed their principles. Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”.

@SwampGoon

Жыл бұрын

I think you misunderstood what he was saying. There is a logical limitaion in the consent based worldview of classical liberalism in regards to something like a border. Using the tools it gives you you can't really justify having one other than it's arbitrary ramifications. I say arbitrary because it really depends on who you are if that border is a good thing or a bad thing.

Classical liberalism comes from conservatism? Locke lived in the mid 1600 Burke mid 1700 Try again

@crazyahhkmed

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed. The United States was founded on classical liberalism, as Locke is often called to most influential person not at the signing of the declaration of Independence.

@PabloCardonaMusic

4 жыл бұрын

He said that conservatism relies on very old traditions, I think he said one thousand years or more. Maybe Locke came with liberalism first, but the traditions are older, and Burke was the one to articulate what they were about.

@IndustrialMilitia

3 жыл бұрын

I think you could argue that Thomas Hobbes was a type of conservative, and Hobbes was very much the precursor to classical liberalism.

@theparadigm8149

3 жыл бұрын

@@IndustrialMilitia Well, at the time, Locke and Hobbes were considered opposites

@democracyisnon-negociable3819

3 жыл бұрын

It never came from conservatism... in France liberals were called republicans and their political rivals but allies were called conservatives who were in real life constitutional monarchists

I left the liberal party back in late 2016.

@dallaskinard3143

4 жыл бұрын

Kayla Rae Colgan welcome to the truth!

@bobisconsumed520

4 жыл бұрын

Ditto

@asabove6815

4 жыл бұрын

The REAL jews are black. Jeremiah 17:4 "You shall *loosen* your hand from your *heritage* that I gave to you, and I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know (America), for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever." Who's heritage/identity has been lost out of every culture? Africans. Psalms 83:2-4 "For, behold! Thy enemies are tumultuous: and those who hate thee have lifted up the head. They have formed a crafty design against thy people, and have consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come and *let* *us* *cut* *them* *off* *from* *being* *a* *nation;* *and* *let* *the* *name* *of* *Israel* *be* *no* *more* *remembered."* Who is currently without a nation/country? Africa. Deuteronomy 28:68 "And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt (America) again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you." Who were brought on slave ships? Africans. Exodus 4:6-7 "Then the Lord said, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, the skin was leprous -- it had become as white as snow. “Now put it back into your cloak,” he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh." This sign from God tells us, Moses was NOT white. Songs of Solomon 1:5-6 *"I* *am* *black,* but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because *I* *am* *black,* because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept." Solomon was the KING of Israel. His wife was Jesus's ancestral grandmother. Revelation 1:15 "His feet were like *burnished* *bronze,* *refined* in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters." Revelation 1:13-14 "And in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like *white* *wool,* like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire," Revelation 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

@alexkagan8966

4 жыл бұрын

@@asabove6815 Get some help

@asabove6815

4 жыл бұрын

Alex Kagan Ben Shapiro is a IMPOSTER

Girl: I’m a liberal, atheist, feminist. Guy: (trying to impress) I failed high school too!

@ezekielpina2403

4 жыл бұрын

What

@goosenik2219

4 жыл бұрын

@@ezekielpina2403 He doesn't know what liberalism actually means as it's talked about in this video lol

@RichardCranium.

3 жыл бұрын

I think it is funny how many feminists are atheists when it is proven evolution made women different to men.

@RichardCranium.

3 жыл бұрын

@hatter00 It is true many nonatheists believe in evolution. But pretty much all atheists believe in evolution. I am not saying that atheists who don't believe in evolution don't exist, just that I have never talked to one. I don't even think someone can be an atheist without believing in evolution.

@OscarGomez-jz8ue

3 жыл бұрын

@@RichardCranium. Evolution is not a creed or something that you believe, is something that happened, a fact.

As a Classical Liberal I have no problem using conservatives as a stepping stone back to True rule of law under the Constitution of these United States as per the Declarationist Philosophy which is so imperative to sustainability.

@drquack4213

2 жыл бұрын

I’m politically libertarian and socially liberal, and honestly conservatism is so much better than modern leftism

@prodigalson6166

2 жыл бұрын

@@drquack4213 leftism has always been in opposition to liberalism; in truth liberalism is right wing and more right-wing then conservatism. The only thing that stands between the true liberal and the anarchist is the libertarian.

@drquack4213

2 жыл бұрын

@@prodigalson6166 If leftist were actually, than they wouldn’t be the way that they are

@ElasticGiraffe

2 жыл бұрын

@@prodigalson6166 It really depends on how you're defining the right and the left. The definitions of those labels have shifted and stretched so much they're nearly meaningless at this point, certainly in an American context. Decentralist Jeffersonian democracy used to be considered the left wing of American liberal republicanism, Hamiltonian mercantilist nationalism being the right wing. If you're a libertarian and interpret the spectrum as natural equality vs. state-backed, coercive systems of privilege, you'll probably identify more with the left; if, however, you view it as natural inequalies vs. state-imposed equalities, then more with the right.

@robinsss

Жыл бұрын

@@prodigalson6166 on the spectrum of 1802 libertarians were the left and those who wanted a return to monarchy were the right those on the right were not liberals

This whole video is nothing but a Straw-man argument. He claims they cannot explain boarders. Yet he cannot substantiate that claim.

@tommore3263

4 жыл бұрын

I don't know about his whole argument, but I agree that borders.. .beginning with our bodies.. .themselves .. are not in conflict with natural human rights.

@MarloStanfield2211

3 жыл бұрын

Philosophically classical liberals have no basis to argue for borders

@Chipwhitley274

3 жыл бұрын

@@MarloStanfield2211, And yet... you cannot demonstrate that to be the case.

@MarloStanfield2211

3 жыл бұрын

@@Chipwhitley274 OK then give me a case for borders from the classical liberal standpoint

@Chipwhitley274

3 жыл бұрын

@@MarloStanfield2211, Asked and answered.

I would like to see the guy from crash course come on here

@Realelduque

4 жыл бұрын

None yo Business who the Marxist John Green?

@noneyobusiness8130

4 жыл бұрын

@@Realelduque yeah that guy

@anthonytarczynski5423

4 жыл бұрын

El Duque John Green is no Marxist. Prove it

@TimberWulfIsHere

4 жыл бұрын

Not enough IQ points.

@jonathanpark2537

4 жыл бұрын

JJoe this here is the truth- def not a Marxist but a leftist for sure

How on earth does Classical Liberalism and a sense of universal truth in individual liberty lead to imperialism? Isn’t respecting the sovereignty of foreign governments a founding tenant of “libertarianism”?

@cydra_infinity1423

2 жыл бұрын

Libertarianism isn’t classical Liberalism.

@juanpablonunez2828

2 жыл бұрын

Not necessarily. Libertarianism defends the will of the individual. The will of an association of individuals ( government) would have to be unanimous in order to be respected under the libertarian principles. Otherwise, only the life, free will, and property of the individual will be respected.

@robinsss

Жыл бұрын

@@cydra_infinity1423 '''''''respecting the sovereignty of foreign government''' s a founding tenet of all types of liberalism including libertarianism

@stratinolampino

Жыл бұрын

@@cydra_infinity1423 libertarianism was the term made after people like you ruined the actual meaning of liberalism, which was retaining individual Liberty and the right to freedom.

@toddshockley

Жыл бұрын

Maybe read an objective history book.

I disagree with his objection to Classical Liberalism. Under classical liberalism the answer is obvious. Borders and controlled immigration are needed because the government has a responsibility to protect the *existing citizenry* as they are uniquely placed neutrally among the people and also with a monopoly on the use of force. This is the issue with confusing Classical Liberalism with Libertarianism. Libertarianism says that there is basically no role for government, however Classical Liberalism says "hold up, the government should help protect the citizens - but the rest is up to the citizens". However, I think his comments applied to contemporary American liberalism are accurate enough. For example, the moral relativist and globalist (progressive) American liberal would say about "the people coming into the country are just as valid as I am". There is no protection mindset there at all, except that they might cry out childishly for daddy government *after* they vote in the problems. As for the connection to religion - there's no rule that you can't acknowledge judeo-christian values and the effect they had on the development of law. From my reading many enlightenment thinkers were religious or had religious upbringings - but objected to the the tyranny of a religious state. That's pretty sensible.

@kartoon9820

2 жыл бұрын

actually, the borders were primarily of Conservative concern in Victorian Britain - the Classical Liberal stance, which admittedly ranged from National to Radical, but nonetheless the standard Classical Liberal stance of the time was that open borders were an extension of free trade. Just as economics dictated from Adam Smith down and scarcely ever challenged since that trade was of mutual benefit and of no practicality to restrict, it stood to reason that a freedom of movement followed the same natural course of mutual benefit, and border restrictions were thus regarded as an extension of the selfsame feudalistic outdated attitude that turned it's nose up at free trade, to the Classical Liberal of the time. as for Judeo-Christian values, I quite agree that Classical Liberalism is not less compatible with them - indeed Yoram Hazony seems conveniently to forget that it was not tradition that formed the English constitution, not even remotely close. He wants to undermine the validity of the American Revolutionary War, but never forget that it was the English Civil War that gave rise to our constitution here in England, and that was indeed a revolutionary war against our very own monarch. Yoram's chosen side here, the anti-revolution Conservative Traditionalists, they were fighting for, among other things, keeping his people out of England, and it was their defeat that lifted the ban on Jews entering England. I can only assume that he willingly ignores history.

@saricubra2867

8 ай бұрын

"libertarianism says that there is basically no role for government" That isn't libertarianism, that is anarchy.

The founding feathers ripped off Locke not Burke Life liberty and property- Locke Life liberty and pursuit of happiness- Jefferson

@crazyahhkmed

4 жыл бұрын

Yes. It's sad they don't realize something so obvious.

@ponraul1221

3 жыл бұрын

The only three rights are life, liberty, and property.

@ponraul1221

2 жыл бұрын

@Ribguy101 The right of property is a natural consequence of the right of liberty. You cannot have one without the other.The NAP is literally entirely based upon the concept of liberty.

I like to think of myself as a classical liberal. I can answer that question easily because to me classical liberalism is not an ideology that allows for open borders. A nation is not a nation if it can’t control whose coming into it. My problem with conservatism has always been that it pretends to care about liberty and government of law not by men, which are classical liberal ideals, they get my hopes up for conservatives, then when I actually talk to conservatives I realise they’re still willing to sacrifice people’s liberties for things they deem to be more important than it... Classical liberals like me really don’t have room nowadays on the political spectrum. Pretend to be conservatives and you realise that you’re not one of them. Actually go by the term liberal and people associate you with socialism and political correctness 😐

@tommore3263

4 жыл бұрын

I rather think of myself as a Classic liberal and reduce that to the Judeo Christian premises that underlie the west. I am very influenced by Catholic thought and teaching which I find very helpful in wading through the deeper principles of order, human rights and responsibilities to self and others. I might add, with no intention of giving offense, that I find the Catholic church to be the only fully coherent worldview in all of the dimensions of being human. This is not of course to dismiss others as bad or to be dismissed at all incidentally, but my years studying classic western thought and especially Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas' philosophy led me there.

@willwalker6894

2 жыл бұрын

That’s why at the point I just tell people I’m politically homeless.

@PatrickSteil

2 жыл бұрын

Hello Eric. I am a conservative and look forward to some good discussion of each other’s viewpoints if you are open to it. So how would you define a classical liberal? I have my thoughts but would like to hear your ideas. Thx.

@PatrickSteil

2 жыл бұрын

@@tommore3263 Hello Tom. You made this comment two years ago. Do you still consider yourself a classical liberal? I have also learned a lot about the teachings of the Catholic Church and agree on your comment about worldview.

@_VISION.

2 жыл бұрын

@@PatrickSteil what do you think it is?

Classical Liberalism - Let's Stand against Tree cutting and Fox hunting. Todays Liberalism - Let's that against anything and everything.

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

Classical liberalism has nothing to do with cutting trees or fox hunting?

Being a Libertarian, doesn't require dropping religion, nor does it require being in opposition to boarders.

@LockieKeye

3 жыл бұрын

Yea it does lmaoo

@Chipwhitley274

3 жыл бұрын

@@LockieKeye, And yet... you cannot demonstrate that to be the case.

@LockieKeye

3 жыл бұрын

@@Chipwhitley274 Milton Friedman is the libertarian. He was open borders because he was an honest, no government control over the market, libertarian. The difference between the two is that conservatism conserves Christianity while libertaianism belives America was meant for anyone.

@Chipwhitley274

3 жыл бұрын

@@LockieKeye, None of what you just said refuted my original statement. Though it does seem like you are setting up a Straw-man argument.

@LockieKeye

3 жыл бұрын

@@Chipwhitley274 ok u really need it spelled out for u. Conservatives believe this is supposed to be a Christian Country. Therefore, we would prefer people who live here to be Christian, or at least have Christian foundational morals, whether or not it benefits the economy. Libertarians believe that even tho this is a Christian nation, we should let people in because the Christian aspect isn’t integral enough to be a reason to keep ppl out. If we need to let people who aren’t true Americans in, if it benefits the economy, so be it. They believe the government shouldn’t have the control over who comes in because the government shoipdnt regulate the marketplace.

I don't know what you'd talk about but can you get Roger Scruton on the show Ben? I find his talks really thought-provoking.

@Broke-disastrous-guy

3 жыл бұрын

Too late man

@Zack-rc3dt

3 жыл бұрын

Rip

@bobsagget9212

3 жыл бұрын

Man I got some bad news for you

Was looking forward to this when I saw the title. Ended up very disappointed as he did not give a good definition of classical liberalism IMO. Just because one calls oneself a classical liberal doesn't automatically mean you support open borders any more than being a libertarian does. Plenty of folks in both camps who still believe in the primacy of the nation state. Not a fan if ideological purism as that implies there is an authority on a given topic within an ideology. That's not at all individualistic, it ends up being inadvertently collectivist.

@MGLeal

4 жыл бұрын

Valissa Rauhallinen Same.

@brianv9242

4 жыл бұрын

Valissa Rauhallinen so then what is the basic difference between a classical liberal and a conservative? The guy in the video didn’t really help give a clear delineation

@Slickaintgotnosorrowbitch

4 жыл бұрын

Dafuqyewshmokin?

@carrelcy

4 жыл бұрын

The difference between classical liberalism and conservatism is for me like asking what the difference between an egg and the color blue.. Liberalism ( Hobbes, locke, Rawls) like other political philosophie try to find a kind of universal justice. For classical liberals this justice is in the right of every individuals. The gouvernment should protect this right and only the rights of other individual can limit your own right. Other political philosophie are utilitarism and republicanism. Conservatism is more about what the action of a government should be in term of social influence ( protecting the family unit and tradition ) and it stands against progressivism. It is for me two thing that are different but im not really a big expert in political philosophie ( sorry for the mistakes, my english got really bad lately)

@Slickaintgotnosorrowbitch

4 жыл бұрын

@@carrelcy I agree with you

I have been thinking about this very concept for the past week!

Classical liberalism can be conservative. The idea that it is opposed to natural law is not a true argument.

@DVRKPHVNTOM

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly

@rostamfarikhnehad6391

Жыл бұрын

Conservatism has been(be) in different feilds

Full episode is private

Anyone noticed todays video got deleted? The one about all human conflict being religious 🤔

Doesn’t social contract theory provide the necessary link between classical liberalism and nationalism? In other words, yes, classical liberalism begins from the proposition of liberty, but it does allow restrictions on liberty when those restrictions are justified (e.g., by contract). Why cannot a group of individuals contract for a system of governance? Taken to its logical conclusion, Yoram seems to be saying that classical liberalism collapses into anarchy.

@Based_Blue96

Жыл бұрын

I might be a little late to reply, but I would base classical liberals off of supporting individualistic stances, and as such obviously makes it seem closer to anarchy. Traditionalist Conservatives aka Classical Conservatism, commonly opposes ardent nationalism because it emphasized smaller, regional communities but albeit such Burkean views are closer to communitarianism, in which nationalism itself is inherently communitarian as it sees the nation(the people) as one identity and as one family. Ideas such as national liberalism and liberal(civic) nationalism exist, and those usually take more individualistic stances, but overwhelming liberal nationalism is more a sense of belonging rather than a defined organic and almost homogeneous identity. As for the social contract, it largely depends on how you interpret it but from my stance I see it as allowing a state to be established for protection of the people and for the importance of security over liberties in order for the authority to be able to protect those liberties.

Conservatism for life.

@davidlewocz7271

3 жыл бұрын

*Libertarianism*

@link8689

Жыл бұрын

classical liberalism for life

Universal truth / universal reason being dangerous implies it's reasonable to aggress on others. Which it isn't.

GREAT SHOW!

At least two errors in this. Locke is the father of liberalism. Locke predated Burke. Thus, liberalism did not come from conservatism. Second, liberals aren't against nation state borders.

I wish his thoughts were a little more organised but he does make a good point.

Please see “The Myth of Religious Neutrality” by Roy A Clouser

"What's wrong with that?" Nothing. If we take the reasoning the other way around, then you get into expelling anyone who doesn't conform to what you think the "national culture" is or should be. Cultures don't have rights, individuals do.

Classical liberal view liberty of the individual above all else when determining whether a law is moral or immoral.

3:09 ... he is wrong. John Locke was the "father" of classical liberalism. Just read it.

@DVRKPHVNTOM

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for catching that, thank god I read and knew this before watching the video. I’m still reading into a lot of these things though tbh, it’s a lot to unpack.

These Mike Bloomberg ads are a freaking joke lolol

I as well used to go along with the line of thinking that conservatives were the "true liberals" and there was already a doubt of that there but i didnt know how to explain it. Then i started listening to Knowles. It's funny, it's almost like he gave me permission to believe in something that i couldnt quite articulate which was; 1 you dont have to be any kind of liberal, at all, to believe in conservatism, and 2 that the two ideas might just be incompatable and have no place near each other. I now believe that liberalism as a whole has led to all the problems we have in modern society

More like Conservatism VS A Strawman.

I was just listening to this

The problem may be our obsession with politics. There should not only be a strict separation between the church and state, but we should perhaps look at how well that has worked for America and incorporate that idea into other areas of our lives. We may be divided into tribes and nations and we are constricted by borders, but our founders (generally) had a good idea that laying out a groundwork of human rights and limitation of government power (classical liberalism) is a better way to insure liberty and more conducive to an ANTI imperialist ontology that helps to avoid wars (if only classically liberal governments could stick to that).

@tommore3263

4 жыл бұрын

The very idea that persons have rights is a JudeoChristian belief. Carbon atoms don't do it. It requires a meaningful cosmos. By separation is only meant that the state will not coerce anyone into any particular religion, or the religions of atheism and agnosticism which are religious beliefs or beliefs about ultimate causes and purpose. I find atheism incoherent incidentally.

@wraynephew6838

2 жыл бұрын

@@tommore3263 The idea that people have rights is not only a JudeoChristian belief.

@stratinolampino

Жыл бұрын

Many of our problems stem form the fact we have relied more and more in the political process than the market process.

@MrJoeybabe25

Жыл бұрын

@@tommore3263 How is atheism incoherent?

Generally the name. For example conservatives if we take the words apart wants to conserve something

@foundationofBritain

Жыл бұрын

yes... conserve a nations traditions. it don't mean conserve *anything* or the *current thing or situation* it necessarily rooted in a people's traditions both nationally and sub-nationally... its also rooted in political action not any philosophy.

I think what this guy says about _"Universal Reason"_ is what describes both Conservatism and Modern Liberalism. Where Conservatism sees "tradition" as the best way for society to exist, and having forced these ways of thinking unto society. Modern Liberalism on the other hand, is largely based on forcing people to not buy into these traditions. Both parties believe their reasoning is the Right way for society to exist and both use Classical Liberal principles or "elements" as a tools to justify their existence and fight the other party. The need to feel _"liberated"_ is only an indication that in some way, you are oppressed. And the "oppressor" in this case, the common factor among this struggle is this _"Universal Reasoning"_ . All this points out to the fact that all of these modern ideologies, are essentially a corruption of Classical Liberalism, as they are practically factions within the ideology. A bunch of _"how about we do it like this instead"_ . And because of this, these "factions" will always be at "war" with one another, as each has already made up their minds on how they interpret their "source". And according to _my_ "universal reasoning", this makes them invalid candidates in the business of running our society.

@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714

Жыл бұрын

I think it has more to do with how the reasoning is done in practice. Imo the oppression narrative is way stronger in marxism and progressivism compared to classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is more about reasoning from first principles in some sort of enlightenment project. This means reasoning in the abstract and the general. The danger here is that this abstract form of thinking gets so far from the reality on the ground, that the resulting lawmaking ends in total failure. I like to compare this problem with the differences between the dominant versions of enlightenment ethics - consequentialism and deontology, to the virtue ethics which is a tradition in the West that comes back to ancient Greece but also features prominently in Christianity. The newer forms of ethical thinking see ethics as the problem of figuring out the best action for any given situation, kind of like the problem of finding the maximum value that a mathematical function can take. Virtue ethics, on the other hand, sees the action as secondary and derivative. It's more important to improve character, practice virtue and move away from vice - good actions will follow.

omg do i feel stupid, because i have no idea what he said here...okay, after thinking about it for the past couple of hours, I think I finally understand the essence of what he is saying here, namely that at the heart of conservatism is to define people in terms of whatever social groups they belong to, while the heart of liberalism is to define people in terms of their individuality. if my understanding is correct, then no wonder that these two ideologies constantly clash with one another without either of them dying. it is because both ways of thinking are partly true and partly false. there is a solution, although it is hard to achieve, and that is have a delicate balance, consisting of yes, defining people in terms of whatever group they belong to, while at the same time, treating each person as an individual. in other words, both sides speak the truth. i realize that sounds like a total contradiction, and in a way it is, and yet sometimes that is the nature of life

Too many misconceptions in this comments section. People should realize that there are varying degrees and perspectives for both conservatism and liberalism. IMO conservatism in Europe is roughly monarchist in nature while in the USA its just libertarianism. I don't see what American Conservatism "conserves" anymore, it's simply a label at this point.

Reject Locke and modern Conservatism Embrace Burke and Classical Conservatism

@programking655

2 жыл бұрын

Reject Locke? His thought is the basis for the American Revolution. To reject his ideas of freedom and liberty is fundamentally anti-American.

@foundationofBritain

Жыл бұрын

The 17th.c is the worst era in *English* history to draw from... its when imported foreign ideas like the Devine Right of King(which England & we English, did not have a tradition of) full came being in England and was attempted to be forced on us English... which largely what the civil war was about... the foreign House of Stuart was/is an illegitimate royal line in England, as per Henry VIII's will, because they were foreign born. the *English* tradition... stretchers back, *first* to Sir Thomas Smith, who written the book... De Republica Anglorum: the Maner of Gouernement or Policie of the Realme of England, and was first published in1583... which illuminated(not created) the *English* Conservative Tradition... in fact in his book he described England as being a mixed government and a commonwealth, and stated that all commonwealths are of mixed character... this *English* tradition though goes even further back the Sir John Fortescue, and illuminated(not created) by his book... The Governance of England... and then deep in to the *English* medieval past... and it doesn't really change all that much. Sir John Fortescue was... *"Chief Justice of the King's Bench and was the author of De Laudibus Legum Angliae (Commendation of the Laws of England), first published posthumously circa 1543, an influential treatise on English law. In the course of Henry VI's reign, Fortescue was appointed one of the governors of Lincoln's Inn three times and served as a Member of Parliament from 1421 to 1437. He became one of the King's Serjeants during the Easter term of 1441, and subsequently served as Chief Justice of the King's Bench from 25 January 1442 to Easter term 1460."* Sir Thomas Smith was... *an English scholar, parliamentarian and diplomat."* And Locke was... *"an English philosopher and physician"* liberalism only goes as far back as Locke... the *English* Conservative Tradition stretchers back deep in to the *English* medieval past, and it doesn't really change all that much. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Smith_(diplomat) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fortescue_(judge) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2023/the-roots-of-conservatism/ kzread.info/dash/bejne/jKdhr7OLn6mbkZM.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/mnWW3JuTZdyXaNo.html

right...but this didn't explain the "vs" part

If all of the Bill of Rights originated in British Common Law (or other legal philosophy), it’s extremely ironic to note modern Brits’ being mystified by Americans’ holding sacrosanct such ideas as free speech and the right to bear arms (and, probably, any bar against searches and seizures, unreasonable or otherwise).

@thereaction18

4 жыл бұрын

Remember the book "1984"? It was written about Britain. They have progressed through almost a century of Doublespeak.

@jesusislordsavior6343

3 жыл бұрын

khkartc The Brits had already experienced violent revolution long before the Americans, during the 1640s. I don't know Common Law or the Bill of Rights, being from a third country, but I wonder whether the 'right of popular insurrection' was included. Tell me whether my doubts are justified. I suppose that hubris is universal among the human race, sinners that we are. But it shows up in the EXTENT of liberty which Americans claim for themselves, as individuals within their own society, or as a nation within the community of nations.

@programking655

2 жыл бұрын

@@thereaction18 George Orwell was a libertarian socialist. It’s not all that mystifying.

I would argue that even though Edmund Burke is regarded as the founder of modern conservatism, he was a Whig politician and hence espoused a synthesis of classical liberalism and toryism/ classical conservatism. I would say both modern liberalism and modern conservatism (in the U.S) are descendants of primarily classical liberalism with modern liberalism evolving into social liberalism and deviating from classical liberal ideas on the economy. Although I agree with aspects of the conservation with Yoram Hazony and it is well argued.

This guy's problem is he only wants to pull from one area of ideas. It shouldn't be conservatism vs classical liberalism. A better world view is conservatism and classical liberalism. Individual rights & nationalism. I think even most classical liberals only apply individual rights to citizens. If you look at the way conservativism evolved into what is now, you'll notice that conservative & classical liberal ideas were merged into one ideology. Conservatives are classical liberals. Just look at the through lines both believe in free markets, individual freedom, small government etc. Ideas adopted by conservatives from the classical liberal movement. What he is describing is something separate altogether. He's talking about unfying people under a common value or purpose such as the belief in a Christian God. I have no disagreement with that as long as it's a voluntary act, being a christian myself.

It's kind of strange watching all these people struggle to understand what Classical Liberalism is.

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

It can be boiled down to life, liberty and estate.

@justcallmebookworm7543

3 жыл бұрын

​@@bighands69 It's actually a lot more robust than that. Without the Christian element, a lot of morality is lost. Also, it's not possible to understand Natural Law properly, either, without a Christian background. Natural Law theory is a core element of Classical Liberalism, and actually the basis of the Constitution, too. The Constitution, after all, is a delegation of Natural Rights (coming from Natural Law). In his 2 Treatises, the iconic text of Classical Liberalism, Locke also emphasizes empiricism, the investigation of concrete, empirical evidence with through the use of logic, without letting our passions (out of control emotions) cloud our judgement. Actually, Classical Liberalism really can't be boiled down to a catchy slogan. This is why the few people who have even heard of Classical Liberalism struggle to understand it.

@justcallmebookworm7543

3 жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 Locke also gives a fundamentals discussion on what government is: the executive and the legislative, where the executive is the branch that punishes violations of law and the legislative makes the law. Later writers, Montesquie, I think, add the judicial branch--those that interpret the law. This is a much more sensible, robust definition of government than the superficial one that libertarians tend to give. He also discusses what the proper role of government is: primarily to guard our private property rights from unreasonable people that would infringe on them. This is at odds with the typical libertarian view of government not being necessary at all. There's probably even more than that that I'm forgetting. Suffice it to say, Classical Liberalism cannot be boiled down.

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

@@justcallmebookworm7543 You do not have to have a deep academic understanding of religion to understand right and wrong. Most people in their hearts know that it is wrong to kill, rape or steal without having a deep academic philosophical examination of natural law. You can be a christian but not understand the context of writings. Life, Liberty and Estate can be understood by everybody without even knowing anything about religion. Now if you want to go deeper into the very cores of the concepts to build upon them in some fashion such as the founding fathers of the United States did then you really have to have the christian element that the founding fathers did have. Natural law is a beautiful thing in that it is natural and can be felt and understood at the most basic level without going deep. Natural law is not like Marxism in that it does not require you too read Marx to understand the concept.

@justcallmebookworm7543

3 жыл бұрын

​@@bighands69 Well, on basic matters you don't need a complex understanding, but there are some problems which get complicated, especially if they are controversial. Yes, Christians will often quote verses out of context. In fact, not just Christians, but many non-Christians will quote various texts out of context. I think this reflects a general lack of reading and thinking skills rather than being a religious issue, though. But to properly understand the Constitution, you must understand something about both Christianity and Natural Law. In my opinion, many of the misunderstandings we have today, on the Constitution, is mostly just from a basic lack of understanding of Classical Liberal philosophy, which included the fundamental philosophical basis of the Constitution. No, you'd be surprised. Natural Law is actually subtle and complex. It doesn't just mean, 'what sounds natural.' When most people think of Natural Law, they assume a Godless world, and Darwinian evolution, and end up with completely the opposite morality expounded in the Bible. For instance, the promiscuous sex promoted by the Sexual Revolution. If they took the time to examine the evidence (as per the empiricism that Locke advocated), though, they would find that promiscuous sex is quite harmful to individuals and society. Marxism, in comparison, is simple. It requires little to no evidence or logic. If you don't like evidence, you can simply ignore it or make something up. Many important distinctions in evidence are merely glossed over by Marxists. Of course, neither empiricism, nor Natural Law, nor Constitutional theory are a part of Marxism. Marxism is an unsophisticated philosophy in comparison.

How can anybody listen to Ben Shapiro's voice for more than 5 seconds without feeling extremely nauseous? Asking for a friend

Friedrich Hayek was a classical liberal and he supported borders and was somewhat cautious about open immigration.

0:08 Yes, constantly.

Morality is objective.

This is all on the presupposition that any politician would execute a party philosophy undiluted into every legislative act, which never happens with any consistency, even amongst the most hardline of any persuasion. To go off of his argument that these are dated terms, I agree. But in that, *today's* classical liberalism has married itself with enough conservatism that his doomsday prophesy of open borders and such would never come to pass. Even if the CL politician felt inclined, his/her CL voters would never reelect, and that's ultimately one of two forces politicians ultimately bow to. I'm left to wonder. There are so many videos right now comparing conservatism, libertarianism, and classical liberalism. Maybe that's because so many of us aren't really any of the three. Maybe we're the first passionate wave of a new ideal rising in the wake of a nationalistic democrat winning a republican presidency. Let that sink in. Trump, love him or hate him, kind of tore down the boundaries of the party system enough to open a loud discussion. Maybe we're all not trying to decide which of the three we are, so much as we're deciding which of the three to ultimately start running as when the time comes. Back to the video, though, I feel like he reduced classical liberalism as a strict party argument. If you distill *any* political philosophy down enough, you find a terrifying critical mass.

I guess conservatism is an open concept compared to classical liberalism, in the sense that what is labled as conservative in one place might not necessarily be so in another (e.g. what is considered to be conservative in the US is seen as liberal in my country of origin, and what is considered to be conservative in my country of origin is seen as archaic in the US etc.)

He seems really solid. Good points. And the fact that Shapiro doesn’t chime in or anything and just let’s him talk shows how much Shapiro respects him and believes he knows his stuff

"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness".. - Mark Twain.

The meaning of words change over time. Don’t let a discussion of history confuse you on what is happening today. Those on the Left in American politics are also called liberals. That’s just the way it is. Now watch their actions. That’s what they are. Do the same with American conservatives. Watch their actions. If you want to study the historical meaning of words, go ahead. But be clear that you are NOT talking about modern politics.

amazing guest, great views 👍

Classical Liberalism is a stepping stone to Conservatism. That's it.

@acleme1709

4 жыл бұрын

big false. I don't know a single classical liberal who didn't step away from being a conservative. Conservatives are just liberals driving the speed limit.

@TheLispMonkey

4 жыл бұрын

@@acleme1709 It usually goes with respect to age: libshit to socialist to classical liberalism to lulbertarian to conservative. I'd say that's the usual political evolution of most people. Because in the end most people realize the family is important, not just individual autonomy.

@MaisieDaisyUpsadaisy

4 жыл бұрын

TheLispMonkey Not in the least. Classical liberalism is a unique political ideology and, when you look at the early days of the classical liberal movement, it stood in antagonism to conservatism. The two ideologies are radically different.

@discojohn8753

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheLispMonkey would it be wrong if i say conservatism in a sense can be represented by the family, liberalism represented by the group, and libertarianism represented by the individual? And sure with old age you grow more comfortable with your family, but isn't there a balance to be found between the family and the individual? After all, its not my moms fault if i cant make friends on the playground, now an argument can be made that id be more likely to be in the proper space of mind to function in a social setting if i had parents that installed certain values, but at the end of the day, its you that makes your friend, that leads to meeting the girl you fall in love with which in turn leads to the conservatism of the family, so while i can see what you mean when you say the self, in place of classical liberalism lets say, is a stepping stone to the family, in place of conservatism, but if you lose the importance that is held in the role of the individual, i don't think you can even have a healthy family to start

@obezy.

4 жыл бұрын

No

What are 'free markets'? Are markets 'free' for those who cannot afford to buy what they need in order to live? Is freedom to become rich chief among all freedoms? (James 5:1) 'Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries which are coming upon you.'

@Nanofuture87

3 жыл бұрын

"Are markets 'free' for those who cannot afford to buy what they need to survive" Yes. You have no claim over the labor or property of another. "Is freedom to become rich chief among all freedoms" No.

I disagree that classical liberalism can't derive nation states and borders. It's just derived differently than "autonomous tribes pulled together by loyalty". The state is the social contract of the people to ensure basic freedoms of life, liberty, property. Each person is their own sovereign, and their association based on common values and shared interests creates a nation. Then, after a nation is created, access to it depends on the policy of the state. I think Mr. Hazony would like it to be otherwise, but the United States is the precisely country in the world that is almost fully based on classical liberalism, without extensive tribal and feudal history, and it still seems like it holds, so it looks like he's a bit wrong. Sure there's tribalism and loyalty, but that's not the primary foundation. The primary foundation is the universality of men (freely, after Jesus C. since 0 AD), a change from a tribe's ingroup-outgroup thinking (which was the foundation of the Old Testament and the concept of nation).

@link8689

Жыл бұрын

let's go back to adam Smith his theory of basic public good government has an duty to protect its citizens from invaders. it basic household theory you have fence/wall/gate around your house, if an individual want to come in you knock on the front door first not come in through the back window.

Nobofication squad where u at

@moriahazan277

4 жыл бұрын

Here

@createwolf

4 жыл бұрын

*notification

Liberals chilling around the world Conservatives : liberals are too pro government so they must be communists😡 Communists : liberals are not pro government enough so they must be capitalists😡 Anarcho communist and capitalist : liberals are too rough😡 Fascists : liberals are too weak😡 Me while reading Wikipedia definition of liberalism : moral philosophy and political ideology based on the idea of liberty, equality and the consent of the government... *WAIT WHAT*

@apeman9238

2 жыл бұрын

Simpley said: liberalism is a center-right wing idiology.

@link8689

Жыл бұрын

@@apeman9238 it center-left anything that call liberal is liberal. conservative is call conservative but do not seat here is call classical liberal conservative because it is not. classical liberalism has it own ideas as well as classical conservative which has it own ideas. am fiscal liberal (economic liberal) i vote/agree with republicans most spending bill (inflation/ deflation is bad).

Classical liberalism is completely different than the liberalism we have today which is closely aligned with socialist ideals, restriction on speech( Politically Incorrect speech) and protest( if conservative) combined with government intrusion into every aspect of our lives. It is also centralized, unaccountable, unable and unwilling to make decisions targeted with specificity to the unique needs of a diverse array of communities within our nation. Smaller government that is decentralized and localized is more accountable to the voter and more in tune with its needs else the community removes those in office. Who can vote out a federal bureaucrat? It's nonsense and the reason why corruption and economic treason run rampant in DC.

Yoram Hazony talk of "tribes" aka collectives just reaffirmed my belief in classical liberlism. Individual rights. The problem with this guy is he's to smart.. He's overcomplicated something that is simple, and claims that we as classical liberals oversimplify... Listen very carefully.

He has several good points, and is right to decry the sort of arrogance which sees no value in pre-Enlightenment thought. But in my view, he labors too hard to justify nationalism on a Biblical basis. All too often nationalism is founded on collective self-exaltation rather than exaltation of God. Two world wars have demonstrated that amply enough. The FACT that nations exist, though clearly acknowledged in the Bible, does NOT in itself justify their cultural and religious practices. (Romans 1:18) 'For the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.' When Jesus says that 'salvation is from the Jews', does it not imply (among other things) that God chose a PARTICULAR nation as a vehicle for His own self-revelation to the world? By no means does this exalt Jews by comparison with others, yet it disqualifies so-called 'revelations' via non-Biblical 'world religions'. Nations without the Gospel are living in darkness, without exception. Yet if all mankind is caught up in the web of SIN, if the kingdom of heaven is open to REPENTANT persons on the basis of FAITH IN JESUS, then HOW are Anglophone nations more exalted than others? Do they by definition include a higher proportion of FAITHFUL individuals than other nations? Therefore national 'exceptionalism', whether British, American, Russian, or other, is absurd.

Both have missed the point and misunderstood the word Liberal. Classic liberalism is economic liberalism (free market), social liberalism is a different thing entirely. If you capitalist, you are a liberal in the classic sense. You can also be Conservative if you add the religion and nationalist factors in there.

Six minutes on "Classical Liberalism bad", what a waste of my time, absolutely stunning, was hoping for something more in depth.

@RonDiani

23 күн бұрын

Exactly

Does not address the NAP.

I think modern conservatism or moderate conservative is actually classic liberalism

It would be nice if Middle Eastern tribal-oriented groups would play our Classical Liberal/individualistic game... but, alas... Tribe/cabal/cult first? Or free individuals first? The fake "War on Terror" on behalf of one tribal state in the Middle East predicated on a questionable "terrorist attack" in 2001 is one example. Banking monopolies is another. Special interest - tribalist - lobbying groups like AIPAC is another... Not all cultures have the same conscious or subconscious assumptions. For Classical Liberalism to flourish, all must share in the same spirit. Not one group taking advantage of the openness of the rest while staying closed themselves... Or we can all start playing the my-tribe-above-your-tribe game... And that won't be pretty... Look at where it is being played today - constant warfare, misery and standing on the edge of nuclear annihilation.

Classical liberalism or traditional liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism in modern day American politics are the same. Center right also fits in this category. That’s why many modern conservatives say that the future of conservatism is libertarian

This guy knows!

These guys are so much fun at parties

Liberalism promotes personal freedom and if the government were to get involved it would be for equality. Conservatism believes in economic freedom. If the government were to meddle, it would be for morality. Libertarianism belives in BOTH liberals' and conservatives' ideas of freedom. But they want the government to be invloved even less than what both ideologies want. Authoritarians are opposite of libertarians. They want government to be heavily involved to try to improve citizen's lives.

A bit inaccurate, as Burke was a liberal and member of the Whig Party. But this does demonstrate that liberalism has a degree of varying interpretations, with Burke falling on the conservative end. Would also like to add that key to liberalism is the rule of law, a tenet central to American, Canadian, and British Conservativism.

@foundationofBritain

Жыл бұрын

*English* Conservativism... and no Burke was not a liberal... he was a Whig... and the Whig's were profoundly conservative... which the *English* tradition... stretchers back, *first* to Sir Thomas Smith, who written the book... De Republica Anglorum: the Maner of Gouernement or Policie of the Realme of England, and was first published in1583... which illuminated(not created) the *English* Conservative Tradition... in fact in his book he described England as being a mixed government and a commonwealth, and stated that all commonwealths are of mixed character... this *English* tradition though goes even further back the Sir John Fortescue, and illuminated(not created) by his book... The Governance of England... and then deep in to the *English* medieval past... and it doesn't really change all that much. Sir John Fortescue was... *"Chief Justice of the King's Bench and was the author of De Laudibus Legum Angliae (Commendation of the Laws of England), first published posthumously circa 1543, an influential treatise on English law. In the course of Henry VI's reign, Fortescue was appointed one of the governors of Lincoln's Inn three times and served as a Member of Parliament from 1421 to 1437. He became one of the King's Serjeants during the Easter term of 1441, and subsequently served as Chief Justice of the King's Bench from 25 January 1442 to Easter term 1460."* Sir Thomas Smith was... *"an English scholar, parliamentarian and diplomat."* And Locke was... *"an English philosopher and physician"* liberalism only goes as far back as Locke... the *English* Conservative Tradition stretchers back deep in to the *English* medieval past, and it doesn't really change all that much. The 17th.c is the worst era in *English* history to draw from... its when imported foreign ideas like the Devine Right of King(which England & we English, did not have a tradition of) full came being in England and was attempted to be forced on us English... which largely what the civil war was about... the foreign House of Stuart was/is an illegitimate royal line in England, as per Henry VIII's will, because they were foreign born. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Smith_(diplomat) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fortescue_(judge) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2023/the-roots-of-conservatism/ kzread.info/dash/bejne/jKdhr7OLn6mbkZM.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/mnWW3JuTZdyXaNo.html

Still today, in 2024, Ben Shapiro stands by his infamous tweet: "I don't give a good damn about the so-called Browning of America. Color doesn't matter. Ideology does." This ideology of Ben Shapiro about the universal nature of his ideology is what is wrong with conservatism today. I am glad to see a fellow Jew, Yoram Hazony, challenging Ben on this.

His point at the end is excellent. You need the fusion. You need free markets within a nation governed by a strong moral sense. Each part helps clarify the other. To push global free markets, on their own, as the solution to all problems is wishful thinking. No, wrongheaded. Especially if it leads to the denial of borders, the unique rights of citizens, local distinction and everything else that gives our lives character.

2:34 Don't forget tea

good video. Conservatism > classical liberalism. Republicans who just say muh free markets, 0 regulations, fail to realize what is going on around us. we are controlled by corporations by sacrificing tradition, Christian values, and culture for GDP and big businesses. The answer for a stronger republican party is to embrace traditionalism again and deny all degeneracy. Bringing back nationalism will also help.

Where is the church if there is no more church and state?

its a fact... that burgundy shirt is dope.

Seems like he’s trying to persuade classic liberals into joining the Conservative party

I can (somewhat) understand not wanting to flood the country with people, but what the hell does them being of a different national tradition have to do with anything?

@o00nemesis00o

4 жыл бұрын

Because civic nationalism is where everyone is broadly pulling in the same direction. You can't expect to import, say, five million Bulgarians all at once and expect no friction.

@thenomad9230

4 жыл бұрын

@@o00nemesis00o Why not? That's a baseless claim. The only problems originate from how many you let in not who you let in.

@foundationofBritain

Жыл бұрын

@@thenomad9230 Nationality pertains to the Nation one is of... and a nation is a tribe, an ethnic group, an ethnos, a people... a Nation that has acquired a State(political community)is called a Nation-State. Nations have different national traditions because they are different. Nationalism's are necessarily ethnically rooted... as it necessarily asserts that one is a nation, a tribe, an ethnic group, an ethnos, a people... its why its imperative for foreign people's settling in your land... to be assimilated & absorbed by the Native population... or their descendants will not be Native... and thus they will not feel like they belong... because... they know they don't... their sill foreign. Its why civic nationalism can only ever work by indoctrinating everybody in to a propositional identity... its not natural... and unless there ideological & they all follow the same ideology... it wont be a strong & robust identity... it with fracture in the State(political community)and totalitarianism will immerge to keep the State(political community)unified and not brake away in to Statelets.

The question of 'whats the point of boarders' is answered. Globalist libertarians would believe there is no point of boarders. That freedom of movement is important. Of course this isn't possible in a world with conflicting tribes so you need different internal and external policies.

I dont get it.whats wrong with classical liberalism,and a little common sense ? I'm confused,do we have to add ,don't be stupid. Maybe i really don't get it ?? Also,does it have to be christianity, could it be buddhism ?

The best place to be in political philosophy is between Edmund Burke, and Adam Smith. That's where America comes from. Every other philosophy - classical liberalism, modern day liberalism, Marxism, socialism, libertarianism - is a sickly branch from the main tree trunk of Burke/Smith.

@antipositivism3128

4 жыл бұрын

SeatBill no

@SeatBill

4 жыл бұрын

@@antipositivism3128 Yes. Saying "no," doesn't make it not true. Smart, self-aware people are able to use more words in discussing things. One-word answers are for kindergartners and the mentally ill.

@antipositivism3128

4 жыл бұрын

SeatBill You went way too far with your response. It was based on the unwarranted assumption that I believed was a sufficient rebuttal to your claim. I only commented no to check if you were someone that replied, instead of answering you without ever getting a response. Your dichotomy about the identity of the people who behave the way I did is completely untrue.

@SeatBill

4 жыл бұрын

@@antipositivism3128 One: your inconsistent and overly detailed use of words shows me you can use a dictionary, but not really understand what you're saying. Two: Making a comment simply to get a response is the act of a child, willing to waste other people's time for your own amusement. Three: I don't talk to people who waste my time. We're done here. You're dismissed.

@antipositivism3128

4 жыл бұрын

SeatBill You really did not understand my assertion . It seems quite simple to understand. As an issue of basic pragmatically if I am going to use my time to answer someone I expect that they will view and critique or agree with my objections. However, if they are not going to respond to my objections then it will be a huge waste of time on my part. Therefore, this was the pragmatic approach.

The education system is based on universal reason...

What on earth classic about liberalism?

@gamersarestilloppressed3479

3 жыл бұрын

Because it came from the enlightenment which occurred in the 18th century hence the term classical

Being a Libertarian does not require dropping a religion, and it only necessitates the usefulness of borders. We couldn’t safely identify as a Libertarian or a Conservative if we didn’t appreciate the usefulness of the American border in the past, which made it possible for any legal and free American to do anything. I think borders are necessary as long as they prevent harm, or any eminent or preventable threat. Aside from any preventable harm, a border serves as an form of identity. If we don’t enforce our border properly, then the diversity, and the legality of American identity will soon fall to illegal immigration, drug trafficking, terrorism, and anyone who plans to do harm at the border-level. This is why there must be a legal process for immigrants and refugees, especially during a covid crisis.

I don’t understand the concern that conservatives have about protecting the nation’s culture at a status quo. Culture naturally changes over time and contact with new ideas can lead to better ways of doing things. As long as the outcome leads to a general increase in prosperity, what’s the big deal? There’s nothing inherently special about ideas just because they are old. As long as certain fundamental ideas can be preserved that have proven benefits, such as equality under the law, freedom of speech, and all that sort of thing, it seems that other concerns are simply irrelevant aesthetic preferences. I’d argue that enforcement of a certain aesthetic preference by government apparatus is a form of totalitarianism as should be opposed. Freedom over feels, if you catch my drift. This is a beef I have with social conservatives.

@wraynephew6838

2 жыл бұрын

Conservatism is about preserving the traditional social order and status quo. Anything that threatens that is met with resistance. It is a dogmatic philosophy designed to ignore the multitude of social problems in the nation. When there are social problems it is always the individual's fault and not any outside entity. However, if you were to mention a minimum wage increase than that is wrong because that is anti capitalist. Anything designed to pull people up is met with resistance.

@foundationofBritain

Жыл бұрын

Culture is an outgrowth of peoples actions on how they feel and there freedom to do so... you can not separate the two. Also conservativism has very little to do with protecting a nation’s culture at a status quo... culture dose change... because peoples actions on how they feel... change. Its not whether your nation’s culture changes... its how... your nation’s culture changes. Does your nation’s culture change based on & in accordance with ones own national traditions... or... based on & in accordance with abstract liberal(or otherwise)principals. *"As long as the outcome leads to a general increase in prosperity, what’s the big deal?"* The big deal... is that there is more to living than mere *"prosperity"* man dose not live by bread *alone* he needs purpose... and seeking a general increase in prosperity... is not a very strong purpose... prosperity dose not automatically make life better... one can have the highest standard of living possible... yet lack a purpose let alone a very strong purpose... and that will necessarily impact ones health & well being in a very negative way... thus decreasing ones standard of living. *"There’s nothing inherently special about ideas just because they are old."* Ideas, maybe not... a nation’s traditions(cultural or otherwise), YES THERE IS... the mere fact that they have last long enough to become *old* is likely perhaps due to them being good for the people's who they belong to, factoring in there age, then makes it inherently special to the people's who they belong to. *"As long as certain fundamental ideas can be preserved that have proven benefits, such as equality under the law, freedom of speech, and all that sort of thing, it seems that other concerns are simply irrelevant aesthetic preferences."* These... "fundamental ideas"... can only be preserved by rooting them in an institution, like we English have with Inns of Court. Aesthetic preferences... are literally not irrelevant... that which is of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste... Attractive or appealing... is such a fundamental to the human experience... its actually one of the few things the even come close to being *universal* (which is saying something there),... to just ignore such a fundamental to the human experience is very very inhuman... its very much what totalitarianism seeks to supress. *"’I'd argue that enforcement of a certain aesthetic preference by government apparatus is a form of totalitarianism as should be opposed. Freedom over feels, if you catch my drift. This is a beef I have with social conservatives."* Then you have little knowledge of totalitarianism then... totalitarianism dose not seek to enforcement of a certain aesthetic preference by government apparatus... they care very little for aesthetic preferences... unless they can use it for there own gain. Totalitarians have an aesthetic preference for totalitarianism... Liberals have an aesthetic preference for Liberalism, Classical Liberals have an aesthetic preference for Classical Liberalism... and so on and so forth... etc. etc. etc., and its enforced by government apparatus... or by social indoctrination... because ideologies are all born of the abstract... unlike a people's Traditions, which are born of real physical action and are products of may hands... not just one... and not by any philosopher... not by academics... but by people both high and low via real physical action... and not by reason... not by thinking... by doing and the continuity of doing.

Burke was a Whig not a Tory.

@foundationofBritain

Жыл бұрын

The Whig's were profoundly conservative... the 17th.c is the worst era in English history to draw from... its when imported foreign ideas like the Devine Right of Kings(which England & we English, did not have a tradition of)full came to being in England and was attempted to be forced on us English... which largely what the civil war was about... the foreign House of Stuart was/is an illegitimate royal line in England, as per Henry VIII's will, because they were foreign born... by Burke's time, although the Hanoverians were rightful & Legal royal line in England, Burke and others were still sceptical of the Tories at the time, because of their history of taking on imported foreign ideas like the Devine Right of Kings(which England & we English, did not have a tradition of), though the Hanoverians often preferred the Whig's. The *English* tradition... stretchers back, *first* to Sir Thomas Smith, who written the book... De Republica Anglorum: the Maner of Gouernement or Policie of the Realme of England, and was first published in1583... which illuminated(not created) the *English* Conservative Tradition... in fact in his book he described England as being a mixed government and a commonwealth, and stated that all commonwealths are of mixed character... this *English tradition* though goes even further back the Sir John Fortescue, and illuminated(not created) by his book... The Governance of England... and then deep in to the *English* medieval past... and it doesn't really change all that much. Sir John Fortescue was... *"Chief Justice of the King's Bench and was the author of De Laudibus Legum Angliae (Commendation of the Laws of England), first published posthumously circa 1543, an influential treatise on English law. In the course of Henry VI's reign, Fortescue was appointed one of the governors of Lincoln's Inn three times and served as a Member of Parliament from 1421 to 1437. He became one of the King's Serjeants during the Easter term of 1441, and subsequently served as Chief Justice of the King's Bench from 25 January 1442 to Easter term 1460."* Sir Thomas Smith was... *an English scholar, parliamentarian and diplomat."* And Locke was... *"an English philosopher and physician"* liberalism only goes as far back as Locke... the *English* Conservative Tradition stretchers back deep in to the *English* medieval past, and it doesn't really change all that much. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Smith_(diplomat) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fortescue_(judge) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2023/the-roots-of-conservatism/ kzread.info/dash/bejne/jKdhr7OLn6mbkZM.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/mnWW3JuTZdyXaNo.html

The guy in glasses? I would take some of his ideas for a grain of salt because he said Hitler wasn’t a nationalist... 🤦‍♂️

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

Hitler was not a nationalist. Where did you get the idea that he was?

@theparadigm8149

3 жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 He was a nationalist because he thought his nation, Germany, was superior to all other nations. A nationalist believes that their nation is superior to all others, and Hitler definitely thought that! You might say, “Hitler was an imperialist, NOT a nationalist!”, but he was both.

@MarloStanfield2211

3 жыл бұрын

@@theparadigm8149 That is a dumb and ill defined take on what nationalism is

@johnweber4577

3 жыл бұрын

@@theparadigm8149 That’s the definition of jingoism, not nationalism. But of course both can and have gone hand in hand.

@theparadigm8149

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnweber4577 Jingoism is basically extreme and militant nationalism, but I see what you mean. 👍

Such a tedious, pedantic, uninspiring, irrelevant, evasive answer.

@lifuranph.d.9440

4 жыл бұрын

[[[Yes]]]

@Katatawnic

4 жыл бұрын

Did he actually give an answer? I think I nodded off...

@dooglitas

4 жыл бұрын

@@Katatawnic LOL! Yeah, like, that was the longest 6-minute video ever.

The migration problem is bureaucrazy and the State.

Brilliant from Hazony

He said “Classical Liberalism can lead to all kinds of oppression”. Meanwhile, Conservatism, the Founding Father’s copy/pasting English common law as he put it, lead to the worst oppression ever - American style slavery! I’m not a “liberal” - nor a “conservative” in the Americanized sense, anyway, but he clearly has some blind spots!

@perperson199

2 жыл бұрын

I think the blind spots are with you

Except for videos on the brain differences between liberals & conservatives, can't find a video that is an in-depth, academic video explaining all the nuances of the topic under discussion. Not the superficial talk that permeate these videos.

… but the beauty were amendments.

6:24, you are wrong, classical liberals CAN answer that question. as a matter of a fact, the question won't exsit if there is no border of contries , there will be not tax, no welfare , only private charities. in another word, with the concept of public resources gone, the only reason people flood this "area", will be job and business oppotunities, which will contribute to the florish of the area.

Borders violate the non aggression principle according to many ancaps, also no what you are calling conservatives are more likely right leaning libertarians who while they believe in specific values doesn’t believe the government or anyone has the right to enforce those values on people who aren’t breaking the non aggression principle.

@dunconomics

4 жыл бұрын

National borders maybe. But an ancap would allow any property owner to secure their property or use a private security contractor (which could be called a government but would need to be voluntary).

@RichardCranium.

3 жыл бұрын

AnCap: "We should have open borders." Nationalists: "Have fun convincing ignorant people from the third world that have been indoctrinated from birth into their collectivist culture to become individualists."

@link8689

Жыл бұрын

let's go back to adam Smith his theory of basic public good government has an duty to protect its citizens from invaders. it basic household theory you have fence/wall/gate around your house, if an individual want to come in you knock on the front door first not come in through the back window.

@link8689

Жыл бұрын

@@dunconomics let's go back to adam Smith his theory of basic public good government has an duty to protect its citizens from invaders. it basic household theory you have fence/wall/gate around your house, if an individual want to come in you knock on the front door first not come in through the back window.

I’m a Clasical Liberal