Today the term Liberal is meant as an insult, but by the classical definition, a liberal is a term of intelligence and grace.

Friedman is one major reason I call myself a “classical liberal” and I’m proud of it.

What happened to distrust in government? Let's go back to that.

This is a must watch video for both the Left and Right.

Government could be so simple based on these principles. It's like the Business Model Canvas for government. We don't need such elaborate systems to control everything...

Professor Friedman is so soft spoken

If he was not my father's age and married, I'd marry this guy. Ok, scratch that. If he was not married and, sadly gone, I'd marry the guy. I DO love him and how lucky we were to have him. His wife was lucky too!

THIS is liberalism.

Without North Sea oil reserves, Norway it´s nothing. Oil it´s the main source of their wealth. Besides, this country only have a little bit more than five million people citizen to be fed (including inmigrants). Without the petroleum, their GDP would fall more than a half. So tell me my red friend...who is the norwegian Steve Jobs? who is the norwegian Mark Zuckerberg? who is the norwegian Henry Ford? They created jobs for their ideas,not the big brother system, whether you like it or not.

M’Kay oh mr Mackey soundin ahhhh

Can anyone help me please, I can't understand what he says when he say the dictionary definition of liberalism, it seems to be "othoem pertaining to freedom" but it doesn't have any sense... Help please! 😭

@BenTheHenAgain

7 жыл бұрын

I don't know if you care anymore but he said, "of and pertaining to freedom"

@DrPeabrain

7 жыл бұрын

'of or pertaining to freedom'

@BenTheHenAgain

7 жыл бұрын

shit that's what I meant to write

@francismendy1398

7 жыл бұрын

ElsenyoPol Liberalism by definition refers to a collection of political ideologies that promote freedom and equality.

@DrPeabrain

7 жыл бұрын

'of or pertaining to freedom'

when you say "WE are liberal, they are progressive socialists", who are they "we" and who are "the progressive socialists"?

Milton Friedman advocates Classical Liberalism? Noam Chomsky said that Milton Friedman is an advocate of Neoliberalism

@bell191991

9 жыл бұрын

Milton Friedman believes in Classical Liberalism, particularly Laissez-Faire Economics. Neoliberalism is the name of the movement that he caused by advocating those beliefs in the public sphere during the 70s and 80s.

@Adrian-dl9nb

5 жыл бұрын

In Spanish, "Neoliberalismo" it's a one-size-fits-all to describe anything you don't like.

@ilcastilho

5 жыл бұрын

@@bell191991 Not really. Margaret Thatcher wasn't liberal, nor was Ronald Reagan, for example. It seems to be a way of offend someone. There isn't neoliberal authors, and there isn't neoliberal politics. Both of them were like conservative, fought against drugs, were against(or didn't talked about it) homossexual marriage, raised taxes and the participation of government on economy.

@tommyrosati9326

4 жыл бұрын

Guilherme Castilho Reagan didn’t raise taxes?

what facts??? Emotional facts??...sounds to me like Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler method?

classic liberalism is essentially libertarianism

@Gaboxxy96

6 жыл бұрын

Michael Rocha not really. In most of the world liberalism means the same as it has always meant. Only a handful of countries (like the US) deformed its meaning. That being said, there are differences between the two ideologies, the biggest being that libertarism always sees the government/state as a necessary evil, but evil nevertheless; in fact the uthopia of libertarism its pretty much individual anarchisim. Liberalism on the other hand does not see the government as inherently bad or incompetent; yes, it has to be small, but it has clear objectives and purpose. Both doctrined though agree that the government should stay away from people's lives, and that individuals should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone but themselves.

@albertabramson3157

6 жыл бұрын

The two ideas are so close that even many libertarians confuse them. On the form of government, classical liberalism lends itself to federalism. Liberals evolved during the 19th century to favor a very limited safety net for those unable to work due to old age or disability.

@SteveScapesYT

6 жыл бұрын

Nah, the libertarians just want to shrink gov so small it can’t even do those 3 things- in an era when doing those 3 things is getting more and more complicated.

@AkulaSriRahul

6 жыл бұрын

Not so much. Libertarianism is a very broad spectrum and a lot of them are anarchists and then there is left and right libertarianism where the former wants to have state control and the latter wants govt out of control or very small (minarchists )

@Adrian-dl9nb

5 жыл бұрын

@@AkulaSriRahul That doesn't make it right or left...

Not true. Classical liberalism was concerned with freedom of man. Before massive concentrations of private unaccountable undemocratic wealth, government and church were the primary constraints on human freedom. Now with private capital dominating our lives and government, any true classical liberal would critique them as well. Look up Noam Chomsky on classical liberalism for more on this.

Norway is considered a "socialist" country when they are not but they have many socialist things...and they have the biggest social mobility, the best quality of life from the World, they are one of the best in the transparency Rank, economic freedom, etc thing that your beloved liberalism never did...

@toukka4

5 жыл бұрын

They have oil. Hence can afford an social wellfare state...

@Matias Nope The concrete bound idea that you are expressing is exactly what is wrong with the world today. Please sit down and have a long thought about how you intend to utilise facts without first utilising your brain.

You can tried to manipulate the the core of the discussion but i'm not buying it, it is very clear i meant the liberalism as socioeconomic and political doctrine... Didn't you read communism?

¿? HAHAHA you don't know anything about communism haha, did you know in communism there is no states?, ergo no governments there is no social clases, nor cult of any person or culture, etc if you think all that happen in the Soviet Unión, Vietnam, Cambodia "and others" then you don't know about history neither... And ¿China? you really said that? China? China is one of the most liberal countries of the world about economy...don't be naive

@juliussw9153

5 жыл бұрын

Matt Knows What eventually happens in every country that tries out marxism is that it ends up with a bureaucratic and centrally planned economy (what happened in all of the countries you named). If you actually want left-libertarianism/anarchism to work, you need to work on a level that is much smaller than a country. In order for anarchism to work, you need a direct consensus democracy, which is impossible with a population, that’s over 10.000 people.

let me tell you, Liberalism and communism are the same thing the only difference is the perspective, the liberal perspective believes in individualism, the communist perspective believes in communitarianism, but they both dislike the government, they both promulgate solidarity, they both promulgate cooperation, freedom, etc...I hope you don't think the Soviet Union was communist