วีดีโอ

I’ve ordered this book and look forward to reading it. The idea of the corporation as an extension of state power is a critical one. So much wealth and power are accumulated through the activities of huge multinational corporations that should worry anyone concerned with human freedom and dignity. It must be remembered that this concentrated power does not simply just give these corporations vast influence over the law making and law enforcing powers of government and our economy (over how and where we work and what goods and services are readily available for us to buy.) Those same power give corporations immense power over our culture which means our way of seeing ourselves and our possibilities. This is the type of concentrated power that the framers of the US Constitution (many of whom were quite wary about the corporate monopolies associated with the British Crown and Parliament) could hardly have imagined. It is the type of power that would have horrified them, and that they would have scrambled to try to check. A generation (40 years in the mid 70s) ago, a reasonable conservative could reasonably argue that the regulatory framework set up by the New Deal was MORE than sufficient to prevent corporate power from being too dominant over government and society. In fact they successfully argued that protections against unwise speculation of bank deposits along with protections for workers, consumers, and communities, could be scaled back so that everyone would benefit in the long term and any short term dislocations would be temporary. Today , given what has happened, this is not a tenable position and those who advocate private profit for the few at any cost no longer bother with rational arguments but stoke up divisions and confusions based on primitive trumped up notions of nationalist, religious, class, and racial resentments. It isn’t that corporations are evil or are an enemy. Nor should the wealthy(or anyone else) be scapegoated. It’s not just that our legal and regulatory framework needs to be adjusted so that corporations (and the wealthy) are held to account to the different levels of government (from towns and localities to international trade regimes), but also to workers, consumers, the communities they impact, and perhaps even to certain notions of our planetary future. It’s also key that in our societies we develop a deeper sense of how corporate power can be used and misused. The arc of justice can bend and we all have a role in how it will be formed, reformed, or deformed.

These guys could get themselves into trouble when they talk about a “free” market without the right context. In an original sense there was never (and could never be) anything like a “free market” if that means the absence of government, laws, and regulations. This is because it has almost always been government, laws, and regulations that create markets. And even when governments (sovereigns acting out of democratic or imperial interests) don’t orignally create a market, the state with its regulations is the only way to sustain a market and this is also true to a very large extent when it comes to helping markets survive in changing circumstances whether those changes are intrinsic to the market processes themselves or caused by extrinsic factors. Government regulations, after all, include all kinds of protections that benefit those who conduct business in those markets, helping to insulate them from force and fraud. The question about “corporate responsibility” is about strengthening other classes of PROTECTIONS for consumers, workers, and communities (including the environment) which, if you think about it, are all necessary for profit making businesses to be sustainable in the long run rather than exploitative (intentionally or not) in the short run. Of course, there is another sense where the term “Free” market does have some validity in that once a regime of laws and regulations are established, they should be administered fairly and without favor. It is also important that there be some stability to any such regime so that businesses have something of a planning horizon. This is also important for the idea of “legitimacy” and the author is correct to consider a corporation as a “carve out” of government power, but that is a lengthy topic in and of itself.

My experience with businesses was thru the Water Quality Management Planning process in a municipally-driven regional planning agency doing a plan to insure surface and ground water quality as the population grew. In the ‘70s, the law held businesses responsible for the environmental degration their operations resulted in, and required them to ameliorate the adverse consequences of those business operations, rather than make the public, or the “commons,” by default responsible for their degradation. The law has substantially morphed to the current collective view that businesses no longer have that kind of social responsibility, and are, as Milton Friedman has argued, only responsible to their shareholders for their performance at increasing business profits.

Less codification of personhood than the financial commodification of people. The purposeful orientation of these typologies is a distortion of what interest in interiority might be, which is individual meaning-making!

Education is more than career preparation (characteriological typologies), as Erasmus Humanists knew and Noam Chomsky well knows. We are paying the cultural price for our failures to educate persons beyond their vocational survivals!

Michael Lind's essay on the politics of factions called Wingnuts v. Factions (23 May 2022) neatly articulates a theory of state that I've held for 20 years. I wish very much that the theory he outlines there could be applied to Neo-Realist IR. I think Chomsky attempted to do this but his particular treatments rely too greatly on monolithic class actors, whereas Lind's elite factions are much more in line with my ideas - kind of like a chiseled version of Chomsky's characterizations of political agents.

Ada Indonesia cuy!

thank you

Hope or not, still we must tend the garden. That mindset's helped at least me me through the low points. Embrace the grim heroism.

That’s the most pretentious, largest podium I’ve ever seen.

Are most Americans on both the left and right europhobic? The left out of a spirit of disliking most things associated with whiteness, colonialism, conquistadors, Christianity, World wars. The right out of a spirit of American exceptionalism, the European welfare state, a fear of becoming a continent of petty warring countries, faithless, confident less, once powerful now powerless, I think both Democrats, Republicans, and the American way are fast tracking this country into looking like one giant ugly McMansion, strip mall, parking lot, fat, selfish, lonely, annoying, mindless, boring, inelegant ridden Hellhole!

Six months later and zero comments? C'est trop bizarre. Is this discussion perhaps a little top heavy? Spare us more Doctors of Philosophy and Theology. But surely they were trying to say something meaningful. This we should apprehend and perhaps applaud. Mr. Robinson is a most articulate, sensible and balanced host. One suspects 'Sacred' is little more than an artifact of a Culture groping, then struggling for legitimacy and dominance. Race and Racism are written into the US Constitution. Should We the People 'Apologize' to ourselves? Is The Law an artifact of Culture? One caller asked the question and they both stumbled, then tried to answer. Apparently that question dragged them 'off script'. Someone's gonna have to start addressing these fundamental conflicts. Incorporated Constitutional Fascism is breaking out all over America. One can teach History within certain cultural contexts, but one cannot 'teach' culture. It can ONLY be lived, acted out, indoctrinated, transmitted, then re-lived thru tribal, familial inherently political 'cultural' values. Heaven, Hell, Good, Evil and last but not least, The Word of God thus the 'Kingdom of God' are rhetorical abstractions and cultural artifacts.

Church does not belong in Political affairs.

I do have a question. A comparison is made of abuses in liberal society and conservative society. But how do you get all the statistics? Maybe in liberal society clear statistics are available and conservative society things are hidden under the carpet. So how can we rely on the comparison!

Prof. Lears believes that Prof. Deneen is on the independent left. But Prof. Deneen seemingly wants to conserve or to restore, say, community solidarity, localism, a sense of moral obligation, small business, maybe subsidiarity, and more. Prof. I agree with Prof. Deneen on most points he makes in his lecture. But I think I'm a post-liberal, traditionalist, throne-and-altar conservative monarchist. So I don't want to be on the left.

I think the ego desires to prove our competence in "owning" the particular engine. The desire to be the THE one to build the THE most "x" version of your particular favorite platform. The ego wants to conquer the motor, and when you have, and stated loudly that you have--- proudly, the next person gets one more hp or pound foot from it. It's crushing.

I love your essay! It's SOO good!

We cannot listen well

Great talk. Reminds me a lot of Dewey's "Art as experience." Really well spoken - the detached scientific "view from nowhere" is seen as objective and objectivity is seen as better than subjectivity. But involvement, learning, care, etc, all require us to merge with reality through our subjective valuations and judgments. I think our notion of self is too highly abstract and segmented, and thus healing is seen in a sort of psycho-analytic sense, whereas true healing is largely built upon a change of attitude and relationship with our own experience/world.

Interesting. I teach in several engineering schools here in Paris and of course the students all love the idea of driverless cars. When I point out how important the illusion of freedom driving gives us they get a miffed. Then I point out how the yellow vest movement is just a taste of what's to come and how it is a direct challenge to the green movement. People here hate to hear that and instead love to waffle on about economics which is part of it but simply doesn't come close to explaining that extra zing "les vestes jaune" that other movements can only dream of.

You need help Philip seek it. Your brain is fried

📙💯

Professor Science Technology Engineering Mathematics give you Power. You have to Learn that or you will Beaten.

This is fascinating. I appreciate having a context within which to understand the growing pains cities endure and to learn how to think about ways to ease them.

I really appreciate these lectures by William Galston. Yeah I'm biased because I am a "pluralist" and even worse, a "liberal." But there we are.

Eliminare la dimensione metafisica significa escludere una parte viva della vita dell'uomo

Rolling out old liberty again to obfuscate the real process of statecraft in the country. The Elite have their meal ticket and the lawyers cash it in. What guides that process is legacy, power, family, aesthetics aim for the burning flames of purifying the world. Will the wronged have their revenge in court or in nature tomorrow is really the question everyone is avoiding. That would take shining the light on those that hide in the dark, and do we really expect to come up with the incentive to make that adjustment of our courts and law enforcement? Will anyone pay for those peoples lives and will history reveal the blood trails.

"That government is best which governs least...", found in Henry David Thoreau's 's Civil Disobedience. Thoreau was apparently paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and The United States Magazine and Democratic Reviewa periodical published from 1837 to 1859 by John L. O'Sullivan. Its motto, "The best government is that which governs least", was famously paraphrased by Henry David Thoreau in "Resistance to Civil Government", better known as Civil Disobedience, There is a problem with the phrase. "Least" is a relative term and it requires a predicate, the least to do what? Socialists sincerely believe the least is government control of all. Capitalist, Communist, and Anarchist sincerely believe it is no government at all. To argue for more than is necessary is to argue for waste, nobody argues for waste. If we go to the Declaration of Independence and its purpose of government, and our Preamble, can we accept Thoreau's principle and join the two sides of liberalism? Can we look to our founding documents and define the predicate?

Life is a mountain that the individual must climb. When it rains along the way, he can do nothing to make the rain fall up no matter how much he may want it to.

Mr. Deneen needs to visit POLAND and HUNGARY in his other video he made some not so nice comments related to Il-liberal-liberal-Canada vs. Hungary. He needs to visit Eastern Europe and see that our version of DEMOCRACY is in line with Catholic Teachings and is WORKING!

His dichotomy of Liberalism is not entirely correct....Progressives are against the US Constitution as it presently exists....Emphasis on Democracy should concern all humans who will be destroyed one at a time as each new majority arises. The Conservative variant of Liberalism is never given due diligence by even centrist academics...they all appear to powerful blind spots in their academic rigour. Napoleon Hill's book Laws of Success basically provides the road map to being/becoming a decent, humble, disciplined professional.....Mixed with Peter Drucker's books about Business Management/Entrepreneurship/Innovation. Lastly force the Demon-crats to stop supporting all the anti-life philosophies and life avoidance policies.

I Love it everyday Prezzy Trump wakes up and kicks all of Wash DC & every Liberal right square in the balls as hard as he can and repeats it all day long then tomorrow he'll wake up and do it all over again...LOLOL

"Which side of the ship will sink?" Indeed!

Our Founding Fathers recognized it is God (With the capital G), not Caesar, John Locke, or King John, Who Has Endowed us with our unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty, and to The Pursuit of Happiness, thus our Founding Fathers recognized the self-evident truth that, even in a plauralistic society, our Human Dignity comes from having been Created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as a beloved son or daughter, Willed by God, worthy of Redemption."When God is denied, Human Dignity disappears", and I would add, humankind's Faith and reason.

Vladimir Putin is a killer

46.50 a patina of social justice

15.45 gold

12:30 "Statism is that which enables individualism and individualism demands statism....". F.A. Hayek in his essay "Individualism: True and False" pointed out that the individualism that Professor Deneen is criticizing is the rationalism that came out of the French Enlightenment. However, another individualism, a true one, is one that does not reject community and other social institutions, or what Burke called, "little platoons". Hayek writes the following: What, then, are the essential characteristics of true individualism?The first thing that should be said is that it is primarily a theory of society, an attempt to understand the forces which determine the social life of man, and only in the second instance a set of political maxims derived from this view of society. This fact should by itself be sufficient to refute the silliest of the common misunderstandings: the belief that individualism postulates (or bases its arguments on the assumption of) the existence of isolated or self-contained individuals, instead of starting from men whose whole nature and character is determined by their existence in society. If that were true, it would indeed have nothing to contribute to our understanding of society. But its basic contention is quite a different one; it is that there is no other way toward an understanding of social phenomena but through our understanding of individual actions directed toward other people and guided by their expected behavior. This argument is directed primarily against the properly collectivist theories of society which pretend to be able directly to comprehend social wholes like society, etc., as entities sui generis which exist independently of the individuals which compose them. The next step in the individualistic analysis of society, however, is directed against the rationalistic pseudo-individualism which also leads to practical collectivism. It is the contention that, by tracing the combined effects of individual actions, we discover that many of the institutions on which human achievements rest have arisen and are functioning without a designing and directing mind" So as a conservative Im not prepared to write off individualism or blame it for failures but I want to make the distinctions that Hayek did. Profesor Deneen has just one view of individaulsm, a false one according to Hayek. As for Locke, one of the great Locke scholars, Wilmoore Kendall, disagreed with a false individualistic reading of Locke.