Sorry to be so off topic but does someone know a method to log back into an instagram account? I was stupid forgot the password. I love any tricks you can give me.
@Darwin Landyn thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out now. Takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.
@Darwin Landyn DAMN IT REALLY WORKED! I literally got access to my ig account after ~ 45 mins by using the site. Just had to pay 15$ but definitely worth the money :) Thanks so much, you really help me out!
I wasn’t too political when I was young just a little bit here and there and I didn’t know where I fit in but a few years ago after seeing so many atrocious things happening and I had voted a few times left and right. Before. I found somebody that casually explained it to me and then I looked up classical liberalism and that’s where I fit in. So sometimes when I meet people, that aren’t really right and they’re not really left and they seem to want peace and they seem to have a good thoughts for their community. I ask them maybe you’re a classic a liberal should look it up because it’s hard to explain for me anyway. Thank you. Nice to see an explanation again
Political power is not just dangerous to freedom, it is the exact opposite. The more political power there is, the less freedom. That is an axiom, like 2+2=4.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +2
So freedom of selling poison and ban public health to investigate and inform the public should be upheld for the sake of freedom?
@ I think there is a certain level of government necessary it should be banned to sell poison but we also shouldnt have mandatory public healthcare paid by taxes healthcare should always be voluntary
Monopolies are almost impossible to achieve without the government's help. The government is a friend to corporations. The only difference between the parties is which companies they help when they are in power.
mixmastermeeks Umm... Standard Oil is the quickest example I can think of to counter your statement. In fact, the government tried to dismantle that monopoly, but, as is typical of government intervention, the results were 'not as intended'.
Banks did make loans to people they were aware had a high likelihood of not being payed back, but they were required (by a law passed under Clinton) to have portfolios where a certain percentage of loans were given to people of lower-class or impoverished incomes. Clinton also passed a law which gave people the ability to put no money down on a loan. When they had nothing to lose, this made people more likely to take out loans they were aware they might not be able to pay back - go figure.
A large segment of these people were pursued and convinced that they should refinance their homes. There was tremendous incentive to do this for short term gain because they knew there was precident for a bail out going back to massive deregulation in the 70s and 80’sand the S&L debacle.
I will add growing up I loved Ancient history from the time I was three years old so that’s all I took mostly in high school with science and ancient history and humanities classes. Art.. I didn’t take political science. To be honest when I was younger, I didn’t like American history. I would see those men in wigs and tights and I just thought it was weird and I just didn’t get it was odd to me..not just American history that’s history that was going on during that time French revolution similar the way they dressed, etc. English. so it took me a while to figure it out. I always had my thoughts about political leaders in the late 70s and 80s Gut feeling usually. As a young person. It just took me a while to figure out who I am and where I belong if I had to fit in that’s where I fit in. So I could vote either way depending on the candidate but at this point, I would probably be more conservative about voting because it what’s going on in the world right now and have voted more conservative mostly.
That one corporation being the government, which has no ties to the ebb and flow of consumer demand. The most common example being too many public employees in one sector, too few in another, and then some who are completely superfluous because their status as an employee is nearly fully removed from their usefulness.
". . . while the government is an ally of the individual." Where did you get that silly idea? Surely not from the government's renege upon habeas corpus, the right to a trial, the right to privacy, the right to sovereignty over one's body, etc. Not to mention the fact that government meddling in the markets contributes to the formation of these transnational corporate monopolies and their survival through corporate socialism.
Listening to the economics section about virtous ethics of free exchange it feels out of touch with reality since most people havent cultivated themselves higher than just wanting more for themselves so its kinda moot to bang on about some ideal world of virtous trade when 90% of people are in survival mode.
I think that we need to scale down. The huge societies that we have built (that suffer from the innate demographic problems that stem from overpopulation), are based on old concepts of work (which at that time was ample because poor technology and the need to build infrastructure). We don't need as many people now. Work is thinking work, not manual labor where many hands are needed.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +3
There is a difference between liberty of the individual and liberty of a corporation. Between liberty of a small business and a multi national business. The speech fails to take in to account that freedom cant be limitless. Because the freedom of one limits the freedom of the other.
@@TheAndrassy1985 Adam Smith argues that big businesses shouldn't exist and should either be broken up or purchased and ran by the state. If you would like the answer to your question you can read about it from Adam Smith himself in The Wealth of Nations.
the only monopolies that are possible without government intervention are creative monopolies like Google, Apple in the 2000's or Microsoft in the 90's. Peter Thiel who is a Libertarian introduces the idea of a pure kind of monopoly in his amazing book Zero to One , a "creative monopoly" which ultimately benefits the public through its innovation instead of relying on government help or illegal bullying. In fact he goes so far as to argue that capitalism and competition are opposites, so if you're an entrepreneur you should always aspire to some sort of monopoly, to make something so unique and valuable that it ends up having little to no competition, I happen to think this would not only be great for someone who wants to become wealthy but also of great benefit to society as we'd create much more wealth and prosperity
These so called "creative monopolies" you are talking about are due to intellectual property rights (and their abuse/misuse). And all the IP rights enforcement is done by government. So, nope. intervention.
And these creative monopolies are engaged in unethical practices such as breach of privacy, censorship etc, they are doing this because people don't have a viable alternatives to them, and that's because of IP laws. Austro-libertarians is probably the only capitalist school of economics that opposes the very concept of Intellectual property.
Well that is just kind of incongruent given that all of those companies receive government funding and other means of support and protection. Not only that but this understanding completely ignores the relationship of labor, wage worker, and owner. Though you would classify their monopoly as different, their power over labor as a monopoly is still detrimental to workers and their liberty and happiness regardless of the potential benefits to society the goods that they produce have except for when those benefits are directly tied to labor (e.g. tractors making farming easier). However there too there is potential and historical precedent of labor being cut rather than eased (i.e. starting with 200 workers a business cuts their force to 50 rather than given those 200 workers better pay and or less hours due to the savings due to increased profits, reduced costs, etc). I don't see any justification or benefit of a monopoly for the majority of people that can't be realized through more democratic means of production.
Creative? Nearly all of the technological advancements have come through publicly funded research before being used by private companies. Furthermore, classical liberalism is very much opposed to centralized control in any form. The multinational corporations we have now did not yet exist in Mills day
You can see where socialism evolved from classical liberalism as liberalism was the most progressive thought at the time, the period of enlightenment. It's very interesting to hear the speaker say that it is the workers who are the most important part of the society. It seems like anyone today who doesn't at least identify as a leftist would say the owner class is the most important part, and even many leftists who aren't actual socialists would likely deem the two as equally important. So true liberals and socialists would have that in common, however you begin to see the flaws of classical liberalism immediately as industrialization takes off worldwide and one begins to understand that heavy regulation is necessary to protect the most important part of any system as the speaker mentions here, the workers who produce the goods and services that make up our society. That's where Keynsian theory comes in and the New Deal liberals are formed. The socialists argument being that government politics are unstable and capitalism itself is a destructive force and so even when heavily regulated the system will eventually revert back to deregulation and this cycle will continue until a social revolution changes the workers relationship with their labor and production and seizes the ownership of those means of production for they are the ones most capable of producing what is necessary for life and happiness.
In some countries your taxes are used to provide public healthcare. Is it right that your taxes to towards paying for other people's treatment for drugs, alcoholism, etc.? I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that that's a part of where the money goes.
the exact opposite can be said, what might be good for the society can be harmful to the individual. I think what is demonstrable is that what the rulers or the majority of society prescribe as good for the whole is in fact far more commonly harmful to large numbers of individuals than what an individual can do to a society.
he's explaining classical liberalism which has a large emphasis on individualism. Classical liberals do make arguments about how elevating a class of people may be necessary even if it harms the whole, so there is some collectivist thinking from the classical liberals. However, individual liberties are always very highly elevated, and the idea of the classical liberals is that restricting liberties is more harmful than any benefit you might get from an authoritarian state. So long as individuals do no harm to others the classical liberals would argue their individual rights must be protected and cannot be infringed on. Not sure why you came to a presentation on the basics of classical liberalism expecting ideas counter to classical liberalism to be discussed?
Sounds like so many mainstream (text)books out there.. I'm curious if today, twelve year later and with the world pushed even further down the line towards global conflagration, this admirer of all things liberal would still be singing the same sweet academic neoliberal tune..
That voice is GODLY!
Sorry to be so off topic but does someone know a method to log back into an instagram account?
I was stupid forgot the password. I love any tricks you can give me.
@Korbin Fox Instablaster :)
@Darwin Landyn thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out now.
Takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.
@Darwin Landyn DAMN IT REALLY WORKED! I literally got access to my ig account after ~ 45 mins by using the site.
Just had to pay 15$ but definitely worth the money :)
Thanks so much, you really help me out!
@Korbin Fox Glad I could help :D
First 5 minutes alone answered so many questions that I had.
True, classical liberalism is not only economic liberalism
I wasn’t too political when I was young just a little bit here and there and I didn’t know where I fit in but a few years ago after seeing so many atrocious things happening and I had voted a few times left and right. Before. I found somebody that casually explained it to me and then I looked up classical liberalism and that’s where I fit in. So sometimes when I meet people, that aren’t really right and they’re not really left and they seem to want peace and they seem to have a good thoughts for their community. I ask them maybe you’re a classic a liberal should look it up because it’s hard to explain for me anyway. Thank you. Nice to see an explanation again
is it just me or does this guy have a perfect presenter voice?
The audio quality is quite poor
Political power is not just dangerous to freedom, it is the exact opposite.
The more political power there is, the less freedom. That is an axiom, like 2+2=4.
So freedom of selling poison and ban public health to investigate and inform the public should be upheld for the sake of freedom?
@ I think there is a certain level of government necessary it should be banned to sell poison but we also shouldnt have mandatory public healthcare paid by taxes healthcare should always be voluntary
@ Why shouldn't you be free to sell poison?
@your dumb strawman is made of straw
Monopolies are almost impossible to achieve without the government's help. The government is a friend to corporations. The only difference between the parties is which companies they help when they are in power.
mixmastermeeks Umm... Standard Oil is the quickest example I can think of to counter your statement. In fact, the government tried to dismantle that monopoly, but, as is typical of government intervention, the results were 'not as intended'.
have you ever been on the internet? TH-cam is a monopoly
Microsoft is a very aggressive monopoly.
@@jeppep95 It is not
@@Ch1l3n0DxR0 who really competes?
Outstanding talk!
So sad how far the left had diverged from liberalism.
the world needs more liberalism.
Classical only
yes for the average worker
This is out-fucking-standing...
this is a great video
Very informative! will look into this ideology furthermore
Love Steve Davies!
Internet has changed the world in a way that government policy can only dream of.
Banks did make loans to people they were aware had a high likelihood of not being payed back, but they were required (by a law passed under Clinton) to have portfolios where a certain percentage of loans were given to people of lower-class or impoverished incomes. Clinton also passed a law which gave people the ability to put no money down on a loan. When they had nothing to lose, this made people more likely to take out loans they were aware they might not be able to pay back - go figure.
All following bank lobbying
A large segment of these people were pursued and convinced that they should refinance their homes. There was tremendous incentive to do this for short term gain because they knew there was precident for a bail out going back to massive deregulation in the 70s and 80’sand the S&L debacle.
I will add growing up I loved Ancient history from the time I was three years old so that’s all I took mostly in high school with science and ancient history and humanities classes. Art.. I didn’t take political science. To be honest when I was younger, I didn’t like American history. I would see those men in wigs and tights and I just thought it was weird and I just didn’t get it was odd to me..not just American history that’s history that was going on during that time French revolution similar the way they dressed, etc. English. so it took me a while to figure it out. I always had my thoughts about political leaders in the late 70s and 80s Gut feeling usually. As a young person. It just took me a while to figure out who I am and where I belong if I had to fit in that’s where I fit in. So I could vote either way depending on the candidate but at this point, I would probably be more conservative about voting because it what’s going on in the world right now and have voted more conservative mostly.
The sad thing is that “Liberal” is a bad word in America today.
Trudeau in Canada has made "Liberal" an even worst word. 🟥🍁🟥 Pierre Poilievre 2025
Thank you..
One facet of the Enlightenment. Has great similarities to the ideas of Science, but not actual alignment.
Excellent content
That one corporation being the government, which has no ties to the ebb and flow of consumer demand. The most common example being too many public employees in one sector, too few in another, and then some who are completely superfluous because their status as an employee is nearly fully removed from their usefulness.
the same applies to many big private coorperations as they become monopolies
Love this
I always like saying I am an anti-communist democrat. This sounds better.
I tell people I'm a real liberal. Not a neomarxist communist who hides under the title of liberal.
@@kevinvolk8846 communists do not hide under the title of liberal. Communists fucking hate liberals. What are you smoking?
Communism is democratic authoritarianism...
". . . while the government is an ally of the individual."
Where did you get that silly idea? Surely not from the government's renege upon habeas corpus, the right to a trial, the right to privacy, the right to sovereignty over one's body, etc. Not to mention the fact that government meddling in the markets contributes to the formation of these transnational corporate monopolies and their survival through corporate socialism.
Listening to the economics section about virtous ethics of free exchange it feels out of touch with reality since most people havent cultivated themselves higher than just wanting more for themselves so its kinda moot to bang on about some ideal world of virtous trade when 90% of people are in survival mode.
Fantastic
what do you do when you reject all of liberalism but am born into a liberal society and you are stuck with it.
cope and seethe
@@anyershaman1735 Excellent answer lmao
I think that we need to scale down. The huge societies that we have built (that suffer from the innate demographic problems that stem from overpopulation), are based on old concepts of work (which at that time was ample because poor technology and the need to build infrastructure). We don't need as many people now. Work is thinking work, not manual labor where many hands are needed.
There is a difference between liberty of the individual and liberty of a corporation. Between liberty of a small business and a multi national business. The speech fails to take in to account that freedom cant be limitless. Because the freedom of one limits the freedom of the other.
How do big business"s freedom limits small business"s freedom under the precondition that same rules are applied to both sides?
@@TheAndrassy1985 big buisness limit individual freedom
@@TheAndrassy1985 monopoly
@@TheAndrassy1985 Adam Smith argues that big businesses shouldn't exist and should either be broken up or purchased and ran by the state.
If you would like the answer to your question you can read about it from Adam Smith himself in The Wealth of Nations.
it seemed like he was just trying to use revisionist theories to turn classical liberalism into an argument for socialism
never mind im and idiot and I misunderstood
the only monopolies that are possible without government intervention are creative monopolies like Google, Apple in the 2000's or Microsoft in the 90's.
Peter Thiel who is a Libertarian introduces the idea of a pure kind of monopoly in his amazing book Zero to One , a "creative monopoly" which ultimately benefits the public through its innovation instead of relying on government help or illegal bullying. In fact he goes so far as to argue that capitalism and competition are opposites, so if you're an entrepreneur you should always aspire to some sort of monopoly, to make something so unique and valuable that it ends up having little to no competition, I happen to think this would not only be great for someone who wants to become wealthy but also of great benefit to society as we'd create much more wealth and prosperity
These so called "creative monopolies" you are talking about are due to intellectual property rights (and their abuse/misuse). And all the IP rights enforcement is done by government. So, nope. intervention.
And these creative monopolies are engaged in unethical practices such as breach of privacy, censorship etc, they are doing this because people don't have a viable alternatives to them, and that's because of IP laws.
Austro-libertarians is probably the only capitalist school of economics that opposes the very concept of Intellectual property.
Well that is just kind of incongruent given that all of those companies receive government funding and other means of support and protection. Not only that but this understanding completely ignores the relationship of labor, wage worker, and owner. Though you would classify their monopoly as different, their power over labor as a monopoly is still detrimental to workers and their liberty and happiness regardless of the potential benefits to society the goods that they produce have except for when those benefits are directly tied to labor (e.g. tractors making farming easier). However there too there is potential and historical precedent of labor being cut rather than eased (i.e. starting with 200 workers a business cuts their force to 50 rather than given those 200 workers better pay and or less hours due to the savings due to increased profits, reduced costs, etc). I don't see any justification or benefit of a monopoly for the majority of people that can't be realized through more democratic means of production.
Creative? Nearly all of the technological advancements have come through publicly funded research before being used by private companies. Furthermore, classical liberalism is very much opposed to centralized control in any form. The multinational corporations we have now did not yet exist in Mills day
👌
You can see where socialism evolved from classical liberalism as liberalism was the most progressive thought at the time, the period of enlightenment. It's very interesting to hear the speaker say that it is the workers who are the most important part of the society. It seems like anyone today who doesn't at least identify as a leftist would say the owner class is the most important part, and even many leftists who aren't actual socialists would likely deem the two as equally important.
So true liberals and socialists would have that in common, however you begin to see the flaws of classical liberalism immediately as industrialization takes off worldwide and one begins to understand that heavy regulation is necessary to protect the most important part of any system as the speaker mentions here, the workers who produce the goods and services that make up our society. That's where Keynsian theory comes in and the New Deal liberals are formed. The socialists argument being that government politics are unstable and capitalism itself is a destructive force and so even when heavily regulated the system will eventually revert back to deregulation and this cycle will continue until a social revolution changes the workers relationship with their labor and production and seizes the ownership of those means of production for they are the ones most capable of producing what is necessary for life and happiness.
This is Ketz motel, im Katz
This video it doesnt explains almost nothing about the history of classical liberalism.
Learn English
So if one uses one's liberty to become morbidly obese through junk food are others obliged to sponsor that through taxes?
In some countries your taxes are used to provide public healthcare. Is it right that your taxes to towards paying for other people's treatment for drugs, alcoholism, etc.? I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that that's a part of where the money goes.
@@nyrtzi a classical liberal would say no. Freedom requires responsibility.
@@runemborg excellent comment! Freedom indeed requires responsibility
He didnt realy talk that much about the history, imo
was hoping to learn, was bored to death instead
I think what this man completely missed is that we live in a society, and what might be good for the individual can be harmful to the whole.
the exact opposite can be said, what might be good for the society can be harmful to the individual. I think what is demonstrable is that what the rulers or the majority of society prescribe as good for the whole is in fact far more commonly harmful to large numbers of individuals than what an individual can do to a society.
he's explaining classical liberalism which has a large emphasis on individualism. Classical liberals do make arguments about how elevating a class of people may be necessary even if it harms the whole, so there is some collectivist thinking from the classical liberals. However, individual liberties are always very highly elevated, and the idea of the classical liberals is that restricting liberties is more harmful than any benefit you might get from an authoritarian state. So long as individuals do no harm to others the classical liberals would argue their individual rights must be protected and cannot be infringed on.
Not sure why you came to a presentation on the basics of classical liberalism expecting ideas counter to classical liberalism to be discussed?
Wow, so many contradictions. "Spontaneous social process" but it has to be promoted by "institutions"...
He speaks too slowly and you can hear his mouth fluids when he speaks. I cannot listen.
Speed up the video
Sounds like so many mainstream (text)books out there.. I'm curious if today, twelve year later and with the world pushed even further down the line towards global conflagration, this admirer of all things liberal would still be singing the same sweet academic neoliberal tune..