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!
joebonsaipoland Nonsense. Poland and Hungary have populist governments with terrible foreign policy, nepotistic and crony bureaucracies, bad environmental policies, and no respect for the letter or the sprit of the law in regards to the separation of powers or treatment of independent media. If there’s any part of Catholicism they represent (although populism only masquerades as an ideology but is really all about staying in power) it would be the medieval one with an official religious establishment in support of the government, little respect for individual rights, and no respect for institutions.
@@bodbn Doesn't seem like speculation to me. He doesn't provide examples but it is at least consistent with a version of what could be going on in those countries.
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.
I think that's interesting... Regarding what Hayek said... I think his error is towards the end: "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" For me this seems dreamy by Hayek. It sounds like capitalist utopia, and putting faith in the goodness of human beings. What of greed? Pride? Selfishness? Regarding the quote, it is more likely that many of the conflicts and divisions on which human misery rests arose and are persisting by the "combined effects of individual actions". Belief in God, Jesus Christ, brings us from selfish bickering and vain snobbery to the "institutions on which human achievements rest"... not "the combined effect of individual actions". Why should a human process result in a moral result without God? It may, or it may not, it seems. I think G.K. Chesterton, or maybe David Bentley Hart, argued that capitalism is essentially amoral. Its point is efficiency. But I digress. This makes me think of... I recall Reagan speeches where he would say that he "believes" in human beings. I went to school at a Catholic U., and the dean of my department (risk management), who was a former CFO of a Fortune 100 multinational would say things like that "I believe most people are good, when it comes down to it. Don't you? " and the like. I was shocked. It was this absence of the sense of sin. He called himself a Rockefeller Republican, also. I think the mindset is the same as Reagan, and Hayek seems to venture there in the line I quoted. Of course Marxism arose in an attempt to control the sins which Liberalism was trying to ignore (while Marxism ignored its own sins).
Thank you for pointing this out. He very narrowly defines “individualism” as people “doing whatever they want”, which is simply a straw man, and not what is really meant by classical liberals when they refer to the promotion of the individual over the collective.. And I’m not a scholar of Locke, but I’d be willing to be that he is misrepresenting Locke’s description of the individual.
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.
"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?
What kind of mental gymnastics are you using to define least in socialist contexts as the most? You are cross comparing economic models with political models. Capitalism isn't a system of governance it's a system of economics.
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.
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.
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!
joebonsaipoland Nonsense. Poland and Hungary have populist governments with terrible foreign policy, nepotistic and crony bureaucracies, bad environmental policies, and no respect for the letter or the sprit of the law in regards to the separation of powers or treatment of independent media. If there’s any part of Catholicism they represent (although populism only masquerades as an ideology but is really all about staying in power) it would be the medieval one with an official religious establishment in support of the government, little respect for individual rights, and no respect for institutions.
@@jangerber2288 you are at best speculating.
@@bodbn Doesn't seem like speculation to me. He doesn't provide examples but it is at least consistent with a version of what could be going on in those countries.
@@jangerber2288 you may find an enemy in poland, but you will also find a real friend. Catholic social teaching is real.
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.
I think that's interesting...
Regarding what Hayek said... I think his error is towards the end: "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"
For me this seems dreamy by Hayek. It sounds like capitalist utopia, and putting faith in the goodness of human beings. What of greed? Pride? Selfishness? Regarding the quote, it is more likely that many of the conflicts and divisions on which human misery rests arose and are persisting by the "combined effects of individual actions". Belief in God, Jesus Christ, brings us from selfish bickering and vain snobbery to the "institutions on which human achievements rest"... not "the combined effect of individual actions".
Why should a human process result in a moral result without God? It may, or it may not, it seems. I think G.K. Chesterton, or maybe David Bentley Hart, argued that capitalism is essentially amoral. Its point is efficiency. But I digress.
This makes me think of... I recall Reagan speeches where he would say that he "believes" in human beings. I went to school at a Catholic U., and the dean of my department (risk management), who was a former CFO of a Fortune 100 multinational would say things like that "I believe most people are good, when it comes down to it. Don't you? " and the like. I was shocked. It was this absence of the sense of sin. He called himself a Rockefeller Republican, also. I think the mindset is the same as Reagan, and Hayek seems to venture there in the line I quoted. Of course Marxism arose in an attempt to control the sins which Liberalism was trying to ignore (while Marxism ignored its own sins).
Well said
Thank you for pointing this out. He very narrowly defines “individualism” as people “doing whatever they want”, which is simply a straw man, and not what is really meant by classical liberals when they refer to the promotion of the individual over the collective.. And I’m not a scholar of Locke, but I’d be willing to be that he is misrepresenting Locke’s description of the individual.
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.
"Which side of the ship will sink?" Indeed!
46.50 a patina of social justice
15.45 gold
"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?
What kind of mental gymnastics are you using to define least in socialist contexts as the most? You are cross comparing economic models with political models. Capitalism isn't a system of governance it's a system of economics.
Professor Science Technology Engineering Mathematics give you Power. You have to Learn that or you will Beaten.
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.
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.