SUBSCRIBE to this channel to see what we do next… 👀 CHAPTERS 👇 00:00 Intro 01:12 Is Liberalism Destructive to Society? 05:36 Are We Supposed to Be Free? 12:55 Liberalism’s Impact on Important Traditions 20:50 Challenging the Fruits of Liberalism 29:01 Can Free Speech Go Too Far? 35:31 Liberalism Allows People to Rise Above Their Circumstances 42:10 Impact of Ideology on the Abolition of Slavery 56:34 Is Technology a Greater Catalyst For Change Than Liberalism? 1:02:50 Each Other’s Strongest Argument
Problem is you are assuming the republican party of today is practicing any form of conservatism. There only goal is to reduce taxes and regulations on the wealthy so they can accumulate more wealth and more power. And they are doing this by literally killing the constitution and any form of democratic government because letting people vote often interferes with the two things I stated above. Anything else in this discussion is all smoke and mirrors. Just focus on those two things and you'll understand everything about the modern republicans. And to those who think voting in a "strong man" like Trump is the answer, you are completely delusional. The strong men start of promising you things the "other government" couldn't do. And maybe they'll accomplish a few of those things. But in the long term that strong man needs to protect himself and his interests by catering to the hierarchy of strong men serving below him (elites, warlords oligarchs, or anything else you want to call them). That means money that would need to go to things that don't immediately serve his ability to maintain power will be gutted. That's why progress eventually stalls in countries like this. Sure, it looks like they are moving along nicely because of all the propaganda from the controlled media outlets, but when a major conflict happens, they are exposed for the frauds they are. Look no further than Russia as the latest examples. Heck, you can call the COVID crisis a smaller example of that in the USA when strong man Trump was leading the way. Look at all the people who believed in Trump at one point and were tossed aside when they became inconvenient. The list is endless. What makes you think he honestly cares anything about you if those people were so easily tossed aside?
Fascinating. Two people with differing views who didn't just treat the debate as a competition to win at all costs, who made rational arguments without just trying to belittle the other, who did not talk over each other, who could see some strengths in the other's arguments, and who were generally respectful and polite. Well mediated too. Didn't realise that kind of discussion still happened.
Let’s provide some context at the starting blocks just to frame this as what it is: This is a discussion within the right. The theistic-conservative right encountering the classical liberal-moderate right. What sets these apart from the left is that these talk for a living. The working class is NOT represented in this discussion and I think that is an essential part of the political movement in a democracy. The USA is divided is different social classes. Estimated at about the following: Upper class 1% New money 15% Middle Class 34% Working Class 30% Working Poor 20% _(Google: “sparknotes social classes” for source)_ This makes a close to 50-50 split between “left” and “right”. These two guys are probably both in the “middle class” category, one basing their morals on the theistic doctrine and the other on social doctrine. It’s easy to talk about center right values when you are sitting in a comfortable chair and no one is breathing down your neck on some delivery deadline you are about to miss or when your shoulders are aching from building that very library in which you discuss the rights of others. To get an understanding of things, according to John Rawls (mentioned in the video in a pejorative nuance); you have a 50% chance to join the left side of the spectrum. The fact that this channel awakens the curiosity of aspiring middle class people is no surprise but to broaden the intellectual awareness among subscribers to this channel, John Rawls is a good way to ignite that awareness.
Came here to say exactly the same thing. Sadly there doesn't seem to be much of a reward for honest, civil and tempered philosophical discussion in the current landscape.
Ok so serious question, why are there more smart people on the left than right? (Sir Roger Scruton has a video on this.) And on “Q u o r a” there is more left than right but they debunk conspiracies, right wing points and propaganda with amazing detail and just critical thinking. I don’t know where I stand now as I feel the right is just pushing propaganda. I don’t want to sit in an echo chamber and that how I have seen what the right do. Who is right and wrong here?
Yes. I haven't watched yet but I was just at a coffee shop talking of these "long form conversations" and podcasts and how they are sole revelationary... Which I guess they are I suppose. They are however nothing knew.. I wasn't around to watch the telly back then but through the wonders of modern technology I have watched quite a bit of it now. These wonderous long form podcasts... Revelationary and Revolutionary.. Were just TV back in the day. ..... And there is a reason they took it away from us and there is a reason they have and are trying too again now that multimedia gave it back to us
You don't miss 6 people all yelling over each other trying to make a disingenuous straw man argument......as a kid born in the 80's. I will agree it hardens back to a day when media was respected and conversations were contentious but walked away with if not a different opinion minimally a respect for the other sides stance. What a constitutional republic demands. Cheers!
Fantastic debate! The World needs more content like this and I am more than happy to support it! I have learnt so much about the two positions and it has better help me understand my own political beliefs as well. Both Professors had fantastic arguments; Prof Orr was always quick with a countervailing opinion, while Prof Hicks was very accommodating with a great presentation for liberalism that I find extremely attractive in its ideals! Prof Hicks also made a fantastic case for working together to combat players who do not have the best interests of society at heart, while Prof Orr's warning against empowering government to enter the private sphere was brilliant as well! And of course, Konstantin was a fantastic moderator keeping these two obviously passionate gentlemen from tripping over each other too often! It was very obvious that he was trying to focus the conversation and made sure to give each side a fair amount of time to speak!
Amazing discussion. I truly want to hear them discuss the "common enemy" because i believe that is far more important of an issue than the difference between the position of these 2 gentleman.
@@thunderousbulk4375 Which both sides? This is the discussion between two middle class conservatives who differ by the smallest of margins. The other side would be a working class representative to balance the scales. And let's tone up the language a bit and talk about opposition or adversary instead of enemies because no matter the intent, it comes off as very xenophobic. And I think a discussion as seen in the video deserves that respect even though none of them represent me or my values.
@@justanothernick3984 One is an iliberal conservative, the other is a classical liberal. What has class to do with their opinions? What about "enemy" comes off as very xenophobic?
@@ulaznar The place in which you find yourself has everything to do with how you view the world. And people with these rhetorical capabilities should be able to have a more neutral tone when adressing adversity because of it's effect on us "plebs" who cannot sit in a tempered library providing value for compensation.
I've thought for years Conservative at best stops Left being to flaky; and Left at best stops Conservative being to hard nosed. They are a two sided coin and without each other left moves to chaos, and conservative to stasis.
Conservatism is the buckley's cough syrup of nation states. It tastes awful, but it works. Liberalism is a placebo. It goes down incredibly smooth, but it doesn't actually *DO* anything apart from making the person swallowing it feel better about themselves.
We're on a runaway stage coachb with the Liberals being the horses and the Conservatives being the driver. The need for Liberals to advance policies must be met with the need for Conservatives to hold the reigns and maintain sensibility
Fantastic conversation, I changed sides each time James and Steven made their points. Excellent thinkers and debaters getting their ideas across Thank you Triggernometry for starting these sessions. 🎉
I don't think I've ever seen such an enthusiastically positive comment thread. This episode clearly hit a sweet spot that so many, like myself, have been craving. I think there is an area where liberalism and conservatism overlap, and I believe that is where the solutions to our problems lie.
I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. I entered thinking I would listen for a little while, but became completely engaged. So much so that I wish there was more time to continue. I do hope that there is a plan to further dialogue soon. Great work guys.
If liberalism is going to define itself as "all good change no bad change" then conservativism is defined "all good things that remain and none of the bad things"
Ngl this has been the best discussion I’ve seen on this channel - and I’ve been watching you guys for years! Absolute masterpiece and would love to hear opinions from both speakers in more detail as well. A “second round” is in order :D appreciate you guys being intellectually honest in this conversation!
1st off I want to say a big “thank You” to not only KK but to your guest speakers. The biggest thing I hate about trying to watch Piers Morgan’s show is I want to hear what everyone thinks and I can’t do that with all the interrupting each other and all the over talking each other. I could see a few times when these gentlemen wanted to jump in but waited for their turn. Brovo can’t wait to see more of this style of respectful debating.
Agree. That’s my biggest issue with content like this and I get it, when a thought comes to you, you want to say it. I think KK did great to manage this debate with respectful speakers. I hope more people with diverse opinions agree to do this in future.
@@kerstinxoxo8983 absolutely agree. I’m sure he set the ground rules that this was how it was going to be and if you don’t follow the rules we will have to not do it. That’s why I don’t blame the guests on PM’s show I blame him. He interrupts his guests as much as they interrupt each other. It just shows a lack of respect all around. It’s like how do I know who I agree with? Great job by all of them.
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe ya if u watch closely they wanted to jump in and interrupt but they just held themselves back and gave the other person the respect they deserved and then came back when it was their turn. These two gentlemen had respect for themselves and for their opposition. Could not agree more. I can’t wait to see the next episode.
I loved James in the exodus readings with Jordan Paterson and Jonathan. A fantastic observation in that discussion was that freedom comes with obligation and order , otherwise it self destroys..
Really? Why? It's a bit blinkered isn't it? The opposite of conservatism isn't really liberalism, it's progressivism. And the opposite of liberalism is socialism although they may seem to have similarities on first inspection.
@@thekeysman6760not really, socialism was born from the liberal tradition. After the French Revolution there was a split between liberal capitalists and liberal socialists. The Jacobites were proto socialists. The opposite of liberalism is authoritarianism.
@@DanielHubb360 Haha. I think that's it, yes. Very succinct of you too. And therein lies where our stance is based. Others will no doubt see it differently from their pov. I just guess the title 'Liberalism Vs Conservatism' was the easiest, eye-grabbing title to use, & I can be a bit pedantic with words.
@@carolinesa91 Yes, I see that. Does it really change my point though? Your facts & saying "not really" don't negate or change what I said, do they? Which was instigated by the title.
This was so SO helpful. Thanks to all three gentlemen. I'd love to see this become a series. They could work out a logical outline so it brought us along level by level while exploring each level thoroughly through both perspectives. And at each level really delving into those other 3rd and 4th unhelpful forms of the illiberal and calcified conservative. GOD - yes and dealing with the effect of the Industrial Revolution and on to the technological world. I'd love to go back to what they were trying to say starting in the 300s up to modern time. It was also timely - as I've been trying to sort this out lately. Each discussion could also come with a reading list and references :D
Liberals are not forward looking and conservatives backward looking. Liberals are people who can't learn from the past and are arrogant enough to think they can just invent new stuff. And conservatives are people who can learn from experience. A liberal is like a person who goes through life without ever noticing the mistakes they make. A person who doesn't taste their food before they serve it. A person who doesn't get feedback before publishing a book. A person who doesn't listen to their own music to edit it. In a word, a fool.
I really hope there is a second part to this. This could use another 3 to 4 hours for sure. Its either one of them changes their mind or they come together in realization that both are a necessity to maximize liberty.
The thing about debate is you succeed if you know your opponent's position better than they do. Debates aren't really meant to change minds or even find common ground, they are meant to inform positions. I suggest watching Sharpton debate Hitchens to see how not to debate and what happens when there is 'agreement'.
@@timp6834 yeah I can't agree with that. The purpose of a debate is to engage in a structured and formal discussion or argument on a particular topic, often with the goal of persuading an audience or decision-makers. Debates can serve several important purposes like critical thinking, communication skills, conflict resolution, etc. People debate often with the intent of "changing minds".
@@timp6834 I have seen every single one of Christopher Hitchens debates. A very skilled debater and one of the 4 horseman of the modern atheist movement.
Yes! If this was a TV series, I would binge watch the entire thing. They are covering a lot of historical factors as well. Could easily mix in some clips of different times framework for visual effects. Too bad I'm not rich, I would fund a series with cool visual art and music to the equation.
This is classic Constrained vs Unconstrained Vision stuff , expertly conveyed by each of the speakers. Even in these polite, tolerant and friendly exchanges, the unsustainability of the Liberal position is all too apparent - and thus sadly the appropriation of it by malevolent academics and woke ideologues is the PRECISE reason why the world ALL the problems we see today.
Please don’t ask them to dumb it down. Neither were speaking in word salad like Erik Weinstein. They were perfectly concise and I really enjoyed their arguments.
Dr. Hicks is actually someone who's book "explaining postmodernism" started me down my curious journey, and he is an Objectivist, or Randian if I remember
@@adamthemyth Immune to critique, hardly anything in it is true at all. Hume and Kant anti-enlightenment thinkers? The scholastics characterised as pre-rational? An absolute embarassment to a high schooler with a philosophy A level.
One of the best debates I've seen in a long time. These two gentlemen are amazing wealths of knowledge and so poised and civilised in the defence of their views
Brilliant conversation. Hats off to Triggernometry and Konstantin and their team to putting this together. So long we have seen people disagreeing with each other but not willing to discuss their disagreements. Kudos. Keep up the good work!
Regardless of the differences in opinions, my god it just feels good watching a debate of intellectuals where neither party blatantly ignores what their "opponent" is saying so it's not just an exchange of words and opinions, but also that nobody is interrupting each other. Impossible type of civilised conversation to have if there was a leftist involved in this.
This was _such_ a breath of fresh air. I'm hugely impressed with how Stephen respectfully and calmly waited for James to give his position, defended his own position and gave counter arguments. I'm so used to just having leftists scream "RACIST!" etc at those who don't agree with them. In fact, I'd say that James struggled to allow Stephen to talk with the same degree of patience. There were times when he looked like someone had dropped a hot coal into his pocket. 😅 Please, please, _please_ can we have at least one more session with these fascinating gentlemen.
Transgenderism made me a conservative. Liberalism’s willingness to sacrifice what is empirically good for an abstract idea of the good, with highly effective marketing, pushed me away.
He has it wrong on Christian Abolitionists borrowing from liberal thinkers. What the Abolitionists got right was what has always been in the religion. In other words, “If you hear someone playing Beethoven badly, don’t blame Beethoven!”
Only 25 minutes in and already very enjoyable to see a conversation of differences with such civility. Unfortunately today’s general populace are less educated and more tribal.
Outstanding !! As soon as i saw the extensive library of books in the room, i knew this was going to be a very civil and enlightening discussion. Well done !! Look forwards to seeing more interviews on this channel.
As a staunch conservative, Professor Hicks’ response at 35:27 blew my mind - absolutely brilliant! What a positive vision of the liberal position I’d never considered before. We have more in common than i thought.
It's always good to hear Dr. Hicks express his philosophy. Sorry to nit pick, but I think you meant to write "Join us for the VERY FIRST Trigger Debate!" not "Debat." Hardly a major detraction from this discussion, just a small spelling error which is uncharacteristic of the quality of your channel and the debate in this video. Thank you for bringing good philosophical discussion to a general audience!
Really enjoyed the respectful dignity of both. They seemed to value what each brought to the table. Learnt a lot- not only of the arguments on both sides but the role modelling of good discussion ❤
Stephen Hicks is a classical liberal more than anything. He's about individualism, which falls in line with conservatism. The modern left are nothing at all like this. Stephen is great. o
I think both liberals and conservatives have a focus on the individual. The difference is from what direction they approach individualism. IMO: - liberals approach individualism from an atomized individual perspective. You be you… and your family and community have to deal with it. - conservatives approach individualism from the family and community perspective. You be you… but do it in a way that’s honorable and healthy for your family and community.
SUBSCRIBE to this channel to see what we do next… 👀
CHAPTERS 👇
00:00 Intro
01:12 Is Liberalism Destructive to Society?
05:36 Are We Supposed to Be Free?
12:55 Liberalism’s Impact on Important Traditions
20:50 Challenging the Fruits of Liberalism
29:01 Can Free Speech Go Too Far?
35:31 Liberalism Allows People to Rise Above Their Circumstances
42:10 Impact of Ideology on the Abolition of Slavery
56:34 Is Technology a Greater Catalyst For Change Than Liberalism?
1:02:50 Each Other’s Strongest Argument
Problem is you are assuming the republican party of today is practicing any form of conservatism. There only goal is to reduce taxes and regulations on the wealthy so they can accumulate more wealth and more power. And they are doing this by literally killing the constitution and any form of democratic government because letting people vote often interferes with the two things I stated above. Anything else in this discussion is all smoke and mirrors. Just focus on those two things and you'll understand everything about the modern republicans.
And to those who think voting in a "strong man" like Trump is the answer, you are completely delusional. The strong men start of promising you things the "other government" couldn't do. And maybe they'll accomplish a few of those things. But in the long term that strong man needs to protect himself and his interests by catering to the hierarchy of strong men serving below him (elites, warlords oligarchs, or anything else you want to call them). That means money that would need to go to things that don't immediately serve his ability to maintain power will be gutted. That's why progress eventually stalls in countries like this. Sure, it looks like they are moving along nicely because of all the propaganda from the controlled media outlets, but when a major conflict happens, they are exposed for the frauds they are. Look no further than Russia as the latest examples. Heck, you can call the COVID crisis a smaller example of that in the USA when strong man Trump was leading the way.
Look at all the people who believed in Trump at one point and were tossed aside when they became inconvenient. The list is endless. What makes you think he honestly cares anything about you if those people were so easily tossed aside?
Beautiful. I'm going to have to listen to that several times to wrap my head round it all : - )
Thanks KK
Nice modeling gentlemen. Three supermodels of political discussion.😉😘 Thanks. God bless.
Guys, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, make this a recurring series. It is literally A+++ top notch stuff that way more people need to listen to.
@@sven_86James almost nodded his head off
Fascinating. Two people with differing views who didn't just treat the debate as a competition to win at all costs, who made rational arguments without just trying to belittle the other, who did not talk over each other, who could see some strengths in the other's arguments, and who were generally respectful and polite. Well mediated too. Didn't realise that kind of discussion still happened.
That kind of individuals need to lead the world!Of course.
Well said.
Just wish it was long! It should have been 3 hours!
This channel is on fire. Congrats on all the success!
Brilliant. This sort of conversation is desperately needed in our society at the moment.
Let’s provide some context at the starting blocks just to frame this as what it is:
This is a discussion within the right. The theistic-conservative right encountering the classical liberal-moderate right.
What sets these apart from the left is that these talk for a living. The working class is NOT represented in this discussion and I think that is an essential part of the political movement in a democracy.
The USA is divided is different social classes.
Estimated at about the following:
Upper class 1%
New money 15%
Middle Class 34%
Working Class 30%
Working Poor 20%
_(Google: “sparknotes social classes” for source)_
This makes a close to 50-50 split between “left” and “right”.
These two guys are probably both in the “middle class” category, one basing their morals on the theistic doctrine and the other on social doctrine.
It’s easy to talk about center right values when you are sitting in a comfortable chair and no one is breathing down your neck on some delivery deadline you are about to miss or when your shoulders are aching from building that very library in which you discuss the rights of others.
To get an understanding of things, according to John Rawls (mentioned in the video in a pejorative nuance); you have a 50% chance to join the left side of the spectrum. The fact that this channel awakens the curiosity of aspiring middle class people is no surprise but to broaden the intellectual awareness among subscribers to this channel, John Rawls is a good way to ignite that awareness.
Came here to say exactly the same thing. Sadly there doesn't seem to be much of a reward for honest, civil and tempered philosophical discussion in the current landscape.
The Woke revolution depends utterly on the systematic suppression of rational debate.
Ok so serious question, why are there more smart people on the left than right?
(Sir Roger Scruton has a video on this.)
And on “Q u o r a” there is more left than right but they debunk conspiracies, right wing points and propaganda with amazing detail and just critical thinking.
I don’t know where I stand now as I feel the right is just pushing propaganda.
I don’t want to sit in an echo chamber and that how I have seen what the right do.
Who is right and wrong here?
Only if most people watch it, but unfortunately don't go to far 😔
Wonderful conversation with an erudition and civility that harkens back to debates I used to watch in the 80s. Thank you.
Yes. I haven't watched yet but I was just at a coffee shop talking of these "long form conversations" and podcasts and how they are sole revelationary... Which I guess they are I suppose.
They are however nothing knew.. I wasn't around to watch the telly back then but through the wonders of modern technology I have watched quite a bit of it now. These wonderous long form podcasts... Revelationary and Revolutionary.. Were just TV back in the day.
..... And there is a reason they took it away from us and there is a reason they have and are trying too again now that multimedia gave it back to us
You don't miss 6 people all yelling over each other trying to make a disingenuous straw man argument......as a kid born in the 80's. I will agree it hardens back to a day when media was respected and conversations were contentious but walked away with if not a different opinion minimally a respect for the other sides stance. What a constitutional republic demands. Cheers!
@@lukebancroft9326
Interesting that you put the media in there
I would say that social media or independent media is the new media
I would listen to a 5 part series with these two. Such a great conversation.
Fantastic debate! The World needs more content like this and I am more than happy to support it!
I have learnt so much about the two positions and it has better help me understand my own political beliefs as well.
Both Professors had fantastic arguments; Prof Orr was always quick with a countervailing opinion, while Prof Hicks was very accommodating with a great presentation for liberalism that I find extremely attractive in its ideals!
Prof Hicks also made a fantastic case for working together to combat players who do not have the best interests of society at heart, while Prof Orr's warning against empowering government to enter the private sphere was brilliant as well!
And of course, Konstantin was a fantastic moderator keeping these two obviously passionate gentlemen from tripping over each other too often! It was very obvious that he was trying to focus the conversation and made sure to give each side a fair amount of time to speak!
Amazing discussion! Thank you for providing a platform for important conversations like this one.
They actually listen to each other and follow the line of thought…can’t believe how enthusiastically I am over it!
So comforting it‘s still possible!
Amazing discussion. I truly want to hear them discuss the "common enemy" because i believe that is far more important of an issue than the difference between the position of these 2 gentleman.
I agree, if both sides can agree on a common enemy and compromise on what should be done then we might get somewhere
@@thunderousbulk4375
Which both sides?
This is the discussion between two middle class conservatives who differ by the smallest of margins. The other side would be a working class representative to balance the scales. And let's tone up the language a bit and talk about opposition or adversary instead of enemies because no matter the intent, it comes off as very xenophobic. And I think a discussion as seen in the video deserves that respect even though none of them represent me or my values.
@@justanothernick3984 One is an iliberal conservative, the other is a classical liberal. What has class to do with their opinions? What about "enemy" comes off as very xenophobic?
@@ulaznar
The place in which you find yourself has everything to do with how you view the world. And people with these rhetorical capabilities should be able to have a more neutral tone when adressing adversity because of it's effect on us "plebs" who cannot sit in a tempered library providing value for compensation.
I've thought for years Conservative at best stops Left being to flaky; and Left at best stops Conservative being to hard nosed. They are a two sided coin and without each other left moves to chaos, and conservative to stasis.
Conservatism is the buckley's cough syrup of nation states.
It tastes awful, but it works.
Liberalism is a placebo. It goes down incredibly smooth, but it doesn't actually *DO* anything apart from making the person swallowing it feel better about themselves.
Except Conservatives have grown and given as times have changed. The liberals want to take that give and run everything into chaos!😢
Ying and Yang.
@@ephraimwinslowLiberalism isn't supposed to do anything itself, it's supposed to let people do their own thing without government interference.
We're on a runaway stage coachb with the Liberals being the horses and the Conservatives being the driver. The need for Liberals to advance policies must be met with the need for Conservatives to hold the reigns and maintain sensibility
This was phenomenal. Thank you so much for putting this together.
Fantastic conversation, I changed sides each time James and Steven made their points. Excellent thinkers and debaters getting their ideas across Thank you Triggernometry for starting these sessions. 🎉
I don't think I've ever seen such an enthusiastically positive comment thread. This episode clearly hit a sweet spot that so many, like myself, have been craving. I think there is an area where liberalism and conservatism overlap, and I believe that is where the solutions to our problems lie.
I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. I entered thinking I would listen for a little while, but became completely engaged. So much so that I wish there was more time to continue. I do hope that there is a plan to further dialogue soon. Great work guys.
If liberalism is going to define itself as "all good change no bad change" then conservativism is defined "all good things that remain and none of the bad things"
Thoroughly enjoyed that conversation! I could listen to hours of this type of exchange, by historically knowledgeable and thoughtful individuals.
Ngl this has been the best discussion I’ve seen on this channel - and I’ve been watching you guys for years! Absolute masterpiece and would love to hear opinions from both speakers in more detail as well. A “second round” is in order :D appreciate you guys being intellectually honest in this conversation!
Fantastic content! Please keep these coming.
1st off I want to say a big “thank You” to not only KK but to your guest speakers. The biggest thing I hate about trying to watch Piers Morgan’s show is I want to hear what everyone thinks and I can’t do that with all the interrupting each other and all the over talking each other. I could see a few times when these gentlemen wanted to jump in but waited for their turn. Brovo can’t wait to see more of this style of respectful debating.
Agree. That’s my biggest issue with content like this and I get it, when a thought comes to you, you want to say it. I think KK did great to manage this debate with respectful speakers. I hope more people with diverse opinions agree to do this in future.
@@kerstinxoxo8983 absolutely agree. I’m sure he set the ground rules that this was how it was going to be and if you don’t follow the rules we will have to not do it. That’s why I don’t blame the guests on PM’s show I blame him. He interrupts his guests as much as they interrupt each other. It just shows a lack of respect all around. It’s like how do I know who I agree with? Great job by all of them.
Totally agreed, and props to these two gents for setting such a good example
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe ya if u watch closely they wanted to jump in and interrupt but they just held themselves back and gave the other person the respect they deserved and then came back when it was their turn. These two gentlemen had respect for themselves and for their opposition. Could not agree more. I can’t wait to see the next episode.
Well done the Triggerboys. I thought you'd run your course a few months ago but you've taken it to a new level. Looking forward to more.
Very high opinion of Steven Hicks work. Always learn from him.
The intellectual level of the conversation is so high that is impossible to close a topic, everytime one speaks opens 10 more points to be addressed
Wow! What a civil, thought-provoking discussion!
That was an excellent conversation. You don't see stuff like this anymore. Please keep up the good work.
Please keep these discussions coming. They are much needed.
What a fantastic debate/discussion!
Incredible conversation. Thank you Triggernometry.
I loved James in the exodus readings with Jordan Paterson and Jonathan. A fantastic observation in that discussion was that freedom comes with obligation and order , otherwise it self destroys..
High respect and gratitude to both these gentlemen. This is the kind of conversation we need in this time.
Oh snap! Honestly this is the internal debate listeners of this podcast have been having within themselves the past few years.
Really? Why? It's a bit blinkered isn't it? The opposite of conservatism isn't really liberalism, it's progressivism. And the opposite of liberalism is socialism although they may seem to have similarities on first inspection.
@@thekeysman6760not really, socialism was born from the liberal tradition. After the French Revolution there was a split between liberal capitalists and liberal socialists. The Jacobites were proto socialists. The opposite of liberalism is authoritarianism.
@@thekeysman6760 Yeah you are right my friend. I guess the real question would sound more like, "how conservative should our liberalism be?"
@@DanielHubb360 Haha. I think that's it, yes. Very succinct of you too. And therein lies where our stance is based. Others will no doubt see it differently from their pov. I just guess the title 'Liberalism Vs Conservatism' was the easiest, eye-grabbing title to use, & I can be a bit pedantic with words.
@@carolinesa91 Yes, I see that. Does it really change my point though? Your facts & saying "not really" don't negate or change what I said, do they? Which was instigated by the title.
This was absolutely brilliant to listen to. Thank you so much.
We need more of these debate style programmes! Glad to here this will be the first of many.
I could listen to these two for hours
This was so SO helpful. Thanks to all three gentlemen. I'd love to see this become a series. They could work out a logical outline so it brought us along level by level while exploring each level thoroughly through both perspectives. And at each level really delving into those other 3rd and 4th unhelpful forms of the illiberal and calcified conservative. GOD - yes and dealing with the effect of the Industrial Revolution and on to the technological world. I'd love to go back to what they were trying to say starting in the 300s up to modern time. It was also timely - as I've been trying to sort this out lately. Each discussion could also come with a reading list and references :D
Liberals are not forward looking and conservatives backward looking. Liberals are people who can't learn from the past and are arrogant enough to think they can just invent new stuff. And conservatives are people who can learn from experience.
A liberal is like a person who goes through life without ever noticing the mistakes they make. A person who doesn't taste their food before they serve it. A person who doesn't get feedback before publishing a book. A person who doesn't listen to their own music to edit it.
In a word, a fool.
From the "300s"??
God-tier content ! Thanks so much for putting this on and sharing it with us, I love both of these thinkers.
There is no god
I really hope there is a second part to this. This could use another 3 to 4 hours for sure. Its either one of them changes their mind or they come together in realization that both are a necessity to maximize liberty.
The thing about debate is you succeed if you know your opponent's position better than they do. Debates aren't really meant to change minds or even find common ground, they are meant to inform positions. I suggest watching Sharpton debate Hitchens to see how not to debate and what happens when there is 'agreement'.
@@timp6834 yeah I can't agree with that. The purpose of a debate is to engage in a structured and formal discussion or argument on a particular topic, often with the goal of persuading an audience or decision-makers. Debates can serve several important purposes like critical thinking, communication skills, conflict resolution, etc. People debate often with the intent of "changing minds".
@@timp6834 I have seen every single one of Christopher Hitchens debates. A very skilled debater and one of the 4 horseman of the modern atheist movement.
Yes! If this was a TV series, I would binge watch the entire thing. They are covering a lot of historical factors as well. Could easily mix in some clips of different times framework for visual effects. Too bad I'm not rich, I would fund a series with cool visual art and music to the equation.
That was awesome... you should do these weekly
Keep fighting the good fight and thank you for introducing us to more of these types of discussions ❤
Great conversation and the participants did a great job highlighting the merits of their philosophies and respectfully shared their critiques.
This is classic Constrained vs Unconstrained Vision stuff , expertly conveyed by each of the speakers.
Even in these polite, tolerant and friendly exchanges, the unsustainability of the Liberal position is all too apparent - and thus sadly the appropriation of it by malevolent academics and woke ideologues is the PRECISE reason why the world ALL the problems we see today.
Please don’t ask them to dumb it down. Neither were speaking in word salad like Erik Weinstein. They were perfectly concise and I really enjoyed their arguments.
As neither a liberal or conservative this is a great chat.
These 2 and this conversation should be a series of podcasts alone.
Dr. Hicks is actually someone who's book "explaining postmodernism" started me down my curious journey, and he is an Objectivist, or Randian if I remember
I've read it twice now.
It's not immune to critique, of course, but it's good to read alongside other books on postmodernism.
Objectivism is so damn based. All the individualism and freedom without the collectivist miasma of both socialism AND religion.
"who is" book?
He was funded by the Ayn Rand Institute to publish that awful ahistorical book.
@@adamthemyth Immune to critique, hardly anything in it is true at all. Hume and Kant anti-enlightenment thinkers? The scholastics characterised as pre-rational? An absolute embarassment to a high schooler with a philosophy A level.
Wow. An actual debate. Who knew people could still have those.
THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST DEBATE FORMAT I HAVE EVER SEEN ON TH-cam! Sorry for the all caps, I am just THAT excited about this.
Great Konstantin, thnx. And thnx to James and Stephen too. So rare to see a debate this moderated/sober-minded, now days.
That was so enriching! It was high-class intellectual jousting.
One of the best debates I've seen in a long time. These two gentlemen are amazing wealths of knowledge and so poised and civilised in the defence of their views
High-level discourse with mutual respect...how refreshing!
We definitely need more of this. Bravo
I *love* this format! Thank you, and may I have more, please?
One guest was vastly more articulate than the other, however.
I'm very upset with Konstantin that this conversation was not 12 hours longer.
This was a good conversation but it was cut way too short. Could have easily gone on for another two hours.
Agreed! I could easily binge-watch a series of this!
Great to start debates!
One of the best conversations I've ever heard on TH-cam.
Brilliant conversation. Hats off to Triggernometry and Konstantin and their team to putting this together. So long we have seen people disagreeing with each other but not willing to discuss their disagreements. Kudos. Keep up the good work!
Regardless of the differences in opinions, my god it just feels good watching a debate of intellectuals where neither party blatantly ignores what their "opponent" is saying so it's not just an exchange of words and opinions, but also that nobody is interrupting each other. Impossible type of civilised conversation to have if there was a leftist involved in this.
This was _such_ a breath of fresh air. I'm hugely impressed with how Stephen respectfully and calmly waited for James to give his position, defended his own position and gave counter arguments. I'm so used to just having leftists scream "RACIST!" etc at those who don't agree with them. In fact, I'd say that James struggled to allow Stephen to talk with the same degree of patience. There were times when he looked like someone had dropped a hot coal into his pocket. 😅
Please, please, _please_ can we have at least one more session with these fascinating gentlemen.
Please make these 3 hour conversations. So needed!
More of this. Bravo. 👏👏👏
Transgenderism made me a conservative. Liberalism’s willingness to sacrifice what is empirically good for an abstract idea of the good, with highly effective marketing, pushed me away.
Both. The interplay between liberalism and conservatism is what makes our democracies great! They are the ultimate system of checks and balances.
Because they're both more similar than they are different.
Well-behaved adults debating their beliefs... such a refreshing change from the usual howling and wailing!
This was so nice compared to the regular mean conversations these days. These two gentlemen are peak everything we need.
Let's put it in a book and start a new religion! It's all there!
Fantastic discussion, I wish it was longer
This is a debate at its finest. Truly intellectual debate with some great ideas and amazing individuals.
.....Great job....
Fantastic video. Thank you Triggernometry for doing this.
He has it wrong on Christian Abolitionists borrowing from liberal thinkers. What the Abolitionists got right was what has always been in the religion. In other words, “If you hear someone playing Beethoven badly, don’t blame Beethoven!”
Only 25 minutes in and already very enjoyable to see a conversation of differences with such civility. Unfortunately today’s general populace are less educated and more tribal.
I wish they could've gone on forever, I would have happily watched a 10 hour discussion between these two gentlemen
Imagine a conversation about concepts instead of just trading low rent rimshots. Rare and precious.
You knocked it out of the park with this one KK. Well done, a most refreshing format for discussion.
great debate all around. This is the James Orr that I've been waiting for.
Outstanding !! As soon as i saw the extensive library of books in the room, i knew this was going to be a very civil and enlightening discussion.
Well done !!
Look forwards to seeing more interviews on this channel.
What could bring us more together than a common enemy?
As a staunch conservative, Professor Hicks’ response at 35:27 blew my mind - absolutely brilliant! What a positive vision of the liberal position I’d never considered before. We have more in common than i thought.
need more convos like this
Fabulous. Thank you ✌️♥️✊
Top notch discussion, guys! Bravo!
Thank you, Gentlemen. Keep them coming! Love to Dr. Orr, "Accumulation of wisdom through tradition without stasis" Boom.
What a fabulous final question. Love this format, just wish it was longer
Yay Konstantin!
How fabulous to wake up to this on a Sat morning! Thank you and your guests!
Dude, "too much freedom" is exactly the problem with 90% of this.
Most of us are part liberal (as it's represented here) and part conservative.
Excellent. Amazing way to wrap up the conversation. Exciting format, looking forward to this series.
It's always good to hear Dr. Hicks express his philosophy.
Sorry to nit pick, but I think you meant to write "Join us for the VERY FIRST Trigger Debate!" not "Debat." Hardly a major detraction from this discussion, just a small spelling error which is uncharacteristic of the quality of your channel and the debate in this video.
Thank you for bringing good philosophical discussion to a general audience!
This was a truly amazing debate! Very respectful, thoughtful and both gentlemen put great points on both sides. I look forward for more!
Really enjoyed the respectful dignity of both. They seemed to value what each brought to the table. Learnt a lot- not only of the arguments on both sides but the role modelling of good discussion ❤
Excellent discussion and much needed. They needed more time; this should be a series or at least Part 2.
Summary: Two hands on the steering wheel are better than one.
This debate was godsent. Bravo!
Stephen Hicks is a classical liberal more than anything. He's about individualism, which falls in line with conservatism. The modern left are nothing at all like this. Stephen is great. o
Triggernometry is a UK based show. Liberalism in the UK still refers to what in the United States we call classical liberalism now.
I think both liberals and conservatives have a focus on the individual. The difference is from what direction they approach individualism. IMO:
- liberals approach individualism from an atomized individual perspective. You be you… and your family and community have to deal with it.
- conservatives approach individualism from the family and community perspective. You be you… but do it in a way that’s honorable and healthy for your family and community.
Fabulous! Looking forward to more, needs a table.
The quality of these minds versus the people in charge is night and day.
Outstanding conversation! Replayed it twice to absorb and truly understand all the complexities...♥
i love calm and civil debates. keep them coming !
They are both excellent speakers and this is a great example of how a good debate can go.
Love hearing from Stephen Hicks! Brilliant