hopefully one day, in the future, there will be videos on youtube just like this one, titled "the rebirth of classical liberalism in the 21st century". nahhhhh, i'll just keep dreaming
You have to be incredibly intelligent to be able to do a meta-analysis as such. Most people are stuck on one side of history or the other. They don't understand how the same series of events can reasonably be interpreted in two opposing ways with the requisite world-view. Thank you for this!
So, the Statists were losing and needed to change their approach. They redefined the terms and have for the last 140 years been building back the expansive state, though this time at great expense.
@couranga88 "The elites today hide behind the classical liberalism thought to retain their individual power and wealth" On the contrary. The elites today rely on interventionism of various kinds and selective breaches of property rights to maintain their power and wealth.
Indeed! If true liberalism and entirely free markets where present no bank-bailouts would be made. You gamble and then you either win or loose, which leads me to state that bank-CEO should have a personal stake in the losses also and not only the gains of their banks.
somebody embrace capitalism, and pay this man a gazillion trillion dollars. quite possible the 2nd best youtube video i've come across, the first being part 1.
I would say that tradition or traditionalism are better words than skepticism for describing conservatism. Likewise, freedom has replaced liberty as the term of choice for libertarians, and equality has replaced egality for people who call themselves socialists or liberals or progressives. I see the political triangle as consisting of freedom on one corner, equality on the second corner, and absolute power at the third corner. As such, the ancien regime was all the way at the power corner. So the freedom and equality movements were allies in dismantling the ancien regime, but once they had done so they parted ways because their ideals are inimical to each other. It also explains why some 19th century conservatives went over to the equality side, because the freedom corner has no special role for political elites, but the equality corner calls for an elite class with power to enact the redistribution to make everyone equal. In other words, the conservatives changed alliances out of self-preservation. Otto von Bismark is a textbook example of this. It also fits a line in Marx's communist manifesto that a portion of the bourgeoisie (power corner) would break away and join the proletariat (equality corner). That line is a way to give both aristocratic and capitalistic elites a "Get out of jail free" card provided you espouse the politically correct ideology. Let the egalitarians keep red, and let the absolutists keep blue. Green is the third primary color of light, but yellow is the third primary color of paint. Given that green is associated with environmentalism; and given that so many environmentalists are like watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside; I say let yellow be the color of freedom.
There is certainly strong evidence that the expressed victory over hierarchical privilege is a quite hollow victory. In particular, landed privilege has not only survived but has accomplished a deep and ongoing redistribution of income and wealth from producers to non-producing "rentier" interests. Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A., Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
Slavery was very profitable for a small segment of society, but was highly economically destructive to the larger society. That is why it died. Also why it still lives, but not in the open nor in easily accessible areas.
" i see a great future for classic liberalism".... that didn't age well.... unfortunately... On the issue of political economy and why is not reliable sometimes, Bryan Caplan made an incredible argument, on top of the classic public choice arguments, on why corn laws and slavery may be an exception to the general rule that seems to plague democracy in "The myth of the rational voter"... Still public choice theory is very insightful and hard to contraddict despites those few exceptions.
Great talk. Love this guy. This is how knowledge progresses! One disagreement. On the death penalty, even if I grant for arguments' sake that occasionally we get the wrong perpetrator, and it doesn't serve as a deterrent to other capital crimes, he has missed the most important ingredient, namely "Justice." While one could argue the data that large majority of time (several hundred to one) we get ex right person, why bother? It is just for son of Sam to die, it is just for MLK's assassin to die, it is just for JFK's assassin to die, it is just for Charles Manson to die...ad infinitum. So it is only if we denude the idea of justice as objective, via say an atheistic presumption that we could argue that justice is not an ultimate concern. This professor too deep and thoughtful in his analysis of etiology to have missed this point.
hopefully one day, in the future, there will be videos on youtube just like this one, titled "the rebirth of classical liberalism in the 21st century". nahhhhh, i'll just keep dreaming
You have to be incredibly intelligent to be able to do a meta-analysis as such. Most people are stuck on one side of history or the other. They don't understand how the same series of events can reasonably be interpreted in two opposing ways with the requisite world-view. Thank you for this!
BIG state vs. EXTENSIVE state. That is an interesting and significant distinctiion.
So, the Statists were losing and needed to change their approach. They redefined the terms and have for the last 140 years been building back the expansive state, though this time at great expense.
Astonishing how much changed in such a short time.
@couranga88 "The elites today hide behind the classical liberalism thought to retain their individual power and wealth"
On the contrary. The elites today rely on interventionism of various kinds and selective breaches of property rights to maintain their power and wealth.
Great lecture. Great insights in regard to the lunacy of 2020
Indeed! If true liberalism and entirely free markets where present no bank-bailouts would be made.
You gamble and then you either win or loose, which leads me to state that bank-CEO should have a personal stake in the losses also and not only the gains of their banks.
This was so enlightening to me. A wonderful lecture!
somebody embrace capitalism, and pay this man a gazillion trillion dollars. quite possible the 2nd best youtube video i've come across, the first being part 1.
This is brilliant. Thank you.
I would say that tradition or traditionalism are better words than skepticism for describing conservatism. Likewise, freedom has replaced liberty as the term of choice for libertarians, and equality has replaced egality for people who call themselves socialists or liberals or progressives.
I see the political triangle as consisting of freedom on one corner, equality on the second corner, and absolute power at the third corner. As such, the ancien regime was all the way at the power corner. So the freedom and equality movements were allies in dismantling the ancien regime, but once they had done so they parted ways because their ideals are inimical to each other. It also explains why some 19th century conservatives went over to the equality side, because the freedom corner has no special role for political elites, but the equality corner calls for an elite class with power to enact the redistribution to make everyone equal. In other words, the conservatives changed alliances out of self-preservation. Otto von Bismark is a textbook example of this. It also fits a line in Marx's communist manifesto that a portion of the bourgeoisie (power corner) would break away and join the proletariat (equality corner). That line is a way to give both aristocratic and capitalistic elites a "Get out of jail free" card provided you espouse the politically correct ideology.
Let the egalitarians keep red, and let the absolutists keep blue. Green is the third primary color of light, but yellow is the third primary color of paint. Given that green is associated with environmentalism; and given that so many environmentalists are like watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside; I say let yellow be the color of freedom.
There is certainly strong evidence that the expressed victory over hierarchical privilege is a quite hollow victory. In particular, landed privilege has not only survived but has accomplished a deep and ongoing redistribution of income and wealth from producers to non-producing "rentier" interests.
Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A., Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
Awesome lectures,I have learned so much from them! Keep them coming!
Slavery was very profitable for a small segment of society, but was highly economically destructive to the larger society. That is why it died. Also why it still lives, but not in the open nor in easily accessible areas.
you play bioshock once and then you feeling philosophy
" i see a great future for classic liberalism".... that didn't age well.... unfortunately...
On the issue of political economy and why is not reliable sometimes, Bryan Caplan made an incredible argument, on top of the classic public choice arguments, on why corn laws and slavery may be an exception to the general rule that seems to plague democracy in "The myth of the rational voter"... Still public choice theory is very insightful and hard to contraddict despites those few exceptions.
Great talk. Love this guy. This is how knowledge progresses! One disagreement. On the death penalty, even if I grant for arguments' sake that occasionally we get the wrong perpetrator, and it doesn't serve as a deterrent to other capital crimes, he has missed the most important ingredient, namely "Justice." While one could argue the data that large majority of time (several hundred to one) we get ex right person, why bother? It is just for son of Sam to die, it is just for MLK's assassin to die, it is just for JFK's assassin to die, it is just for Charles Manson to die...ad infinitum.
So it is only if we denude the idea of justice as objective, via say an atheistic presumption that we could argue that justice is not an ultimate concern. This professor too deep and thoughtful in his analysis of etiology to have missed this point.
From around 12:30, in relation to Davies' explanation of 'improvement' - arguably a take on Popper's version of negative utilitarianism.
Sounds like Hugh Laurie :-P
Has he written this in a book?
I wouldn't call that a victory.
even in a factitious sense.
"we take egalitarianism for granted now" Yeah. You and whose blinders?
hah, we win. America has 800 page obamacare :P