Actually, on the real political Spectrum, libertarianism is the philosophy that stands between true liberalism and anarchism. On the real political Spectrum, pre 1947, liberalism is mid right wing, conservatism is the true Centrist political philosophy. Democracy is actually left-wing and is despised by the true liberal.
@Egg Egg egg egg capitalism is awesome corporations only create corporatism. And at this point two traditional enemies have teamed up against us, the corporatist and the Communist.
@@prodigalson6166 unchecked capitalism creates corporatism. You being a libertarian, go further than simply settling for deregulation, you want to fully get ride of any regulations. This is why sane people who have even an elementary understanding of basic economic principles find you guys hilariously difficult to take seriously. So, on one hand you concede that corporate greed is responsible for the destruction of the working class, yet on the other you want to strip away the minuscule level of government oversight and accountability currently keeping these corporations from reverting back to draconian 19th century worker exploitation practices such as child labor, lack of safety codes, 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, equal employment, the list could go on for paragraphs... It’s quite literally bonkers trying to understand how you reconcile these two glaringly obvious, starkly contradictory positions? Or more broadly, libertarians always go on endlessly about how regulations do more harm than good; how it would be so much more beneficial to society if we were to simply eliminate all taxes (an action which would coincidentally strip US currency from having any value, but that’s another conversation) and instead just have civilians put their heads together to figure out any and all social/economic disputes without the need of intervention from an authoritative 3rd party (government). The problem is that human beings are inherently prone to act in their own self interest. So, in a society free from worry of punitive action from a 3rd party with the authoritative power to hold them accountable at various levels, you’ll inevitably end up with what we essentially have now, which is an oligarch state throwing workers just enough scraps that they end up hungry enough to show up and work in the oligarch’s factories and earn their next serving of leftover scraps to fight over. That’s what we have now, WITH A MINIMAL LEVEL OF REGULATING. How do you complete the feat of mental gymnastics it takes to conclude that with this being the case, eliminating the meager accountability we have left currently over corporations, would then somehow create this tax free utopia of endless personal economic liberty??? It’s so funny how you guys chase your own tails trying to work your way out of this self defeating philosophy, and you are so loudly adamant about never just letting it go...
John Locke was a classical liberal. John Stewart Mills was a classical liberal. Milton Friedman was a classical liberal. Bernie Sanders is the absolute farthest thing from a classical liberal.
Except it's not. It's economically conservative and, yes, generally non-interventionist, but it also allows for otherwise left leaning views on a myriad of social issues (gay marriage, substance legalization, etc.). Ben Shapiro has, on occasion acknowledged that he's close to being a classical liberal and, indeed, has explicitly stated he's generally libertarian on many issues. So, he's somewhere between a "constitutional conservative" and "classical liberal."
Classical Liberalism has no position on social issues, individuals may live their lives following whatever principles they please, the state shouldn't be involved. Classical Liberalism and Conservatism aren't necessarily seperate, they _can_ go together.
@@zayan6284 You just contradicted yourself, " individuals may live their lives following whatever principles they please, the state shouldn't be involved", that is a stance on social issues, in other words social and moral liberalism, the maximisation of individual liberty etc. Also "classical" liberalism like all liberalism and true conservatism are incompatible, they have almost nothing in common, one is individualist the other collectivist, one is libertarian and egalitarian the other is authoritarian (not in a pejorative sense)and hierarchical, one universalist the other particularistic, also by conservatism I don't mean what Americans refer to as conservatism according to their warped political terminology, what Americans call conservatives are rally just for the most part religious classical liberals, they have nothing to do with true conservatism e.g. the philosophies of Burke, De Maistre, Disraeli, Schmitt etc.
Classical liberalism can be shortened to one word: individualism. Classical liberalism is used to contrast not against labels like progressive or conservative, but as a contrast to collectivism. Liberals on the left should call themselves "social liberals".
My comment doesn't make sense anymore in the slightest lol. It's WAY out of left field. As you can see, the OP edited their comment. I can't quite remember what it was, 2 years ago. I think he would have listed out his views and asked if he fits what the video is about... The comment does read very funny now. As far as my usages, no. I am very specific with my usages. I personally go by Umberto Eco's 14 points as far as fascism, and he must have mentioned something about Jewish people. If he didn't, then based on what he previously typed, he would instead just be a fascist. I was literally just helping the guy out lol.
Really basic question: Why must someone accept ALL of a philosophy's ideas in order for them to call themselves one? Someone can say, without having to accept everything every other classical liberal has said, "I am a John Stuart Mill classical liberal, in that I agree with his notion that: "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form." You can absolutely accept this notion related to Classical Liberalism without having to be an economic libertarian. Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "I'm socially liberal but economically conservative?" People can (and should, imo) vary from issue to issue. This also makes sense in terms of being against hard leftist thinking, where we have seen de-platforming and more and more admonishment of the principle of free speech. This would also tie into the non-aggression principle, as you wouldn't define speech as violence (like some on the far left have done), because that would destroy open debate (more on this below). You yourself even said, "Classical Liberalism is a fluid concept, and there were Classical Liberal thinkers of years ago who do not support full laissez-faire economics." You then go on to say "political labels evolve," and then do some hand waving about how in the last 50 years or so, this is what I think it has meant, so that's what I'm going to compare it to. This is also made clear by another point of yours, that in different countries, different labels mean different things. By the way, one of the first presidents to really act against monopolies in the U.S., Teddy Roosevelt, is known by some as a "progressive" of his time and by others as a "strong-state conservative." Doesn't it matter a lot what an individual means when they say something? Can Sam Harris, for example, be a classical liberal in that he supports open debate, knowing the other side, free speech, and individualism, but then also be something else in that he sees the utility in some level of government regulation of the market? He also has an essay about the problems of inequality on his website. Why assume that anyone who takes on the "Classical Liberal" label hasn't also identified as something else somewhere else, just as you have done? It seems that it's a problem of labels in general, and I think this is what a lot of people who identify as "Classical Liberal" want to point out: I believe in the "market place of ideas" (another John Stuart Mill quote) in which I am open to hearing opposition, allowing my ideas to be fluid as I hear better information. If I ever call myself a "classical liberal", it is largely for this reason. Free speech came from here, and so beyond that, I don't want to be put in a box. Let me hear the best argument and then I will decide.
It's funny to me in the same video that you refer to Classical Liberalism as an improperly used term, and then you improperly use Democratic Socialism to refer to Social Democracy.
I've never heard a Classical Liberal use the term to describe the totality of beliefs you lay out. In fact, most people who use the term clarify that they are using it to describe their belief in freedom and individualism. Every political ideology is fluid - the adherents of modern versions of political ideologies would be scarcely recognizable to their ancient counterparts - and classical liberalism is no different. Further, its rare for a single political ideology to encapsulate the totality of a persons beliefs; if someone wants their beliefs to be fully understood it'll require more than a flat statement of ideology (progressive, conservative, etc.). You acknowledge as much in your video, yet you still go on to hold people who apply the label of classical liberal to a ridiculously rigid standard. Not only must someone who uses the term adhere to every iota of the ideology, they also can't adhere to aspects of other ideologies. Its seems to me that you were determined to label classical liberals as conservative and let that drive how you argued in this video.
Calling yourself a "progressive" in Canada can be problematic. It has a whole different meaning. In the 1920's and 30's, there was a Progressive Party of Canada. The Progressive Party was formed in 1920 when Ontario and prairie farmers on the Canadian Council of Agriculture united with dissident Liberals led by Thomas CRERAR, who resigned from the federal Cabinet in 1919 opposing high tariffs. In November 1918 the CCA had proposed a "New National Policy" of free trade, nationalization (particularly of railways) and direct democracy. Later, the name was incorporated into the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (PC) was a federal political party in Canada with a centre-right stance on economic issues and, after the 1970s, a centrist stance on social issues. The party began as the Conservative Party of Canada in 1867, becoming Canada's first governing party under Sir John A. Macdonald, and for years was either the governing party of Canada or the largest opposition party. The party changed its name to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in December 1942. In 2003, the party membership voted to dissolve the party and merge with the Canadian Alliance to form the modern-day Conservative Party of Canada. It's still a provincial party in Ontario. Then there's the Progressive Canadian Party (PC Party) (French: Parti progressiste canadien) is a federal political party in Canada. It is a centre-right party that was registered with Elections Canada, the government's election agency, on March 29, 2004. The original Progressive Party was pretty much what you call classical liberal in outlook - basically Libertarian. The Progressive Conservatives and the Progressive Canadians are in Canadian terms centre-right, or pretty much like the US Democratic Party, which is in US terms centre-left. I tend to believe a lot of things US progressives do, but am loathe to adopt the label. I'm not so left-leaning as the New Democratic Party which is avowedly socialist and grew out of the Social Credit Party (the NDP was founded by Tommy Douglas, father of actress Shirley Douglas and grandfather of Keifer Sutherland; and also father of Canadian Medicare).
Don't know about all non-Americans, but Canada's centre is farther left than the US's. I'm given to believe most of Western Europe feels the same way, but have no personal experience there. There are pockets of Canada that are very pro-American, but I believe my statements reflect the views of the vast majority of Canadians.
Actually, the NDP grew out of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation which was a coalition of trade unionists and socialist orgs. While the Social Credit Party did have some left-wing planks, they ended up drifting to the right by the Postwar Era, becoming more of a Right-Wing Populist party. When Social Credit began to collapse in the 1970s and 1980s, most Social Credit activists migrated to the Reform Party of Canada (which was co-founded by Preston Manning, the son of longtime Alberta Social Credit Premier Ernest Manning). Ultimately, the Reform Party evolved into Canadian Alliance then merged with the PCs to become the Conservative Party of Canada.
This is so fucking stupid. Conservatives do not call them selves progressives because they see progressivism as centre right. It's literally an oxymoron. They call themselves progressives because they allow to some extent some left social policies(such as reproductive rights)
As a geo-libertarian (often identifying as "classical liberal" in the spirit of Thomas Paine), I feel that David ignores some important arguments build upon the basic principles of: * You own you own body. * You own the fruit of your own labor * Your freedom extends precisely so far that it does not interfere with the equal freedom of others. One of these arguments being that natural opportunities (like land and resources) are NOT the fruit of your own labor. I'd argue that people calling themselves classical liberals and taking it to anarcho-capitalistic consequence David describes have misunderstood or overlooked very important facts and have a *very* superficial view of liberalism. (which is, btw, very much NOT conservatism - speaking in European terms here)
Also don't underestimate the egalitarian dimension of liberalism, a belief in moral equality and the equal dignity and rights of individuals, the law of equal freedom, equal rights etc.
Looking at your political compass in your moniker, my political compass is exactly the same as yours! I have found nothing else that describes me better than Classical Liberal/Libertarian. I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican. In essence, I don't really have a party to which I belong.
@@Lylamamma1997 I used to be a conservative but like I dont really care at all about politics until someone hurts someone else or infringe a right. I support abortion,gay marriage, free market and I also support guns its their right to do wtf they want. I think a black lesbian transgender billionaire from their weed company should be able to own a suppressed belt fed automatic m249 lol.
I find it amazing that people actually believe that if you say you subscribe to a particular ideological position, that you rigidly believe everything that ideological position says. Humans do not work like that, most people when you ask them about a flaw in that ideology, they tend to be reasonable and explain to you what they believe, even if it doesn't line up with their chosen ideology 100%. It isn't an AH-HA! moment, it is them being a rational person. They chose that label because it is the closest to their position and is an easy short hand way to describe them without explaining every nuanced position. I hate this label game that everyone plays that assumes that you believe everything about a position, no one does so why the fuck do we do it?
Evirthewarrior then people like dave rubin and ben shapiro should stop labeling THEMSELVES. Don't blame the people pointing out the flaws in the ideologies that these people choose to follow and label themselves.
I am sorry to inform you this... But most people actually do subscribe to the ideas that claim... Sure there might be one or two points where they differ, but fundamentally they subscribe to that group that they claim to support. It is not a question of being 100% pure... But you wouldn't claim to be a social democrat, if you didn't believe that the state can be effective and is a player in the society. Likewise you wouldn't call yourself a conservative, if you didn't fell that systems and power-structures should evolve rather than just being replaced, and fundamentally feel that radical ideas is something one has to be more skeptical of than already proven systems.
Evirthewarrior The use of this label becomes problematic when Carl Benjamin and Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro all call themselves "classical liberals." The term tells you literally nothing about their beliefs, especially on policy, besides maybe, *maybe* supporting free speech and private ownership of the means of production. Pakman in no way implies that using the label prescribes a set of beliefs to which every user must subscribe; he says the archetype of classical liberalism has virtually no relation to the beliefs of those who've adopted the term today. As a result the term literally doesn't even *describe* a set of beliefs, much less prescribe any. Where you're mistaken is that he then looks to the beliefs of the founders of classical liberalism for reference, not to say these are the beliefs every classical liberal must hold, but to try to make sense of an otherwise meaningless term. When you do, you see that the first classical liberals' most direct ideological descendents today call themselves libertarians.
You are right, but ... Only when your label actually _is_ close enough to your position. If it's essentially the opposite of your own position in many of its main aspects, it really doesn't fit very well. Look, I'm a communist, with a few exceptions: I believe that the family is the most important entity of a society, I believe in homeschooling, I believe that a free market economy is often better than planned economy and that private banks should be allowed. Which puts me in stark opposition to several core values of communism.
bandholm no, most people do not, only extremists do. most people that have a label, when you press them on specific issues, they do not line up with the rigid definitions. Morons that do not understand nuance, assume that everyone is an extremist.
Let's make it real simple... Libertarian is being used as an umbrella for the bottom half of the political compass, which, while it contains minarchists, doesn't explicitly equal minarchism. Classical liberalism is being used as an umbrella for the bottom left quadrant. Progressivism is being used as an umbrella for the upper left quadrant. Quit using the political compass to define your ideology for you and you won't have this confusion. Was that so hard?
If the bottom left quadrant is labelled as classical liberal that is ridiculous. That's the box for anarchism and various Socialist schools of thought, not liberalism which is inherently pro-capitalist. The bottom right quadrant should be used for classical liberalism. Your system only works if you ignore all leftist economic theory.
It feel it is correct to say that NAP is central to classical liberalism and also that classical liberalism it is inherently economically conservative (in the sense that we currently understand 'conservative') so anyone claiming to be on the left economically and also to be classically liberal is perhaps a little conflicted, or perhaps they just hold to a particularly weak form of classical liberalism (like all other philosophies, there is a spectrum). However I don't think that it is correct to say that either classical liberalism or libertarianism require holding to a belief in no or minimal regulation or true laissez faire capitalism. Even Adam Smith recognized the need for regulation. I would argue that classical liberalism is the view that government ought to confine itself to playing referee i.e. setting and enforcing the rules in order to establish a level playing field and prevent abuses of power (such as the monopoly example given) or other distortions of the economy (such as Martin Shkreli gouging drug prices). It should not also act as a player on the field (i.e. engage directly in economic activity, except for essential activity that private enterprise is incapable of) and any rules that are created should be consistent with the NAP e.g. they should not be just to enforce the morality of a particular group of people, such as Evangelical Christians, or to protect people from themselves -- so no drug regulation or seatbelt laws, even though I would continue to wear a seatbelt and not use drugs. Regulation, and government generally, are essential for the NAP to operate however. I also agree that NAP is a very nebulous concept and that the devil is very much in the detail. For example, my neighbor is a budding heavy metal guitarist and frequently his practice sessions significantly interfere with what I am doing. Is this an act of aggression on his part? If so then how much does it have to interfere with me before it becomes one? There are a huge number of daily interactions where the actions of one person can inadvertently interfere with the freedoms of another, but whose freedoms are more important? NAP is a starting point for considering these problems but it is definitely not the end point, and very often the further you go from physical violence the harder it gets.
the thing is this : it's a scale, when deciding political stance you look at current situation in your country and you want to push it in the direction of clasical liberlism or any other side, it's always 2 steps forewards and one step back so that train doesn't change directions very fast.
Conservatives ARE the true liberals. Because yes, conservatism is about conserving things the way they are. Conservatives of the past wanted to conserve religious values and the nuclear family. But young conservatives in 2017 want to conserve liberal values like individualism, egalitarianism and democracy. The progressives want equality of outcome (equity) not equality of opportunity. They want diversity of gender / race not diversity of cultures / opinions. They want collectivism not individualism. They want a theocracy (progressive absolutism) not a democracy. They want a big authoritarian government that will regulate everything from the internet to private life. Progressivism is regressive by nature because it's diametrically opposed to liberalism and the very concept of individualism.
I mean, the latter half of the video is just unsupported conclusively statements about the dystopian outcomes of classical liberalism, without any push back or open discourse from someone with an alternative perspective. It’s pure propaganda. For instance his point about how there is a boom bust cycle in a classical liberal nation. There is a boom bust cycle period. The fed doesn’t prevent it. It just prints money and pushes interest rates artificially low until it breaks the economic system and you get stagflation which we are seeing now. The boom bust cycle is not an outcome that results from an unfettered market cycle. It results regardless of how much government force and intervention you add in.
@@jordanthomas4379 No money = no personal worth. Few laws = doctors can more freely experiment Not everyone can become rich, some will start to unionize A tyrant running the show to protect the system = a few stretched necks And of course mad competition = body modification which we will see with genetics in the future (although probably not teleportation or shooting fire from the hands) It's a braindead ideology.
Not really. Classical liberalism isn’t anarchist. One of its tenets is that humans create governments to better secure their natural rights from the chaos of the state of nature.
I'm baffled by your ability to make a nearly 20 minute video about classical liberalism with only a single quote from John Stewart Mill. It seems like you are conflating a lot of modern social problems with the ideas of classical liberals from over a 100 years ago when these problems didn't yet exist. Most classical liberals are dealing solely with the organization of society and law, not with economic principals. To extrapolate their ideas regarding social freedom to imply unfettered economic freedom is a bit dishonest. If you give some actual classical liberal material a read (like John Stewart Mill's "On Liberty") you will clearly see that these ideas were groundbreaking for their time and in no way conservative. Mill, for instance, argued for equal rights for women at a time when women were not afforded even voting rights and even wrote a letter regarding the abolition of slavery in 1850 long before the civil war. I'm disappointed in your lack of research for this piece.
Wilberforce was certainly a pivotal part of the global abolition of slavery. After the age of Enlightenment slavery quickly became something that liberal philosophers and conservative politicians of the time could agree on.
An even more progressive view of the late John Stuart Mill was his sympathy for a kind of market socialism in which democratically run worker cooperatives compete with each other in a free market. With that he was the very first one to combine ideas of workers' ownership of the means of production with a market-based economy; also criticising capitalist hierarchy and touching on surplus value. All of this came up in his "Chapters on Socialism". It would have been nice if David had mentioned some of that but, as most people, he probably was not even aware. It would have been fairer to also mention Mill's harm principle which, as I see it, is markedly more encompassing than the NAP which is basically just the harm principle LITE. In On Liberty, although it was also mostly applied to social issues, Mill addressed exactly some of the more detailed nuances and caveats that the NAP lacks. Really, Mill puts trust into the prospect that utilitarianism is fully compatible with liberal leftism which I find rather cathartic.
Classical Liberal summary in my eyes: Society is a collective of sovereign individuals who possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The desire to secure these rights are why man creates governments in the first place. So the purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens and it must do this if it wants to have any claim to legitimacy. And should a government stop protecting the natural rights of its citizens, they have the right to replace it, even through revolution if necessary. Classical liberalism believes that hierarchy is an effective way to organize society, but also acknowledges that hierarchies tend to corrupt over time when left to themselves (aristocracy). So it solves this issue by replacing hierarchy by birth with hierarchy by merit (meritocracy). This in theory allows society to properly spread around the talent and abilities of the populace in a moral way and a way that doesn’t violate anyone’s natural rights and still allows for the effectiveness that hierarchy can provide for getting things done. The role of government in a classically liberal society is basically to settle disputes when someone’s rights have been violated. It otherwise is intentionally kept limited and weak because government is seen in classical liberalism as a necessary evil. Something that would be great to go without but that is simply not possible. Classical liberalism acknowledges the need for government, but also inherently distrusts it, as it sees governments as also the principle violators of natural human rights throughout history. This is why they want it to remain limited, so that it theoretically can’t gain the power to potentially oppress anyone.
I think you got it a bit wrong Packman. What you call 'Classical Liberalism' is what is called 'liberalism' in Europe(the primary ideology of right wing parties in Europe). Actual 'libertarianism has nothing to do with 'Classical Liberalism', it is the term used to describe the most radical revolutionary non-Marxist socialist. 'Libertarian' was coined by the followers of Bakunin and Kropotkin in late 1800's. It has nothing to do with liberalism/John Locke.
You're right. He forgot to mention the distinction between European libertarianism which has a long anarchist and socialist tradition and american libertarianism which is much more capitalist and reliys heavly on the N.A.P.
+Talky McTalkface Centerism does exist and many countries have had long running centerist parties which have died out in the push to extremes over the last 30 years. Centerists do exist as a group of pragmatists willing to negotiate towards better outcomes, we just have little to no representation on the political stage because being ideologically driven has become a virtue and the willingness to negotiate a sinful weakness.
No. Liberalism is liberalism. If you dont agree with John Locke and (at least the principle of) the free market yo are not a libreal. The european definition of liberalism is the correct one. The german FDP is a liberal party. It emphasizes economical and soial freedom. Just like liberalism places value on the freedom of the individual and the free market. But you dont have to be an Anarcho capitalist to ba a classical liberal. Pakman strawmaned a lot. "Classical liberal" doesnt (nessecerily) mean youre against socailized healthcare. im a german. Our model combines the free market with socailized heathcare. Because I belive in the social contract I dont see any contradictions of socailized healthcare with my ideology. I am also in favor of a socail security net. Not universal income but a minimum on that a citizen can live in dignity. I (like Sargon) think that poverty limits peoples freedom so I am in favor of such sociallized things. But I am am strictly against socialism.
ideology has driven social liberals like Bernie to their positions--------- and being ideologically driven and centrist ( my spelling) are not diametrically opposed------------ Bernie is driven by ideology and centrist though very few in our confused discussion describe him that way
''classical liberal just means you're pro free speech and more or less libertarian in some founding fathers sort of sense'' this basically describes Dave Rubin's political philosophy although he's said he doesn't believe the government should penalize private business like bakeries who refuse to service a gay wedding for religious reasons ok so your fine with arbitrary discrimination because that's exactly what that is and you've just opened Pandora's box.
You’ve conflated the ideology of classical liberals with conservatives to justify your own ideology that supports SJW tactics and stuff like critical race theory which are the furthest things from liberalism there are. Classical liberals are not libertarian nor are they conservatives, they are the people who created this country and those of us who see value in its principles. At this point what is your actual Ideology David? Because while we can all be in disgust at Donald Trump and conservative ideology, you are really anything but a liberal in my eyes, so I’m curious how you describe your views.
Great video. I used to self-identify with progressivism because I essentially viewed it as being a combination of basic rationalism + secularism + civil/social libertarianism + social safety net and making education and healthcare accessible for all. I abandoned the label. with the ascension of identity politics and authoritarian leftism. I've dabbled with the term "classical liberal", but it was never a label I held with passionate conviction because of its murkiness and my own views not conforming with anyone school of thought. Back when I identified as a progressive I would say I'm a progrssive with a great respect for libertarianism. I had respectful disagreements - along with a lot of enthusiastic agreements - with libertarianism. I also fit within the mold of a person who would say I'm classically liberal because I can't stand SJWs but I lean left. These days I'd call myself a nuanced moderate.
+David Pakman Classical liberalism originated with Adam Smith, and finds its intellectual roots in "The Wealth of Nations", in which Adam Smith listed his "principles of government in a free society", which included 1) The protection of the citizenry against foreign aggressors, 2) The protection of the individual against domestic aggressors, and 3) The production of public goods that are too expensive for any one individual to produce, but are beneficial for society as a whole. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to argue from a classically liberal perspective both in favor and against public healthcare, depending on whether you define healthcare as a public good.
Well yeah, but the word Libertarianism in the U.S. has been hijacked by ancaps. Which I don't personally even care about, I think it's great they consider Libertarianism as a social basis, but it leads to ridiculous videos like this.
The Market Liberal I suppose you could say it's an economic stance, nothing more and nothing less. But on the other hand, it's economically leftist. So I don't think you will find any conservative socialists.
Classical Liberalism, simply called "Liberalism" in Europe, is basically what you guys call libertarian. And so, if you come here to Europe and you're a socialist, don't say you're liberal, or everyone will think you're against government intervention in the Free Market.
Classical liberalism is not pretty fucking conservative; rather american conservatives are pretty fucking liberal in the classical european sense. The term liberal is much older than libertarian. John Locke was a liberal and ONLY in the U.S does that word does not longer mean liberal. In the rest of the world John Locke is still a considered a liberal. So much so is the case that only in the U.S you guys use the term classical liberal to distinguish it from the distorted version you created, in the rest of the world is not needed because liberal means still what it meant to thinkers like John Locke.
This is rather a paper thin escapade into political theory that leaves a lot to be desired, there is a lot more to liberalism and "classical" liberalism than individual liberty and the harm principle. Personally I find it annoying this video is even necessary, don't people know anything about basic political theory? (I will answer my own question: of course they don't) "Classical" liberals (like all liberals in some shape or form) are followers of Locke, Mill, Bentham, Rousseau, Kant, Smith etc. committed to individual freedom, equality, democracy, reason, progress human rights, tolerance etc. and the other values of the the (so called) enlightenment. Interestingly the value of equality/egalitarianism to liberalism (and "classical" liberalism) is always understated if mentioned at all, with its belief in moral equality and the equal dignity and rights of individuals, the law of equal freedom, equal rights etc. For a start liberalism, including "classical" liberalism which in it's proper sense really refers to nothing more than liberalism as it existed prior to about 1880 and the rise of the "new" liberalism has NOTHING to do with true, traditional conservatism, the philosophy of Burke, De Maistre, Disraeli, Schmitt, Oakeshott etc. so the title is rather incorrect, unless you're referring to what Americans call "conservatism" which is really just a form of religious classical liberalism, it has nothing to do conservatism as traditionally understood. "Classical" liberalism like all liberalism and true conservatism are incompatible, they have almost nothing in common, one is individualist the other collectivist, one is libertarian and egalitarian the other is authoritarian (not in a pejorative sense)and hierarchical, one universalist the other particularistic etc. I would recommend "Liberalism" by the philosopher John Gray for anyone interested. Also the left/right spectrum is BS, it confuses and deludes more than it enlightens and should be done away with, it's not objective either, how you define left and right is subjective.
Classical liberalism is... a synonym for Liberatarianism. That’s it. If you think that the cure for capitalism is more capitalism, than you are a classical liberal. David you are not a democratic socialist, you are a social democrat. Big difference.
Classical liberalism is essentially just the protection of negative liberties. It leaves little if anything for the government to do, apart from leaving people alone to sort out their own problems via private property, private associations, and contracts. Modern liberalism, social liberalism, liberal democracy, reform liberalism (it goes by many names) is essentially the creation of new rights (often called positive liberties), because it's hard to realize substantive freedom when you're poor, uneducated, or discriminated against. It's kind of the fulfillment of the original liberal promise once it became evident that classical liberalism wasn't the surest path to individual autonomy and collective human flourishing.
thank you for this video. I'm sympathetic to the frustration ofself-described liberals with antifa, SJWs, and other excesses of the Left, but at some point if all you do is disparage your own side then you're not really on that side. Dave Rubin often speaks about his respect for Bill Maher, but Maher knows how to balance his criticisms of leftist apologia for Islam with criticism of the Right.
The problem with the non-aggression principle comes up against the paradox of tolerance. If we are to tolerate everyone, even the intolerant, they will steadily divide us until one group is able to be viewed as less than human, such that violence against them is not considered violence.
Odd that David called himself a Democratic Socialist here, and not a Social democrat (which is the accurate term). He has another video 8 days after this one, that explains the difference between the 2, and he said he is Social Democrat and not Democratic Socialist. So I suppose here he was being super lax, since in that video he said they're seen as rather interchangeable these days. But then in a more recent video, he's called for Bernie to switch from the incorrect misleading "Democratic Socialist" label, and use "Social democrat" instead. (As far as Bernie's actual platform goes and what he would do in practice). Bit odd.
bw85 To my knowledge, he has never said that. I follow his podcast, and it's obvious he's fairly center-left. I'd like to know where David got his info from -- a quick Google search yielded nothing.
The thing is "classical liberal" and "new liberal" (not neoliberal) have no clearly defined distinction. So some people who want free health care for all and free education for all are calling themselves classically liberal which makes it seem like a bigger group.
I like Pakman, but he's just *wrong* about a few things in this video, and that leaves people feeling unimpressed - even when they don't know exactly which points weren't true. They know _something_ was "off." Just my 2 cents.
yeah i didn't sit and dissect every statement, it was on in the background while internet window shopping, (honestly i'm not even sure if you are/were addressing this to my particular comment (so i will apologize now)) either way what was wrong in your opinion of his 20 minute diatribe on the nuances of political discourse are ignored when the internet (or almost any media type) has marketing/capitalist influences that have an effect that makes content creators go to the lowest common denominator and harp upon a couple of buzz word/popular and easy targets to make their audience happy (and of course make dat dollar!) shit i'm not even sure that's what the video was about, either way what's wrong, or what did you know deep in your gut felt "off" idk who cares, the whole online conversation thing is a loss, fuck life, ciao!
kaptainkool408 Pakman is by far the best leftist pundit and the most underestimated for some reason. I wish he appeared more on MSM and big youtube channels for interviews. In other hand what we can do is to donate to the channel so he can grow more.
Yeah, he is probably the most cool-headed progressive pundit, and he always seems to have good rationale behind everything he's saying. Except on Palestine. I've never seen him give particularly good reasons for supporting Israeli imperialism, but I still watch him because on everything else he seems to do "bigly" well. Honestly part of me is happy he supports Israel though, because it shows that he's not just spouting off the prevailing ideology or anything, he's saying what he believes and he doesn't care what you think of him as a result, and that's refreshing.
I stopped using "progressive" to describe myself, because of the toxic individuals that were associated with that label (social justice warriors) and "classical liberal/libertarian" would only be half-truth to what I'd believe. That's why I always say that I'm a *liberal socialist* , in which I believe in a mixed economy between socialist and capitalist principles. I've heard people draw comparisons to either social democracy or social liberalism because of this, to which I don't blame them.
"I'm a democratic socialist!" People who say this without knowing what it means really make me irritated. NO your not a democratic socialist your a social democrat. Democratic socialists are against capitalism. Democratic socialists are ACTUAL socialists. Not just people who want more government regulation.
He has another video 8 days after this one, that explains the difference between the 2, and he said he is Social Democrat and not Democratic Socialist. So I suppose here he was being super lax, since in that video he said they're seen as rather interchangeable these days. But then in a more recent video, he's called for Bernie to switch from the incorrect misleading "Democratic Socialist" label, and use "Social democrat" instead. (As far as Bernie's actual platform goes and what he would do in practice). Bit odd.
It is another term for a libertarian. The problem is you have "social liberals" aren't so "liberal." A lot of the social part is all about control over others whether it is through the use economic regulation or social control like gun control. A classical liberal's main interest is ensuring individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of self defense, etc as described in the beginning. Realistically speaking when it comes to politics you can't honestly put a label on everything. That is where leftism with group identity falls on its face. There is always this idea that we can just put people in their various groups when in reality our political compasses are all over the place. You can sort of go with a broad pain brush but that is like looking at a book's cover and using that to put which section in the book store. The main point for anyone identifying as a classical liberal is they really just want to be left alone to do their thing and they will try to not bother you while you do your thing.
Fred Koch was a Fascist sympathizer, and Charles and David Koch are Classical Liberal/Libertarians. It would appear that the apples do not fall far from the tree.
The non-aggression principle is a good one, so long as we understand that living in a society means that we're benefitting from everyone and thus owe back in return. To refuse to pay taxes, for example, would be an act of aggression.
I love when people define ideologies other than their own. Classical Liberals are not extremists as depicted by Pakman. There are ranges of beliefs with in even the organized parties. My family members were Republicans, but not very socially conservative and we never wove religion into politics. We were northerners and from a "medium sized" city. Pakman accepts the term libertarian, yet the libertarians have all sorts of subdivisions like paleo or anarchists. Milton Friedman is an example. They accept some government intervention as opposed none to and more than most libertarians. The Sherman Anti-Trust laws are a good answer to monopolies, but the heavy regulations proposed by "various lefties" will end in centralized power and monopolies. Mr. Pakman also says he opposes authoritarian rule, but countries fall into that trap as the level of government interventionist policies increase to meet the needs for power rise.
Well done... Earned a subscription from me for this video. I encourage you to put out more twenty minute, in depth videos like these. You do well in informing audiences, whether they are prone to agreement or disagreement.
awesome way to poison the well of what Classical Liberal means. All people who are classical liberals don't agree on everything. It's not an echo chamber Pakman... You fail on the most basic level
You don't appear to derive a proper understanding from the most basic things because he specifically said in the video that the definition of what a "classical liberal" is, varies amongst people.
All that yadyadyada.. Sargon of Akkad calls himself a classical liberal and he is the conservativest blockhead i knew, he would be perfect as Nixons right hand and is one step from beeing a fascist away. So maybe there was a time liberal means somewhat other but now if Scrotum is a Liberal, oh a cLAssy Liberal, than Packman is right.
Carl Benjamin says he's for Universal Healthcare, yet laughably voted against it when he voted for the Conservative Party, in the UK General Election earlier this year. On the weird and warped thoughts of his, that he thought the Conservatives would get a better deal for Brexit. Despite Theresa May running at the first sight of gunfire, when she and her party tried and failed to implement a Dementia Tax. I also think that he uses the term of Classical Liberal, so he can hide behind its vague and nebulous terminology, and therefore he can make up any bullshit meaning for the term. Saying that he's Left Wing because Liberal is in the title, despite a lot of his talking points being Right Wing.
Sam Harris? Classical liberal? He's explicitly stated that he is center-left/left-leaning on countless occasions and all of his political positions have either fit around there or in some cases has stances that are far left.
For hundreds of years being on the left was synonymous being a classical liberal. If you look up those political tets with a a grid, the center area of the bottom left quadrant if where classical liberals fall.
I'm a libertarian so I'll just debunking some of the points you made at near the end of the video starting around 16:10 1.Public Interest: if its not in their interest why would members of the public want to work for you/ pay you? 2.Monopolies: who do you think will have least problems dealing with the extra cost of following regulations? I think regulations will kill more of its smaller competition than big companies. also who do you think has most influence over government? I also believe that it should be as easy as possible to start a business to compete with others 3.pollution: I believe with big government people will just rely on government to check it and companies will just do the bare minimum to comply, without it people will check them selves and there will be competition to be more environment friendly 4.food and drugs:making people sick isn't a sustainable business model 5.boom and bust: the only thing that affects the economy as a whole are government regulations so I believe it would be more stable
@@zayan6284 Bruh he literally pointed out how most of you “classical liberals” don’t even know what it means and how it may not apply to you. Missed the point entirely as usual
You start the video attempting to let people know that classical liberalism doesn’t mean anything and you shouldn’t be using it as it’s too ambiguous. 8:19 you give the definitions of what a classical liberal is. Which is, unfortunately for your own argument, a very well-defined and appealing ideology 12:57 you attempt to make it seem like force is a confusing concept for most people when it’s not 13:55 you tend to argue that appropriate level of force is also a confusing concept when it’s not You close saying that if one is a classical liberal then the destruction of society and monopolies running the economy are the end result and if you don’t agree with those things then you shouldn’t call yourself a classical liberal.
If you actually were familiar with classical liberal writing you would know that F.A. Hayek (the greatest champion of CL in the last century) supported a public healthcare system and outlined it in both "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Constitution of Liberty".
Based on your definition, I would still say I'm a "Classical Liberal". However, I personally think that "limited government" doesn't have to exclude a social safety net, anti-trust laws, or anti-pollution measures. I think getting rich is all fine and good, but I draw the line at profiting off of CREATING poverty. I've read the works of Thomas Paine and I would say he's done the most in shaping my political views.
Actually, the US political denominations are the ones that have strayed from the original meanings that were started in Europe centuries ago. Liberalism is just what it sounds = liberty. As in individual liberty. Ultraliberals are what you in the US call libertarians. What you call liberals in the US, we here in Europe call democratic socialists. Sharing the load, giving everyone a helping hand if life is tough, etc. Now, liberalism (here in Europe) also comes with economic conservatism. Then there are some parties that are valuebased conservatives (such as christian democrats that are against gay marriage and against full abortion rights). And there are some that combine economic conservatism with valuebased conservatism into full-on conservatives. So it's Americans that have been using the terms incorrectly. Liberalism means personal liberty, which is NOT what the Democrats are for, since they are for a bigger government.
dakkster To the contrary, US Republicans are the ones against liberty when it comes to social issues, and they are horribly inept at fiscal conservatism.
On the contrary? You're not contradicting me, as I didn't even mention the republicans. If you think the Ds and the Rs are so different that they're actually opposites in terms of being for or against personal liberty, then you are sorely mistaken. Both R and D are against personal liberty in different ways and degrees. Yes, the Ds are for more personal liberty in terms of social rights, but are against personal liberty when it comes to fiscal stuff, as they are very socialist, pushing stuff like Medicaid and so on. What you did here was the fallacy "false dichotomy". Look it up. There isn't a dichotomy between the Rs and Ds in terms of personal liberty.
Democrats are in no way “very socialist” as you depict. Otherwise, Bernie Sanders would have utterly buried Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries. At the moment, we have corporate-sponsored Democrats who are opposed to single payer health care and government-subsidized college tuition. Approximately 21 years ago, Bill Clinton signed into law welfare reform that cut food stamps by $24 billion over a six year period. The list goes on. On the other hand, members of the Republican Party are attempting to pass legislation that would ensure millions of Americans lose access to health care while giving giant tax cuts to the most wealthy. In addition, several renegade Republicans are still trying to outlaw gay marriage (in spite of the recent Supreme Court decision) and increase spending on an already overblown military. These policies all lead to anti-liberty and big government with the oppressive actors being the corporations and government contractors. Regarding the “true” meaning of liberal, the European political lexicon-whether ancient or modern-has no bearing on how we interpret and use such words in the States. Your original post is largely meaningless.
My post is largely meaningless? David Pakman puts out a video talking about how the European definition of liberal is wrong. I debunk that. Maybe this is news to you, but the US is a really young country with not a lot of history compared to European countries. The notions of liberalism and conservatism were born before the US was created. So if we're talking definitions, the old, original meanings of Europe are hardly meaningless. As far as your arguments go... it's pretty clear that... A. You're in denial about how socialistic the US actually is. Not my problem. How many millions get healthcare subsidized? Not how many are threatened by bill that failed many, many times. How many TODAY are getting subsidized healthcare? And how many are getting grants and state/federal scholarships to go to college? And how many kids go to public schools? And how many people are on food stamps today? B. You try to make ONE example as to why the Democrats aren't socialistic. Just because they cut food stamps 20 years ago, that doesn't take away all of the other policies. Do you even know why they were cut? I'd suggest reading up on those negotiations first. So you take one failed example on each issue, thinking that it somehow supports your argument, when it actually doesn't. C. You don't realize that the world is gray, not black or white. There are degrees to things. No single party is completely this, that or the other. D. You're ignorant and when you don't have anything to fall back on, you try to claim that my post is meaningless, even though you yourself started replying to me in the first place. I'm done with you. My suggestion to you is that you go and read a book on basic political history and that means not just the young history of American politics. Go broader. Or is that meaningless to you too?
dakkster You’ve debunked nothing. Regarding the regional discrepancies in political vernacular, all you did was repeat what Pakman already said. See for yourself: Pakman: “Classical liberalism means that the rights of the individual reign supreme. In large part, it’s an axiom that assumes that small government, free market capitalism, and free trade solve most economic problems. A true classical liberal takes the anti-government position on many issues. Economically, a classical liberal is a libertarian or a conservative, basically. It’s what Europeans mean when they say liberal when they’re talking about economics. In Europe, if you say you’re an economic liberal, it means the opposite of what it means to most people in the United States. It means you’re generally against any economic regulation… Political terminology does evolve over time.” dakkster: “Now, liberalism (here in Europe) also comes with economic conservatism.” Your original post is meaningless because this brand of linguistic imperialism you’re proposing is rather laughable. Again, the European lexicon has no bearing on us. Our dictionaries support various meanings for the word “liberal.” Merriam-Webster defines liberal as possibly meaning “marked by generosity,” “not bound by authoritarianism,” or “based upon the principles of liberalism.” “Liberalism” is in turn defined as “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class).” I have news for you. Language evolves over time and place. Do Latin Americans speak the same Spanish as the Spaniards? No. Do Americans speak the same English as the British? No Do the English still speak using King James’ English? No. Do Americans living in the South use the same vocabulary as those living in the North? No. For what it’s worth, I would find it very entertaining to see American social and economic conservatives publicly identify as liberals. They’d be laughed off stage quicker than you can say “Democrats are very socialist.”
Thats Not a Knife, This is a Knife You do realize that the free marketplace of ideas is used as a term to manipulate otherwise liberal thinkers into libertarians or classical liberals?
Alan Cohen *definitively. Also, while I sympathize with his implications, what he said sounds just like calling socialism communism. Sure, It could inevitably happen, but not necessarily...
+Claude Palmer Oh no it isn't... The original liberal thinkers were very aware that there's a role for goverment (primarily to protect the basic principles of freedom). They would have rejected anarcho-capitalism.
Pakman: '"Classical Liberal" is this elastic, all encompassing and vacuous term that doesn't effectively summarize all of my views' and that's not okay. Also Pakman: I'm agnostic, democratic socialist, I'm anti-apologist and none of these terms fully describe my views but that's okay.
pathologicaldoubt "...democratic socialism reflects *some* of my views....I can go on but it's a mixed bag." Nowhere did he say they fully encompassed his entire worldview and he implied the opposite. Please gain at least a middle school level of comprehension and get back to us
pathologicaldoubt Pakman acknowledges that labels can't describe one's views fully and accepts it for what it is. He then goes on to critique classical liberalism for being so vague that it doesn't do much for prescribing economic or social policies. That's the whole point. You ask two self-described classical liberals their views on policies and you may get diametrically different responses. You are unlikely to have major policy disagreements between two self-described progressives or democratic socialists.
I might be contaminated by other languages than English, but I hate when US-Americans call themselves progressives. Progressivism only mean that you think that humans is capable at improving their situation (progress). There is very few isms that doesn't claim that they improve the situation for humans if applied -- so most isms are covered by the vague term progressivism. I believe that most of the US-Americans that call themselves progressive, actually mean that they are either Social Liberals or Social Democrats, but the word Social sounds to much like Socialism, another word many US-Americans hate, without even knowing what it actually mean (confusing it with Stalinism, Maoism et c.).
Hi doppleganger07. Let me recommend you the mobile app Vote 1. It explains the differences between the ideologies much better and even in a more interactive way, than this video :)
Actually, his conclusions at the end are completely wrong. Natural monopolies almost never last under the economic pressures of free trade and technological development, with the exception of the de Beers diamond monopoly, which is coming down as more and more women prefer alternate gems for anniversary and even wedding jewelry. The late 19th century American and European robber barons always used federal, state, and city licensing, regulation, and other restrictions to block competition wherever possible. They could make far more money at the expense of the consumer by blocking competition to utilities, rail, medicine, banking, investment, ship travel, and lending, just as they do today.
You know one thing I've noticed about a lot of the Classical Liberals on social media is that they seem to share a couple of key things: - They're usually financially well off and can afford to spout the rhetoric they defend - They live relatively sedentary isolated lives where others interfering with them would violate their rhetoric Anyone else notice this, or is this just me?
Steven Guitink I think that is just you, most classical liberals (or center leftists) I've come across seem to come from working class or middle class backgrounds. That is of course with the exception of Dave Rubin, who already had a well established job at TYT before creating his own platform.
Well working class or middle class doesn't preclude being financially well off, not from what I've seen anyway. Maybe the word I should've used was financially stable. A lot of those I've seen who are "Classical Liberals" or Libertarians are often self-employed, operate small businesses or make just enough money that everything in their life revolves around them exclusively. Bare in mind tho, I'm not the most politically minded person out.
Two things: 1. I would then point to people like Penn Jillette or Joe Rogan; self-employed, very well off. Answer to no boss except themselves. Not saying you're wrong, but there are those who don't fit such a narrow view. 2. I'm not talking about their class, whether it be lower, middle or upper. I'm simply pointing out (from what Ive seen anyway) the characteristics they seem to share. Those characteristics might not always been consistent, but there does seem to be a general similarity.
Steven Guitink question... why do you view one being able to support themselves a distasteful condition? Maybe... just maybe, the people not able to financially support themselves should actually take a hard look at those that can... and adopt the same work ethics and values? No, really, hear me out... you see someone being successful... would it not make all logical sense to say "hrmm, maybe theyre actually successful", and then do what they do and be successful yourself.
+WJ MacKENZIE well you have to consider this that they come from a position of socio-economic advantage. And frankly following their example is not a tried-and-true method to guarantee another success. Now hear me out... Let's say you look at a person who is middle class small business owner okay? Now a low class worker slaving away could follow each and every one of that middle class business owners Life Choices to the absolute letter and still not be able to achieve with the middle class small business owner has. Because the simple fact of the matter is not everyone has the same advantages. for the lower classes they have to deal with wage stagnation and rising cost of living. The middle class small business owner does not have this problem and most likely he did not in the beginning; he she they will try to say that they simply succeeded on "gumption" but all that is just chest-pounding grandstanding. They had advantages and they also had assistance financial and social. Many in the lower class if not all of them do not have this. And they certainly are going to be able to achieve that simply by "working hard" and following the "example" of someone who had distinct advantages that they themselves do not possess and cannot replicate
Very very good piece. I am a PhD philosophy student, and much of my work is in free market economics and libertarianism. I think this was spot on, and though I believe in the free market and libertarian values in the most part, your reservations I think are well founded.
I find myself agreeing with the Libertarians on certain aspects of socioeconomics as the concept of the free market is quite appealing especially because logically competitive businesses would be able to drive down costs substantially and would lead to better wages and benefits for employees in order to retain those employees to maintain competition and also would be able to and this oligopolist nightmare we have with places like Google Microsoft and even Amazon. however so many and the libertarian can't believe that regulation and oversight is just unnecessary and that somehow the free-market will magically work as some kind of oversight for corporate practices and banking practices which I think is quite absurd because those with the most money have the most power and I would like to think that at one point in American history there was something of a free-market however we did see the rise of the robber barons regardless of this free-market. I suppose my position is that government regulations and oversight should ensure that the free-market remains fair and free that no one corporate entity should have a disingenuous advantage over the other so to speak.
Witchdoctor Williams Libertarianism isn't anti-government. It's limited government. Any intellectually honest libertarian would agree that you still need government for certain functions, namely the protection of private property (libertarians love that stuff). Anti-government is more of a anarchist/far-left perspective. They see the state as an entity that perpetuates divisions in society. Classical liberalism is perhaps more of a general philosophical trend compared to libertarianism, which is more of an ideology. But it's probably accurate to say all libertarians agree with most or all of the ideas of classical liberalism.
I don't really consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists in any ideological sense of the word. Anarchy is a more colloquial sense? Sure. But the history of the movement and its ultimate concerns do not seem to align with anarchism in any way that is not superficial. Anarchism is essentially a variant of communism. Anarcho-capitalism on the other hand is classical liberal philosophy taken to absurd degrees. They accept all those Enlightenment-era Rationalist hypotheticals about the state of nature, but then basically say "screw the social contract, we want nothing but the state of nature."
Saying that a term that includes Shapiro, Harris, Saad, and Sargon is "vacuous" anti-Centrism. We need a term for people of those different political affiliations to rally around in opposition to fascists and communists. Just like the Enlightenment included a variety of viewpoints that were all opposed to theocracy and monarchy.
Classical liberalism isn't as specific as you are making it. It defines a broad school of thought that can hold many viewpoints and only has basis in one thing: freedom. Liberalism = freedom. If anything, regressive liberalism is the one changing definitions around these parts partner Edit: I didn't finish the video before I commented so nvm
to me it just means i want to be a"liberal"but am stuck in the middle between neo-liberals and SJWs or people who use identity politics. i simply believe in free speech,a social safety net and workers rights so if a hard worker after 20 years with no sick days gets fired cause some asshole new boss doesn't like and fires them they don't have to face possible homelessness if they don't find work. also people uninsured should have access to health care
Liberalism and conservatism can also mean "any thing you want it to." You spelled out the key determinant in the beginning meaning individualism & human rights. Economically there is great disparity in opinions. This is clear. The distinction is much more important recently due to the increase in collectivist political warfare we're seeing. "Classical liberalism" is becoming a common sense pro dialogue and human rights stance. This is important.
While I'm not a classical liberal, and I've not seen anything to support Sam Harris being one, I feel the people that have begun to use the term more, like Dave Rubin, Sargon, and other UA-cam figureheads that have been critical of authoritarian aspects of the progressive left you mentioned, have clarified they are socially classically liberal, as in the free speech, NAP, which I would argue in the social sense is essentially just the golden rule, and economically they are liberal or centrist. I feel like the it's use has been confusing lately, but also, many that have used it, have clarified that they mean in a social context, like Dave's label, "Social libertarian." Also, with regards to this comment section, I really wish we wouldn't demonize each other. Calling people that have supported free speech nazi sympathizers, going after Dave Rubin for daring to be a liberal that also has other views, and talks with people who aren't liberal. People are complex, nothing is black and white. As for reclaiming the term progressive, I feel that has become as muddled as classical liberal. There are authoritarians, sjws or tumblr-ites or regressives, ect ect, the more toxic aspects of certain groups within third wave feminism (I'd say that most of these groups intersect) and they you have actual progressives like Bernie and people that supported him, myself included. You said it yourself, you're a progressive that has been critical of these things, as am I, and while many have argued these actions and views aren't progressive, hence the term regressives, they are the ones most loudly proclaiming to be progressives. It has ruined the word, not just for how other people see it, but for not wanting to be associated with people you feel are really against your own values in a lot of ways. I tend to use the term liberal, as it is somewhat ambiguous enough, but still, there is at least an idea of what I stand for, and I can add more labels as needed, humanist, atheist, ect.
Erika It's actually the original form of Liberitarianism, before liberitarian-capitalism hijacked the term. It's essentially the belief that the working class can rule and take care of itself without a revolutionary state or government helping them out. It's the opposite of the more well known Leninist-Marxisim.
I'm at a loss. This purported description of classical liberalism focuses on none of the core values of the ideology. The NAP is a libertarian thing. I think Pakman is conflating classical liberalism with natural-rights libertarianism.
True because it's libertarianism. Classical liberals like Clinton and dare I say obama you don't belong in a left wing party you belong in the libertarian party your conservative
Brent Showers Obama in 2007 was for Single-Payer and Gun Legislation. He was way more left wing than Clinton. Yes Obama did eventually pass more leaning to the right legislation but not like the Clintons.
He's a trust fund baby, that wants constant attention. Trump has no actual skills. Obviously you don't know many wealthy trust fund babies. Most of them are truly useless.
Whoa. Thanks David. I love these pieces with so much research explaining the cause, consequence, and causality, as well as explaining the labels, their origins, their applications, their permutations, and their alignment or misalignment to the intentions of people who use them in the zeitgeist. It's an extraordinarily helpful addition to my personal lexicon for comprehending matters I otherwise wouldn't know where to start approaching. I wish I could give more than one thumbs up.
You are so condescendingly disingenuous here. The people like myself who use this label occasionally mean that they are liberal, in the sense of a "live and let live" worldview. They don't want to preach or be preached at. People who use this label do so as a place marker, because they don't like labels in the first damn place. We KNOW that this usage is a bit out of line with the dictionary definition, and you know that we know. They don't like zealots of any stripe. They need a label because virtue signalling "progressive" presstitutes will call them "right wingers" (or even "far right" like happened to Jordan Peterson this week) if they don't adopt something. I'm an individual at the core. A non-joiner. The devil's advocate. A skeptic. A doubting Thomas. A free thinker. And sometimes none of these. Without the Enlightenment and it's values, every institution and infrastructure that a public intellectual relies on (you in other words) would not exist. Progressivism is anathema to me, because it means you must be a collectivist and conformist or be cast out. Conservatism is similar. "Classical liberalism" in the current year means "open minded". If you follow the current "progressive" left wing ideology to the extreme you get Stalin. To the right we all know what you get. So unless you want to extend this little treatise on the "extremism" of classical liberalism to progressivism and conservatism, it's just propaganda for the far left. The individual is the smallest minority, and must be protected from the predation of collectives. One more thing. There is only one definition of force. Physical force, physical violence. There is only one definition of coercion. Mental manipulation. Stop with the clever navel gazing. It's absurd. Regular people hate this kind of pointless semantics and it destroys common understanding. You are taking a term that is being used colloquially, and you know this, and you are trying to use that to question the morality of the people using it. You have lost me as a subscriber. I know, you don't care. I don't mind viewpoints from all over the spectrum. What I cannot stomach is demonizing propaganda based on an loose term that was only recently adopted in frustration by centrist people who don't identify with "conservative" or "progressive" because they are so rigid, moralizing, and exclusionary. You goddamn well know it too.
They're both principles that advocate people doing what they want and living their lives how they want as long as they don't violate the rights of others. How is that not a massive similarity.
The Quester "Live and let live" is the opposite of a collectivist political party politically advocating that anybody do anything. It is a simple concept, a personal inclination. A method of existence. Not a political agenda or party. I swear, the internet is killing human thought. If you say the same word over and over to yourself in the mirror, relentlessly analyzing it, it becomes nonsense after a while. This is what overthinking does. More of a thing contributes nothing to it's quality, in fact, it usually is counter-indicative of quality. If you have ever learned to build things with your two hands, you come to understand there is a fine line between improving a thing, and ruining a thing. Do your thing peaceably and don't screw with the lives of others. Simple. What is the point of trying to understand society if you have an intensely uncharitable and disapproving view of the intentions and value of everyone but yourself? Freedom is the basic unit of individual happiness. This is where liberty morally intersects with "liberal".
Advocating anybody do anything IS live and let live, and it is an indivudualist sentiment, not a collectivist one. That's not overthinking that's just common sense. How am I being uncharitable?
Oh boy. Ty very much for this video. This is something that really hits me a lot. I love the "small" channels i find all the time, that make great videos. Keep up the good work. *Subscribed*
This sounds like you're taking an extremely narrow and purity-tested definition. You're also criticising your narrowly-defined version of classical liberalism as having internal inconsistencies and relying on subjective value judgements, while at the same time comparing it to progressivism (in a way that heavily implies that progressivism does not suffer from such internal inconsistencies and subjectiveness - a falsity as literally every single ideology does and must do) It's possible to start from classical libertarian ideals, or predominately so, and end up coming to different conclusions than other classical liberals have. It's also possible to be socially "liberal" in this sense while keeping your economic stance more to the left (and it's possible to justify doing so *using classical liberal frameworks*). This (splitting social and economic politics) is something so normal to do these days that the common representation of political alignment has moved from a one-dimensional left/right scale to a two-dimensional social/economic axis "compass".
I think you missed another principle about universality. That individuals are treated equally under the law means that varying levels of economic or other intervention into your life. These are the grounds that I believe, Carl Benjamin for example, might defend some social welfare programs, some form of nationalized health care, and some economic intervention. As long as economic regulations affect all actors equally, without a predetermined group to harm or benefit, then these interventions might be considered classically liberal. Help me out if I'm getting something wrong here tho, plz.
Yeah classical liberalism is also a fancy term which is why others on the left might use it and why I used it but in reality excessive libertarianism shouldn't be glorified in my view. Progressivism may have negative connotations but fuck it, I'll call myself a progressive for the sake of social democracy, regulation of wall street and a push towards renewable energy regardless of how less of a 'neat label' classical liberalism might offer. We need to stand firmly for what and who we are even if there are those who also call themselves progressives who hold views most progressives don't agree it and which creates the SJW stereotype. You can call the average progressive a 'damn regulator' if you want but most of us are not SJWs or against free-speech.
A classical liberal is a libertarian who wants a girlfriend.
Actually, on the real political Spectrum, libertarianism is the philosophy that stands between true liberalism and anarchism.
On the real political Spectrum, pre 1947, liberalism is mid right wing, conservatism is the true Centrist political philosophy. Democracy is actually left-wing and is despised by the true liberal.
@@prodigalson6166 The real political spectrum? You mean the political spectrum you personally subscribe to.
@@nat1bott know the political Spectrum prior to 1947. You have a lot of research to do.
@Egg Egg egg egg capitalism is awesome corporations only create corporatism. And at this point two traditional enemies have teamed up against us, the corporatist and the Communist.
@@prodigalson6166 unchecked capitalism creates corporatism. You being a libertarian, go further than simply settling for deregulation, you want to fully get ride of any regulations. This is why sane people who have even an elementary understanding of basic economic principles find you guys hilariously difficult to take seriously.
So, on one hand you concede that corporate greed is responsible for the destruction of the working class, yet on the other you want to strip away the minuscule level of government oversight and accountability currently keeping these corporations from reverting back to draconian 19th century worker exploitation practices such as child labor, lack of safety codes, 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, equal employment, the list could go on for paragraphs...
It’s quite literally bonkers trying to understand how you reconcile these two glaringly obvious, starkly contradictory positions?
Or more broadly, libertarians always go on endlessly about how regulations do more harm than good; how it would be so much more beneficial to society if we were to simply eliminate all taxes (an action which would coincidentally strip US currency from having any value, but that’s another conversation) and instead just have civilians put their heads together to figure out any and all social/economic disputes without the need of intervention from an authoritative 3rd party (government). The problem is that human beings are inherently prone to act in their own self interest. So, in a society free from worry of punitive action from a 3rd party with the authoritative power to hold them accountable at various levels, you’ll inevitably end up with what we essentially have now, which is an oligarch state throwing workers just enough scraps that they end up hungry enough to show up and work in the oligarch’s factories and earn their next serving of leftover scraps to fight over.
That’s what we have now, WITH A MINIMAL LEVEL OF REGULATING. How do you complete the feat of mental gymnastics it takes to conclude that with this being the case, eliminating the meager accountability we have left currently over corporations, would then somehow create this tax free utopia of endless personal economic liberty???
It’s so funny how you guys chase your own tails trying to work your way out of this self defeating philosophy, and you are so loudly adamant about never just letting it go...
John Locke was a classical liberal.
John Stewart Mills was a classical liberal.
Milton Friedman was a classical liberal.
Bernie Sanders is the absolute farthest thing from a classical liberal.
Ben Shapiro is a SELF DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVE not a classical liberal.
Except it's not. It's economically conservative and, yes, generally non-interventionist, but it also allows for otherwise left leaning views on a myriad of social issues (gay marriage, substance legalization, etc.).
Ben Shapiro has, on occasion acknowledged that he's close to being a classical liberal and, indeed, has explicitly stated he's generally libertarian on many issues. So, he's somewhere between a "constitutional conservative" and "classical liberal."
Classical Liberalism has no position on social issues, individuals may live their lives following whatever principles they please, the state shouldn't be involved. Classical Liberalism and Conservatism aren't necessarily seperate, they _can_ go together.
@@zayan6284 You just contradicted yourself, " individuals may live their lives following whatever principles they please, the state shouldn't be involved", that is a stance on social issues, in other words social and moral liberalism, the maximisation of individual liberty etc. Also "classical" liberalism like all liberalism and true conservatism are incompatible, they have almost nothing in common, one is individualist the other collectivist, one is libertarian and egalitarian the other is authoritarian (not in a pejorative sense)and hierarchical, one universalist the other particularistic, also by conservatism I don't mean what Americans refer to as conservatism according to their warped political terminology, what Americans call conservatives are rally just for the most part religious classical liberals, they have nothing to do with true conservatism e.g. the philosophies of Burke, De Maistre, Disraeli, Schmitt etc.
He is a psychopath
A certain married gay man needs to watch this video.
Barrack Obama?
KMC he’s too busy fighting in the battle of ideas
Mayor Pete?
his brain is in recovery mode after taking in all the big ideas in this video
@@fluiypj I think you meant those high level important ideas
Classical liberalism can be shortened to one word: individualism. Classical liberalism is used to contrast not against labels like progressive or conservative, but as a contrast to collectivism. Liberals on the left should call themselves "social liberals".
The label for you, should be alt-right/neo-nazi.
Then you can work from there with additions.
@@Siberius- LOL You dont even know what those phrases mean.
My comment doesn't make sense anymore in the slightest lol. It's WAY out of left field.
As you can see, the OP edited their comment. I can't quite remember what it was, 2 years ago. I think he would have listed out his views and asked if he fits what the video is about...
The comment does read very funny now.
As far as my usages, no. I am very specific with my usages. I personally go by Umberto Eco's 14 points as far as fascism, and he must have mentioned something about Jewish people.
If he didn't, then based on what he previously typed, he would instead just be a fascist.
I was literally just helping the guy out lol.
It can be shortened to fascism
Really basic question:
Why must someone accept ALL of a philosophy's ideas in order for them to call themselves one? Someone can say, without having to accept everything every other classical liberal has said, "I am a John Stuart Mill classical liberal, in that I agree with his notion that:
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
You can absolutely accept this notion related to Classical Liberalism without having to be an economic libertarian. Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "I'm socially liberal but economically conservative?" People can (and should, imo) vary from issue to issue. This also makes sense in terms of being against hard leftist thinking, where we have seen de-platforming and more and more admonishment of the principle of free speech. This would also tie into the non-aggression principle, as you wouldn't define speech as violence (like some on the far left have done), because that would destroy open debate (more on this below).
You yourself even said, "Classical Liberalism is a fluid concept, and there were Classical Liberal thinkers of years ago who do not support full laissez-faire economics." You then go on to say "political labels evolve," and then do some hand waving about how in the last 50 years or so, this is what I think it has meant, so that's what I'm going to compare it to. This is also made clear by another point of yours, that in different countries, different labels mean different things. By the way, one of the first presidents to really act against monopolies in the U.S., Teddy Roosevelt, is known by some as a "progressive" of his time and by others as a "strong-state conservative."
Doesn't it matter a lot what an individual means when they say something? Can Sam Harris, for example, be a classical liberal in that he supports open debate, knowing the other side, free speech, and individualism, but then also be something else in that he sees the utility in some level of government regulation of the market? He also has an essay about the problems of inequality on his website. Why assume that anyone who takes on the "Classical Liberal" label hasn't also identified as something else somewhere else, just as you have done?
It seems that it's a problem of labels in general, and I think this is what a lot of people who identify as "Classical Liberal" want to point out: I believe in the "market place of ideas" (another John Stuart Mill quote) in which I am open to hearing opposition, allowing my ideas to be fluid as I hear better information. If I ever call myself a "classical liberal", it is largely for this reason. Free speech came from here, and so beyond that, I don't want to be put in a box. Let me hear the best argument and then I will decide.
It's funny to me in the same video that you refer to Classical Liberalism as an improperly used term, and then you improperly use Democratic Socialism to refer to Social Democracy.
That’s your only criticism for the entire video? He must’ve done a pretty good job then :)
@@dualhearts2035 Just an observation. I'm not exactly anti-Pakman. If anything my Brave tokens contribute to him.
It is effectively being tight fisted
I've never heard a Classical Liberal use the term to describe the totality of beliefs you lay out. In fact, most people who use the term clarify that they are using it to describe their belief in freedom and individualism. Every political ideology is fluid - the adherents of modern versions of political ideologies would be scarcely recognizable to their ancient counterparts - and classical liberalism is no different. Further, its rare for a single political ideology to encapsulate the totality of a persons beliefs; if someone wants their beliefs to be fully understood it'll require more than a flat statement of ideology (progressive, conservative, etc.). You acknowledge as much in your video, yet you still go on to hold people who apply the label of classical liberal to a ridiculously rigid standard. Not only must someone who uses the term adhere to every iota of the ideology, they also can't adhere to aspects of other ideologies. Its seems to me that you were determined to label classical liberals as conservative and let that drive how you argued in this video.
BitterReason perfect comment
Your last line seems about to land correctly, but reading the title of the video,.just makes me say yeahhhh no shittt sherlock
Calling yourself a "progressive" in Canada can be problematic. It has a whole different meaning.
In the 1920's and 30's, there was a Progressive Party of Canada. The Progressive Party was formed in 1920 when Ontario and prairie farmers on the Canadian Council of Agriculture united with dissident Liberals led by Thomas CRERAR, who resigned from the federal Cabinet in 1919 opposing high tariffs. In November 1918 the CCA had proposed a "New National Policy" of free trade, nationalization (particularly of railways) and direct democracy.
Later, the name was incorporated into the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (PC) was a federal political party in Canada with a centre-right stance on economic issues and, after the 1970s, a centrist stance on social issues. The party began as the Conservative Party of Canada in 1867, becoming Canada's first governing party under Sir John A. Macdonald, and for years was either the governing party of Canada or the largest opposition party. The party changed its name to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in December 1942. In 2003, the party membership voted to dissolve the party and merge with the Canadian Alliance to form the modern-day Conservative Party of Canada. It's still a provincial party in Ontario.
Then there's the Progressive Canadian Party (PC Party) (French: Parti progressiste canadien) is a federal political party in Canada. It is a centre-right party that was registered with Elections Canada, the government's election agency, on March 29, 2004.
The original Progressive Party was pretty much what you call classical liberal in outlook - basically Libertarian. The Progressive Conservatives and the Progressive Canadians are in Canadian terms centre-right, or pretty much like the US Democratic Party, which is in US terms centre-left. I tend to believe a lot of things US progressives do, but am loathe to adopt the label. I'm not so left-leaning as the New Democratic Party which is avowedly socialist and grew out of the Social Credit Party (the NDP was founded by Tommy Douglas, father of actress Shirley Douglas and grandfather of Keifer Sutherland; and also father of Canadian Medicare).
Owen Oulton Do all non Americans see American politics on the right?
Don't know about all non-Americans, but Canada's centre is farther left than the US's. I'm given to believe most of Western Europe feels the same way, but have no personal experience there. There are pockets of Canada that are very pro-American, but I believe my statements reflect the views of the vast majority of Canadians.
Actually, the NDP grew out of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation which was a coalition of trade unionists and socialist orgs. While the Social Credit Party did have some left-wing planks, they ended up drifting to the right by the Postwar Era, becoming more of a Right-Wing Populist party. When Social Credit began to collapse in the 1970s and 1980s, most Social Credit activists migrated to the Reform Party of Canada (which was co-founded by Preston Manning, the son of longtime Alberta Social Credit Premier Ernest Manning). Ultimately, the Reform Party evolved into Canadian Alliance then merged with the PCs to become the Conservative Party of Canada.
This is so fucking stupid. Conservatives do not call them selves progressives because they see progressivism as centre right. It's literally an oxymoron. They call themselves progressives because they allow to some extent some left social policies(such as reproductive rights)
Herbert Hoover was called a progressive president in the United States during the same era.
Dave Rubin is gunna get triggered and sue again.
He sued David? For what?
GRiMHOLD he sued a news article for suggesting he's a conservative.
Donosaur him and Rubin are friends
He wasn't even mentioned in the video.
I don't thinks it Rubin that wants to sue Pakman, it would of been easily known if it was him thats suing him.
As a geo-libertarian (often identifying as "classical liberal" in the spirit of Thomas Paine), I feel that David ignores some important arguments build upon the basic principles of:
* You own you own body.
* You own the fruit of your own labor
* Your freedom extends precisely so far that it does not interfere with the equal freedom of others.
One of these arguments being that natural opportunities (like land and resources) are NOT the fruit of your own labor.
I'd argue that people calling themselves classical liberals and taking it to anarcho-capitalistic consequence David describes have misunderstood or overlooked very important facts and have a *very* superficial view of liberalism. (which is, btw, very much NOT conservatism - speaking in European terms here)
Also don't underestimate the egalitarian dimension of liberalism, a belief in moral equality and the equal dignity and rights of individuals, the law of equal freedom, equal rights etc.
Im a classical liberal but i believe abortion should be banned in most cases, because of the child's life.
@@dubber1416 does not compute.
That form of Libertarianism is just being tight fisted
I used to think classical liberal was a term for me. But I think that social liberal or social democrat is a better term.
MRdaBakkle Same. I’m back to Progressive Democrat regardless of what the hell these devils on the right think of it.
Looking at your political compass in your moniker, my political compass is exactly the same as yours! I have found nothing else that describes me better than Classical Liberal/Libertarian. I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican. In essence, I don't really have a party to which I belong.
So a pussy right?
@@Lylamamma1997 I used to be a conservative but like I dont really care at all about politics until someone hurts someone else or infringe a right. I support abortion,gay marriage, free market and I also support guns its their right to do wtf they want. I think a black lesbian transgender billionaire from their weed company should be able to own a suppressed belt fed automatic m249 lol.
good thing you have your priorities straight
yea, I guess I'm a classical liberal then
It's safe to say I'm not a classical liberal, particularly for economic reasons.
Michael B throw the hemp industry in America watch the economy explode with money
Michael B I am a classic liberal!
I find it amazing that people actually believe that if you say you subscribe to a particular ideological position, that you rigidly believe everything that ideological position says. Humans do not work like that, most people when you ask them about a flaw in that ideology, they tend to be reasonable and explain to you what they believe, even if it doesn't line up with their chosen ideology 100%. It isn't an AH-HA! moment, it is them being a rational person.
They chose that label because it is the closest to their position and is an easy short hand way to describe them without explaining every nuanced position.
I hate this label game that everyone plays that assumes that you believe everything about a position, no one does so why the fuck do we do it?
Evirthewarrior then people like dave rubin and ben shapiro should stop labeling THEMSELVES. Don't blame the people pointing out the flaws in the ideologies that these people choose to follow and label themselves.
I am sorry to inform you this... But most people actually do subscribe to the ideas that claim... Sure there might be one or two points where they differ, but fundamentally they subscribe to that group that they claim to support.
It is not a question of being 100% pure... But you wouldn't claim to be a social democrat, if you didn't believe that the state can be effective and is a player in the society. Likewise you wouldn't call yourself a conservative, if you didn't fell that systems and power-structures should evolve rather than just being replaced, and fundamentally feel that radical ideas is something one has to be more skeptical of than already proven systems.
Evirthewarrior The use of this label becomes problematic when Carl Benjamin and Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro all call themselves "classical liberals." The term tells you literally nothing about their beliefs, especially on policy, besides maybe, *maybe* supporting free speech and private ownership of the means of production. Pakman in no way implies that using the label prescribes a set of beliefs to which every user must subscribe; he says the archetype of classical liberalism has virtually no relation to the beliefs of those who've adopted the term today. As a result the term literally doesn't even *describe* a set of beliefs, much less prescribe any. Where you're mistaken is that he then looks to the beliefs of the founders of classical liberalism for reference, not to say these are the beliefs every classical liberal must hold, but to try to make sense of an otherwise meaningless term. When you do, you see that the first classical liberals' most direct ideological descendents today call themselves libertarians.
You are right, but ...
Only when your label actually _is_ close enough to your position. If it's essentially the opposite of your own position in many of its main aspects, it really doesn't fit very well. Look, I'm a communist, with a few exceptions: I believe that the family is the most important entity of a society, I believe in homeschooling, I believe that a free market economy is often better than planned economy and that private banks should be allowed. Which puts me in stark opposition to several core values of communism.
bandholm no, most people do not, only extremists do. most people that have a label, when you press them on specific issues, they do not line up with the rigid definitions. Morons that do not understand nuance, assume that everyone is an extremist.
Let's make it real simple...
Libertarian is being used as an umbrella for the bottom half of the political compass, which, while it contains minarchists, doesn't explicitly equal minarchism. Classical liberalism is being used as an umbrella for the bottom left quadrant. Progressivism is being used as an umbrella for the upper left quadrant. Quit using the political compass to define your ideology for you and you won't have this confusion.
Was that so hard?
If the bottom left quadrant is labelled as classical liberal that is ridiculous. That's the box for anarchism and various Socialist schools of thought, not liberalism which is inherently pro-capitalist. The bottom right quadrant should be used for classical liberalism. Your system only works if you ignore all leftist economic theory.
It feel it is correct to say that NAP is central to classical liberalism and also that classical liberalism it is inherently economically conservative (in the sense that we currently understand 'conservative') so anyone claiming to be on the left economically and also to be classically liberal is perhaps a little conflicted, or perhaps they just hold to a particularly weak form of classical liberalism (like all other philosophies, there is a spectrum). However I don't think that it is correct to say that either classical liberalism or libertarianism require holding to a belief in no or minimal regulation or true laissez faire capitalism. Even Adam Smith recognized the need for regulation.
I would argue that classical liberalism is the view that government ought to confine itself to playing referee i.e. setting and enforcing the rules in order to establish a level playing field and prevent abuses of power (such as the monopoly example given) or other distortions of the economy (such as Martin Shkreli gouging drug prices). It should not also act as a player on the field (i.e. engage directly in economic activity, except for essential activity that private enterprise is incapable of) and any rules that are created should be consistent with the NAP e.g. they should not be just to enforce the morality of a particular group of people, such as Evangelical Christians, or to protect people from themselves -- so no drug regulation or seatbelt laws, even though I would continue to wear a seatbelt and not use drugs. Regulation, and government generally, are essential for the NAP to operate however.
I also agree that NAP is a very nebulous concept and that the devil is very much in the detail. For example, my neighbor is a budding heavy metal guitarist and frequently his practice sessions significantly interfere with what I am doing. Is this an act of aggression on his part? If so then how much does it have to interfere with me before it becomes one? There are a huge number of daily interactions where the actions of one person can inadvertently interfere with the freedoms of another, but whose freedoms are more important? NAP is a starting point for considering these problems but it is definitely not the end point, and very often the further you go from physical violence the harder it gets.
the thing is this : it's a scale, when deciding political stance you look at current situation in your country and you want to push it in the direction of clasical liberlism or any other side, it's always 2 steps forewards and one step back so that train doesn't change directions very fast.
Conservatives ARE the true liberals. Because yes, conservatism is about conserving things the way they are. Conservatives of the past wanted to conserve religious values and the nuclear family. But young conservatives in 2017 want to conserve liberal values like individualism, egalitarianism and democracy.
The progressives want equality of outcome (equity) not equality of opportunity. They want diversity of gender / race not diversity of cultures / opinions. They want collectivism not individualism. They want a theocracy (progressive absolutism) not a democracy. They want a big authoritarian government that will regulate everything from the internet to private life. Progressivism is regressive by nature because it's diametrically opposed to liberalism and the very concept of individualism.
inb4 every "classical liberal" is collectively triggered in the comments section.
I mean, the latter half of the video is just unsupported conclusively statements about the dystopian outcomes of classical liberalism, without any push back or open discourse from someone with an alternative perspective. It’s pure propaganda.
For instance his point about how there is a boom bust cycle in a classical liberal nation.
There is a boom bust cycle period. The fed doesn’t prevent it. It just prints money and pushes interest rates artificially low until it breaks the economic system and you get stagflation which we are seeing now.
The boom bust cycle is not an outcome that results from an unfettered market cycle. It results regardless of how much government force and intervention you add in.
If you want to know what a classical liberal society looks like just play Bioshock
Monsieur Bubbles no that’s idiotic, it’s just a game, and yes, I do know you are referring to the underwear city in the game
Jordan TRusso games in general have political story and meanings behind them
@@jordanthomas4379 No money = no personal worth. Few laws = doctors can more freely experiment
Not everyone can become rich, some will start to unionize
A tyrant running the show to protect the system = a few stretched necks
And of course mad competition = body modification which we will see with genetics in the future (although probably not teleportation or shooting fire from the hands)
It's a braindead ideology.
Not really. Classical liberalism isn’t anarchist. One of its tenets is that humans create governments to better secure their natural rights from the chaos of the state of nature.
I'm baffled by your ability to make a nearly 20 minute video about classical liberalism with only a single quote from John Stewart Mill. It seems like you are conflating a lot of modern social problems with the ideas of classical liberals from over a 100 years ago when these problems didn't yet exist. Most classical liberals are dealing solely with the organization of society and law, not with economic principals. To extrapolate their ideas regarding social freedom to imply unfettered economic freedom is a bit dishonest. If you give some actual classical liberal material a read (like John Stewart Mill's "On Liberty") you will clearly see that these ideas were groundbreaking for their time and in no way conservative. Mill, for instance, argued for equal rights for women at a time when women were not afforded even voting rights and even wrote a letter regarding the abolition of slavery in 1850 long before the civil war. I'm disappointed in your lack of research for this piece.
The conservative William Wilberforce already had slavery abolished in the British Empire in 1833.
Wilberforce was certainly a pivotal part of the global abolition of slavery. After the age of Enlightenment slavery quickly became something that liberal philosophers and conservative politicians of the time could agree on.
An even more progressive view of the late John Stuart Mill was his sympathy for a kind of market socialism in which democratically run worker cooperatives compete with each other in a free market. With that he was the very first one to combine ideas of workers' ownership of the means of production with a market-based economy; also criticising capitalist hierarchy and touching on surplus value. All of this came up in his "Chapters on Socialism".
It would have been nice if David had mentioned some of that but, as most people, he probably was not even aware. It would have been fairer to also mention Mill's harm principle which, as I see it, is markedly more encompassing than the NAP which is basically just the harm principle LITE. In On Liberty, although it was also mostly applied to social issues, Mill addressed exactly some of the more detailed nuances and caveats that the NAP lacks.
Really, Mill puts trust into the prospect that utilitarianism is fully compatible with liberal leftism which I find rather cathartic.
their concern was limiting the power of the government---------------- that includes how much money , if any, the gov't can take from the citizens
society and economics are intertwined there's only so much you can change with one without changing the other
Classical Liberal summary in my eyes:
Society is a collective of sovereign individuals who possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The desire to secure these rights are why man creates governments in the first place. So the purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens and it must do this if it wants to have any claim to legitimacy. And should a government stop protecting the natural rights of its citizens, they have the right to replace it, even through revolution if necessary.
Classical liberalism believes that hierarchy is an effective way to organize society, but also acknowledges that hierarchies tend to corrupt over time when left to themselves (aristocracy). So it solves this issue by replacing hierarchy by birth with hierarchy by merit (meritocracy). This in theory allows society to properly spread around the talent and abilities of the populace in a moral way and a way that doesn’t violate anyone’s natural rights and still allows for the effectiveness that hierarchy can provide for getting things done.
The role of government in a classically liberal society is basically to settle disputes when someone’s rights have been violated. It otherwise is intentionally kept limited and weak because government is seen in classical liberalism as a necessary evil. Something that would be great to go without but that is simply not possible.
Classical liberalism acknowledges the need for government, but also inherently distrusts it, as it sees governments as also the principle violators of natural human rights throughout history. This is why they want it to remain limited, so that it theoretically can’t gain the power to potentially oppress anyone.
I think you got it a bit wrong Packman.
What you call 'Classical Liberalism' is what is called 'liberalism' in Europe(the primary ideology of right wing parties in Europe). Actual 'libertarianism has nothing to do with 'Classical Liberalism', it is the term used to describe the most radical revolutionary non-Marxist socialist. 'Libertarian' was coined by the followers of Bakunin and Kropotkin in late 1800's. It has nothing to do with liberalism/John Locke.
You're right. He forgot to mention the distinction between European libertarianism which has a long anarchist and socialist tradition and american libertarianism which is much more capitalist and reliys heavly on the N.A.P.
+Talky McTalkface
Centerism does exist and many countries have had long running centerist parties which have died out in the push to extremes over the last 30 years. Centerists do exist as a group of pragmatists willing to negotiate towards better outcomes, we just have little to no representation on the political stage because being ideologically driven has become a virtue and the willingness to negotiate a sinful weakness.
No. Liberalism is liberalism. If you dont agree with John Locke and (at least the principle of) the free market yo are not a libreal. The european definition of liberalism is the correct one. The german FDP is a liberal party. It emphasizes economical and soial freedom. Just like liberalism places value on the freedom of the individual and the free market.
But you dont have to be an Anarcho capitalist to ba a classical liberal. Pakman strawmaned a lot. "Classical liberal" doesnt (nessecerily) mean youre against socailized healthcare. im a german. Our model combines the free market with socailized heathcare. Because I belive in the social contract I dont see any contradictions of socailized healthcare with my ideology. I am also in favor of a socail security net. Not universal income but a minimum on that a citizen can live in dignity. I (like Sargon) think that poverty limits peoples freedom so I am in favor of such sociallized things. But I am am strictly against socialism.
'''while actually libertarian is a synonym for Anarchism '''nolibertarians don't want to eliminate government
ideology has driven social liberals like Bernie to their positions--------- and being ideologically driven and centrist ( my spelling) are not diametrically opposed------------ Bernie is driven by ideology and centrist though very few in our confused discussion describe him that way
tl;dr David Pakman doesn't know what classical liberalism is.
''classical liberal just means you're pro free speech and more or less libertarian in some founding fathers sort of sense'' this basically describes Dave Rubin's political philosophy although he's said he doesn't believe the government should penalize private business like bakeries who refuse to service a gay wedding for religious reasons ok so your fine with arbitrary discrimination because that's exactly what that is and you've just opened Pandora's box.
You’ve conflated the ideology of classical liberals with conservatives to justify your own ideology that supports SJW tactics and stuff like critical race theory which are the furthest things from liberalism there are. Classical liberals are not libertarian nor are they conservatives, they are the people who created this country and those of us who see value in its principles. At this point what is your actual Ideology David? Because while we can all be in disgust at Donald Trump and conservative ideology, you are really anything but a liberal in my eyes, so I’m curious how you describe your views.
Great video. I used to self-identify with progressivism because I essentially viewed it as being a combination of basic rationalism + secularism + civil/social libertarianism + social safety net and making education and healthcare accessible for all. I abandoned the label. with the ascension of identity politics and authoritarian leftism. I've dabbled with the term "classical liberal", but it was never a label I held with passionate conviction because of its murkiness and my own views not conforming with anyone school of thought. Back when I identified as a progressive I would say I'm a progrssive with a great respect for libertarianism. I had respectful disagreements - along with a lot of enthusiastic agreements - with libertarianism.
I also fit within the mold of a person who would say I'm classically liberal because I can't stand SJWs but I lean left.
These days I'd call myself a nuanced moderate.
+David Pakman Classical liberalism originated with Adam Smith, and finds its intellectual roots in "The Wealth of Nations", in which Adam Smith listed his "principles of government in a free society", which included 1) The protection of the citizenry against foreign aggressors, 2) The protection of the individual against domestic aggressors, and 3) The production of public goods that are too expensive for any one individual to produce, but are beneficial for society as a whole. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to argue from a classically liberal perspective both in favor and against public healthcare, depending on whether you define healthcare as a public good.
Classical Liberalism is essentially libertarianism.
Well yeah, but the word Libertarianism in the U.S. has been hijacked by ancaps. Which I don't personally even care about, I think it's great they consider Libertarianism as a social basis, but it leads to ridiculous videos like this.
The Market Liberal So are socialists conservative then? Or what are they?
The Market Liberal I suppose you could say it's an economic stance, nothing more and nothing less. But on the other hand, it's economically leftist. So I don't think you will find any conservative socialists.
The Market Liberal I don't believe it is MERELY that. How many people do you know who would say "I'm a conservative, everything is perfect as it is.".
Classical Liberalism, simply called "Liberalism" in Europe, is basically what you guys call libertarian. And so, if you come here to Europe and you're a socialist, don't say you're liberal, or everyone will think you're against government intervention in the Free Market.
Classical liberalism is not pretty fucking conservative; rather american conservatives are pretty fucking liberal in the classical european sense. The term liberal is much older than libertarian. John Locke was a liberal and ONLY in the U.S does that word does not longer mean liberal. In the rest of the world John Locke is still a considered a liberal. So much so is the case that only in the U.S you guys use the term classical liberal to distinguish it from the distorted version you created, in the rest of the world is not needed because liberal means still what it meant to thinkers like John Locke.
Fernando Alatorre exactly. The United States are also the only people who use the left-right perspective.
This is rather a paper thin escapade into political theory that leaves a lot to be desired, there is a lot more to liberalism and "classical" liberalism than individual liberty and the harm principle. Personally I find it annoying this video is even necessary, don't people know anything about basic political theory? (I will answer my own question: of course they don't) "Classical" liberals (like all liberals in some shape or form) are followers of Locke, Mill, Bentham, Rousseau, Kant, Smith etc. committed to individual freedom, equality, democracy, reason, progress human rights, tolerance etc. and the other values of the the (so called) enlightenment. Interestingly the value of equality/egalitarianism to liberalism (and "classical" liberalism) is always understated if mentioned at all, with its belief in moral equality and the equal dignity and rights of individuals, the law of equal freedom, equal rights etc. For a start liberalism, including "classical" liberalism which in it's proper sense really refers to nothing more than liberalism as it existed prior to about 1880 and the rise of the "new" liberalism has NOTHING to do with true, traditional conservatism, the philosophy of Burke, De Maistre, Disraeli, Schmitt, Oakeshott etc. so the title is rather incorrect, unless you're referring to what Americans call "conservatism" which is really just a form of religious classical liberalism, it has nothing to do conservatism as traditionally understood. "Classical" liberalism like all liberalism and true conservatism are incompatible, they have almost nothing in common, one is individualist the other collectivist, one is libertarian and egalitarian the other is authoritarian (not in a pejorative sense)and hierarchical, one universalist the other particularistic etc. I would recommend "Liberalism" by the philosopher John Gray for anyone interested.
Also the left/right spectrum is BS, it confuses and deludes more than it enlightens and should be done away with, it's not objective either, how you define left and right is subjective.
Poor Dave Rubin is going to be victimized by people tweeting this video at him.
Love it when David releases videos like this
Classical liberalism is... a synonym for Liberatarianism. That’s it. If you think that the cure for capitalism is more capitalism, than you are a classical liberal. David you are not a democratic socialist, you are a social democrat. Big difference.
Some one post this to RUBINs wall and Twitter feed
Classical liberalism is essentially just the protection of negative liberties. It leaves little if anything for the government to do, apart from leaving people alone to sort out their own problems via private property, private associations, and contracts. Modern liberalism, social liberalism, liberal democracy, reform liberalism (it goes by many names) is essentially the creation of new rights (often called positive liberties), because it's hard to realize substantive freedom when you're poor, uneducated, or discriminated against. It's kind of the fulfillment of the original liberal promise once it became evident that classical liberalism wasn't the surest path to individual autonomy and collective human flourishing.
The Pakman never fails.
Ryan Powell +
Peter
You serious?
Big Swings It's supposed to be always fails
Ben Mangrum describe his failure. David clearly described classical liberalism.
Big Swings *holster* .. or is that just his mouth... I give up.
thank you for this video. I'm sympathetic to the frustration ofself-described liberals with antifa, SJWs, and other excesses of the Left, but at some point if all you do is disparage your own side then you're not really on that side.
Dave Rubin often speaks about his respect for Bill Maher, but Maher knows how to balance his criticisms of leftist apologia for Islam with criticism of the Right.
"Vacuous and devoid of any objective meaning"
Yeah that sums up Rubin pretty well
The problem with the non-aggression principle comes up against the paradox of tolerance. If we are to tolerate everyone, even the intolerant, they will steadily divide us until one group is able to be viewed as less than human, such that violence against them is not considered violence.
Odd that David called himself a Democratic Socialist here, and not a Social democrat (which is the accurate term).
He has another video 8 days after this one, that explains the difference between the 2, and he said he is Social Democrat and not Democratic Socialist. So I suppose here he was being super lax, since in that video he said they're seen as rather interchangeable these days.
But then in a more recent video, he's called for Bernie to switch from the incorrect misleading "Democratic Socialist" label, and use "Social democrat" instead. (As far as Bernie's actual platform goes and what he would do in practice).
Bit odd.
David is inconsistent on many things.. it'd be easy to forgive or ignore if he didn't always act so smug and self-righteous
For me, Classical Liberalism is a tame version of Right Libertarians. Basically between Neoliberals and libertarians.
When and where did Sam Harris proclaim he's a classical liberal?
If he has done so, it most likely is on his podcast... But I am not sure.
My guess would be a Dave Rubin interview?
bw85 To my knowledge, he has never said that. I follow his podcast, and it's obvious he's fairly center-left. I'd like to know where David got his info from -- a quick Google search yielded nothing.
Pretty sure he never has. But people often mistake him for one because of the people he hangs with.
i think one of the rubin interviews he seemed open to the idea of classical liberalism as desribed by rubin, but im not 100% sure on this though
The thing is "classical liberal" and "new liberal" (not neoliberal) have no clearly defined distinction. So some people who want free health care for all and free education for all are calling themselves classically liberal which makes it seem like a bigger group.
This video gonna go viral, watch
sadly this won't, or hasn't??
I like Pakman, but he's just *wrong* about a few things in this video, and that leaves people feeling unimpressed - even when they don't know exactly which points weren't true. They know _something_ was "off." Just my 2 cents.
Put up or shut up.
yeah i didn't sit and dissect every statement, it was on in the background while internet window shopping, (honestly i'm not even sure if you are/were addressing this to my particular comment (so i will apologize now))
either way what was wrong in your opinion of his 20 minute diatribe on the nuances of political discourse are ignored when the internet (or almost any media type) has marketing/capitalist influences that have an effect that makes content creators go to the lowest common denominator and harp upon a couple of buzz word/popular and easy targets to make their audience happy (and of course make dat dollar!) shit i'm not even sure that's what the video was about, either way what's wrong, or what did you know deep in your gut felt "off"
idk who cares, the whole online conversation thing is a loss, fuck life, ciao!
Based Trill nope
I love how he says he is a progressive and then goes on to point out it's just as pointless of a label as classical liberal.
Ok Pakman. I dub you king of reason and progressivism. You are the best representative for sure
kaptainkool408 ik right?! I see other channels get more subs or views but packman is always nail on the head.
kaptainkool408 Pakman is by far the best leftist pundit and the most underestimated for some reason. I wish he appeared more on MSM and big youtube channels for interviews. In other hand what we can do is to donate to the channel so he can grow more.
R. m I will sign up to his patreon now
Yeah, he is probably the most cool-headed progressive pundit, and he always seems to have good rationale behind everything he's saying.
Except on Palestine. I've never seen him give particularly good reasons for supporting Israeli imperialism, but I still watch him because on everything else he seems to do "bigly" well.
Honestly part of me is happy he supports Israel though, because it shows that he's not just spouting off the prevailing ideology or anything, he's saying what he believes and he doesn't care what you think of him as a result, and that's refreshing.
Progressivism yes. Reason? Not so much.
I stopped using "progressive" to describe myself, because of the toxic individuals that were associated with that label (social justice warriors) and "classical liberal/libertarian" would only be half-truth to what I'd believe. That's why I always say that I'm a *liberal socialist* , in which I believe in a mixed economy between socialist and capitalist principles. I've heard people draw comparisons to either social democracy or social liberalism because of this, to which I don't blame them.
"I'm a democratic socialist!"
People who say this without knowing what it means really make me irritated.
NO your not a democratic socialist your a social democrat.
Democratic socialists are against capitalism.
Democratic socialists are ACTUAL socialists. Not just people who want more government regulation.
He has another video 8 days after this one, that explains the difference between the 2, and he said he is Social Democrat and not Democratic Socialist. So I suppose here he was being super lax, since in that video he said they're seen as rather interchangeable these days. But then in a more recent video, he's called for Bernie to switch from the incorrect misleading "Democratic Socialist" label, and use "Social democrat" instead. (As far as Bernie's actual platform goes and what he would do in practice).
Bit odd.
It is another term for a libertarian.
The problem is you have "social liberals" aren't so "liberal." A lot of the social part is all about control over others whether it is through the use economic regulation or social control like gun control.
A classical liberal's main interest is ensuring individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of self defense, etc as described in the beginning.
Realistically speaking when it comes to politics you can't honestly put a label on everything. That is where leftism with group identity falls on its face. There is always this idea that we can just put people in their various groups when in reality our political compasses are all over the place. You can sort of go with a broad pain brush but that is like looking at a book's cover and using that to put which section in the book store.
The main point for anyone identifying as a classical liberal is they really just want to be left alone to do their thing and they will try to not bother you while you do your thing.
Fred Koch was a Fascist sympathizer, and Charles and David Koch are Classical Liberal/Libertarians. It would appear that the apples do not fall far from the tree.
The non-aggression principle is a good one, so long as we understand that living in a society means that we're benefitting from everyone and thus owe back in return. To refuse to pay taxes, for example, would be an act of aggression.
THANK YOU! THIS HAS BEEN DRIVING ME CRAZY!
I love when people define ideologies other than their own. Classical Liberals are not extremists as depicted by Pakman. There are ranges of beliefs with in even the organized parties. My family members were Republicans, but not very socially conservative and we never wove religion into politics. We were northerners and from a "medium sized" city. Pakman accepts the term libertarian, yet the libertarians have all sorts of subdivisions like paleo or anarchists. Milton Friedman is an example. They accept some government intervention as opposed none to and more than most libertarians. The Sherman Anti-Trust laws are a good answer to monopolies, but the heavy regulations proposed by "various lefties" will end in centralized power and monopolies. Mr. Pakman also says he opposes authoritarian rule, but countries fall into that trap as the level of government interventionist policies increase to meet the needs for power rise.
Well done... Earned a subscription from me for this video. I encourage you to put out more twenty minute, in depth videos like these. You do well in informing audiences, whether they are prone to agreement or disagreement.
"Classical Liberalism" is essentially the "non-binary gender" for conservatives.
awesome way to poison the well of what Classical Liberal means. All people who are classical liberals don't agree on everything. It's not an echo chamber Pakman... You fail on the most basic level
He's been drinking leaded water or something. I don't watch him much anymore.
You don't appear to derive a proper understanding from the most basic things because he specifically said in the video that the definition of what a "classical liberal" is, varies amongst people.
Then what's the point of having the word at all.
All that yadyadyada..
Sargon of Akkad calls himself a classical liberal and he is the conservativest blockhead i knew, he would be perfect as Nixons right hand and is one step from beeing a fascist away.
So maybe there was a time liberal means somewhat other but now if Scrotum is a Liberal, oh a cLAssy Liberal, than Packman is right.
I-is that the no-true scotsman argument?
MY GOSH! THE RAREST OF THE KIND! And its being used by "Classical liberal" or a "neo-national-socialist".
Carl Benjamin says he's for Universal Healthcare, yet laughably voted against it when he voted for the Conservative Party, in the UK General Election earlier this year. On the weird and warped thoughts of his, that he thought the Conservatives would get a better deal for Brexit. Despite Theresa May running at the first sight of gunfire, when she and her party tried and failed to implement a Dementia Tax.
I also think that he uses the term of Classical Liberal, so he can hide behind its vague and nebulous terminology, and therefore he can make up any bullshit meaning for the term. Saying that he's Left Wing because Liberal is in the title, despite a lot of his talking points being Right Wing.
Sam Harris? Classical liberal?
He's explicitly stated that he is center-left/left-leaning on countless occasions and all of his political positions have either fit around there or in some cases has stances that are far left.
once or twice a while back (2015 maybe?), I think he used the term. I doubt he would now.
Vex Spice , he didn't say Harris is Classical Liberal. He said Harris is one of many people who as used the term to describe themselves.
Classical liberal and left leaning? Yeah, that's kind of a tautology.
+kokofan50
Classical liberals aren't left-leaning.
For hundreds of years being on the left was synonymous being a classical liberal. If you look up those political tets with a a grid, the center area of the bottom left quadrant if where classical liberals fall.
I'm a libertarian so I'll just debunking some of the points you made at near the end of the video starting around 16:10
1.Public Interest: if its not in their interest why would members of the public want to work for you/ pay you?
2.Monopolies: who do you think will have least problems dealing with the extra cost of following regulations? I think regulations will kill more of its smaller competition than big companies. also who do you think has most influence over government?
I also believe that it should be as easy as possible to start a business to compete with others
3.pollution: I believe with big government people will just rely on government to check it and companies will just do the bare minimum to comply, without it people will check them selves and there will be competition to be more environment friendly
4.food and drugs:making people sick isn't a sustainable business model
5.boom and bust: the only thing that affects the economy as a whole are government regulations so I believe it would be more stable
And we've got a strawman in the first 30 seconds. Incredible work yet again...
mrbouncelol all you whiney bitches can do to any argument is shout strawman to the point where it has lost all meaning, good work.
AKAHeroes but there's a straw man there. He created a thing which he debated which isn't me. That's a by definition straw man.
@@zayan6284 Bruh he literally pointed out how most of you “classical liberals” don’t even know what it means and how it may not apply to you. Missed the point entirely as usual
You start the video attempting to let people know that classical liberalism doesn’t mean anything and you shouldn’t be using it as it’s too ambiguous.
8:19 you give the definitions of what a classical liberal is. Which is, unfortunately for your own argument, a very well-defined and appealing ideology
12:57 you attempt to make it seem like force is a confusing concept for most people when it’s not
13:55 you tend to argue that appropriate level of force is also a confusing concept when it’s not
You close saying that if one is a classical liberal then the destruction of society and monopolies running the economy are the end result and if you don’t agree with those things then you shouldn’t call yourself a classical liberal.
If you actually were familiar with classical liberal writing you would know that F.A. Hayek (the greatest champion of CL in the last century) supported a public healthcare system and outlined it in both "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Constitution of Liberty".
NerveAMVMaker he supported the idea of those, but he knew they were going to be scrutinized heavily in order to work.
Yeah, I covered this in more general terms in my comment above. He is conflating large groups of people with one another.
And how does that justify him pushing the idiotic no regulations schtick of far right wingnuts?
Based on your definition, I would still say I'm a "Classical Liberal". However, I personally think that "limited government" doesn't have to exclude a social safety net, anti-trust laws, or anti-pollution measures. I think getting rich is all fine and good, but I draw the line at profiting off of CREATING poverty. I've read the works of Thomas Paine and I would say he's done the most in shaping my political views.
I'll give you a hint. It's not what Dave Rubin think it is.
Well, classical liberalism is not an anarcho capitalism. Where it comes to more modern terms it's the closest to minarchism.
Actually, the US political denominations are the ones that have strayed from the original meanings that were started in Europe centuries ago. Liberalism is just what it sounds = liberty. As in individual liberty. Ultraliberals are what you in the US call libertarians. What you call liberals in the US, we here in Europe call democratic socialists. Sharing the load, giving everyone a helping hand if life is tough, etc.
Now, liberalism (here in Europe) also comes with economic conservatism. Then there are some parties that are valuebased conservatives (such as christian democrats that are against gay marriage and against full abortion rights). And there are some that combine economic conservatism with valuebased conservatism into full-on conservatives.
So it's Americans that have been using the terms incorrectly. Liberalism means personal liberty, which is NOT what the Democrats are for, since they are for a bigger government.
dakkster To the contrary, US Republicans are the ones against liberty when it comes to social issues, and they are horribly inept at fiscal conservatism.
On the contrary? You're not contradicting me, as I didn't even mention the republicans. If you think the Ds and the Rs are so different that they're actually opposites in terms of being for or against personal liberty, then you are sorely mistaken. Both R and D are against personal liberty in different ways and degrees. Yes, the Ds are for more personal liberty in terms of social rights, but are against personal liberty when it comes to fiscal stuff, as they are very socialist, pushing stuff like Medicaid and so on.
What you did here was the fallacy "false dichotomy". Look it up. There isn't a dichotomy between the Rs and Ds in terms of personal liberty.
Democrats are in no way “very socialist” as you depict. Otherwise, Bernie Sanders would have utterly buried Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries. At the moment, we have corporate-sponsored Democrats who are opposed to single payer health care and government-subsidized college tuition. Approximately 21 years ago, Bill Clinton signed into law welfare reform that cut food stamps by $24 billion over a six year period. The list goes on.
On the other hand, members of the Republican Party are attempting to pass legislation that would ensure millions of Americans lose access to health care while giving giant tax cuts to the most wealthy. In addition, several renegade Republicans are still trying to outlaw gay marriage (in spite of the recent Supreme Court decision) and increase spending on an already overblown military. These policies all lead to anti-liberty and big government with the oppressive actors being the corporations and government contractors.
Regarding the “true” meaning of liberal, the European political lexicon-whether ancient or modern-has no bearing on how we interpret and use such words in the States. Your original post is largely meaningless.
My post is largely meaningless? David Pakman puts out a video talking about how the European definition of liberal is wrong. I debunk that. Maybe this is news to you, but the US is a really young country with not a lot of history compared to European countries. The notions of liberalism and conservatism were born before the US was created. So if we're talking definitions, the old, original meanings of Europe are hardly meaningless.
As far as your arguments go... it's pretty clear that...
A. You're in denial about how socialistic the US actually is. Not my problem. How many millions get healthcare subsidized? Not how many are threatened by bill that failed many, many times. How many TODAY are getting subsidized healthcare? And how many are getting grants and state/federal scholarships to go to college? And how many kids go to public schools? And how many people are on food stamps today?
B. You try to make ONE example as to why the Democrats aren't socialistic. Just because they cut food stamps 20 years ago, that doesn't take away all of the other policies. Do you even know why they were cut? I'd suggest reading up on those negotiations first. So you take one failed example on each issue, thinking that it somehow supports your argument, when it actually doesn't.
C. You don't realize that the world is gray, not black or white. There are degrees to things. No single party is completely this, that or the other.
D. You're ignorant and when you don't have anything to fall back on, you try to claim that my post is meaningless, even though you yourself started replying to me in the first place.
I'm done with you. My suggestion to you is that you go and read a book on basic political history and that means not just the young history of American politics. Go broader. Or is that meaningless to you too?
dakkster You’ve debunked nothing. Regarding the regional discrepancies in political vernacular, all you did was repeat what Pakman already said. See for yourself:
Pakman: “Classical liberalism means that the rights of the individual reign supreme. In large part, it’s an axiom that assumes that small government, free market capitalism, and free trade solve most economic problems. A true classical liberal takes the anti-government position on many issues. Economically, a classical liberal is a libertarian or a conservative, basically. It’s what Europeans mean when they say liberal when they’re talking about economics. In Europe, if you say you’re an economic liberal, it means the opposite of what it means to most people in the United States. It means you’re generally against any economic regulation… Political terminology does evolve over time.”
dakkster: “Now, liberalism (here in Europe) also comes with economic conservatism.”
Your original post is meaningless because this brand of linguistic imperialism you’re proposing is rather laughable. Again, the European lexicon has no bearing on us. Our dictionaries support various meanings for the word “liberal.” Merriam-Webster defines liberal as possibly meaning “marked by generosity,” “not bound by authoritarianism,” or “based upon the principles of liberalism.” “Liberalism” is in turn defined as “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class).”
I have news for you. Language evolves over time and place. Do Latin Americans speak the same Spanish as the Spaniards? No. Do Americans speak the same English as the British? No Do the English still speak using King James’ English? No. Do Americans living in the South use the same vocabulary as those living in the North? No.
For what it’s worth, I would find it very entertaining to see American social and economic conservatives publicly identify as liberals. They’d be laughed off stage quicker than you can say “Democrats are very socialist.”
As far as labels go, I think "None of thee above" is the best to use.
Constantly labeling people is a HUGE part of the problem we have right now.
But standing up for my classical liberals has become a conservative position. Free marketplace of ideas, guys. But I still believe in single payer.
Thats Not a Knife, This is a Knife You do realize that the free marketplace of ideas is used as a term to manipulate otherwise liberal thinkers into libertarians or classical liberals?
lol this is a joke. I was making fun of lines Dave Rubin repeats every other sentence
single payer that is actually Obamacare
ObamaCare is in no way single payer ...
Brocialist Manifesto Tell that to Dave Rubin
Letting someone die when you can easily save them is aggression. Thus, denying healthcare in the modern world IS an act of aggression.
Thank you, David. Classical liberalism is anarcho-capitalism with a better name
BenWillis ancaps aren't anarchists either
Claude Palmer, You are correct! Anarcho Capitalists are Fascists!
Alan Cohen *definitively. Also, while I sympathize with his implications, what he said sounds just like calling socialism communism. Sure, It could inevitably happen, but not necessarily...
Libertarianism is NOT anarcho-capitalism, dummy.
+Claude Palmer
Oh no it isn't...
The original liberal thinkers were very aware that there's a role for goverment (primarily to protect the basic principles of freedom).
They would have rejected anarcho-capitalism.
I've begun taken "I'm a classical liberal" to mean "I'm a hardline conservative who's too chicken-shit to admit it publicly."
No because they base their beliefs around freedom and logic rather than traditional values
Pakman: '"Classical Liberal" is this elastic, all encompassing and vacuous term that doesn't effectively summarize all of my views' and that's not okay.
Also Pakman: I'm agnostic, democratic socialist, I'm anti-apologist and none of these terms fully describe my views but that's okay.
pathologicaldoubt "...democratic socialism reflects *some* of my views....I can go on but it's a mixed bag."
Nowhere did he say they fully encompassed his entire worldview and he implied the opposite. Please gain at least a middle school level of comprehension and get back to us
Not really, he said that RELYING on one label like classical liberal to summarize all your views is not okay.
pathologicaldoubt Pakman acknowledges that labels can't describe one's views fully and accepts it for what it is. He then goes on to critique classical liberalism for being so vague that it doesn't do much for prescribing economic or social policies.
That's the whole point. You ask two self-described classical liberals their views on policies and you may get diametrically different responses. You are unlikely to have major policy disagreements between two self-described progressives or democratic socialists.
Yes. Pakman uses many terms to describe most of his political views. Classical liberals do not. What's your point?
RigelOrionBeta who said people like me don't? I'm also an athiest, promote freedom of speech, etc
I might be contaminated by other languages than English, but I hate when US-Americans call themselves progressives.
Progressivism only mean that you think that humans is capable at improving their situation (progress). There is very few isms that doesn't claim that they improve the situation for humans if applied -- so most isms are covered by the vague term progressivism.
I believe that most of the US-Americans that call themselves progressive, actually mean that they are either Social Liberals or Social Democrats, but the word Social sounds to much like Socialism, another word many US-Americans hate, without even knowing what it actually mean (confusing it with Stalinism, Maoism et c.).
AMAZING and informative video!
THE HOOK HAS BEEN CASTED! RUN BROTHERS!
Hi doppleganger07. Let me recommend you the mobile app Vote 1. It explains the differences between the ideologies much better and even in a more interactive way, than this video :)
Actually, his conclusions at the end are completely wrong. Natural monopolies almost never last under the economic pressures of free trade and technological development, with the exception of the de Beers diamond monopoly, which is coming down as more and more women prefer alternate gems for anniversary and even wedding jewelry. The late 19th century American and European robber barons always used federal, state, and city licensing, regulation, and other restrictions to block competition wherever possible. They could make far more money at the expense of the consumer by blocking competition to utilities, rail, medicine, banking, investment, ship travel, and lending, just as they do today.
Was anyone ever saying it wasn't conservative? The left isn't liberal, they just say they are. Being liberal doesn't mean you're on the left.
You know one thing I've noticed about a lot of the Classical Liberals on social media is that they seem to share a couple of key things:
- They're usually financially well off and can afford to spout the rhetoric they defend
- They live relatively sedentary isolated lives where others interfering with them would violate their rhetoric
Anyone else notice this, or is this just me?
Steven Guitink I think that is just you, most classical liberals (or center leftists) I've come across seem to come from working class or middle class backgrounds. That is of course with the exception of Dave Rubin, who already had a well established job at TYT before creating his own platform.
Well working class or middle class doesn't preclude being financially well off, not from what I've seen anyway. Maybe the word I should've used was financially stable. A lot of those I've seen who are "Classical Liberals" or Libertarians are often self-employed, operate small businesses or make just enough money that everything in their life revolves around them exclusively. Bare in mind tho, I'm not the most politically minded person out.
Two things:
1. I would then point to people like Penn Jillette or Joe Rogan; self-employed, very well off. Answer to no boss except themselves. Not saying you're wrong, but there are those who don't fit such a narrow view.
2. I'm not talking about their class, whether it be lower, middle or upper. I'm simply pointing out (from what Ive seen anyway) the characteristics they seem to share. Those characteristics might not always been consistent, but there does seem to be a general similarity.
Steven Guitink question... why do you view one being able to support themselves a distasteful condition?
Maybe... just maybe, the people not able to financially support themselves should actually take a hard look at those that can... and adopt the same work ethics and values?
No, really, hear me out... you see someone being successful... would it not make all logical sense to say "hrmm, maybe theyre actually successful", and then do what they do and be successful yourself.
+WJ MacKENZIE well you have to consider this that they come from a position of socio-economic advantage. And frankly following their example is not a tried-and-true method to guarantee another success. Now hear me out... Let's say you look at a person who is middle class small business owner okay? Now a low class worker slaving away could follow each and every one of that middle class business owners Life Choices to the absolute letter and still not be able to achieve with the middle class small business owner has. Because the simple fact of the matter is not everyone has the same advantages.
for the lower classes they have to deal with wage stagnation and rising cost of living. The middle class small business owner does not have this problem and most likely he did not in the beginning; he she they will try to say that they simply succeeded on "gumption" but all that is just chest-pounding grandstanding. They had advantages and they also had assistance financial and social. Many in the lower class if not all of them do not have this. And they certainly are going to be able to achieve that simply by "working hard" and following the "example" of someone who had distinct advantages that they themselves do not possess and cannot replicate
Very very good piece. I am a PhD philosophy student, and much of my work is in free market economics and libertarianism. I think this was spot on, and though I believe in the free market and libertarian values in the most part, your reservations I think are well founded.
mrjavelin whats ur thesis paper buddy?
I find myself agreeing with the Libertarians on certain aspects of socioeconomics as the concept of the free market is quite appealing especially because logically competitive businesses would be able to drive down costs substantially and would lead to better wages and benefits for employees in order to retain those employees to maintain competition and also would be able to and this oligopolist nightmare we have with places like Google Microsoft and even Amazon.
however so many and the libertarian can't believe that regulation and oversight is just unnecessary and that somehow the free-market will magically work as some kind of oversight for corporate practices and banking practices which I think is quite absurd because those with the most money have the most power and I would like to think that at one point in American history there was something of a free-market however we did see the rise of the robber barons regardless of this free-market.
I suppose my position is that government regulations and oversight should ensure that the free-market remains fair and free that no one corporate entity should have a disingenuous advantage over the other so to speak.
Your entire basis here is conflating classical liberalism and libertarianism. One is for minimal governement, the other is anti-government.
Witchdoctor Williams
Libertarianism isn't anti-government. It's limited government. Any intellectually honest libertarian would agree that you still need government for certain functions, namely the protection of private property (libertarians love that stuff). Anti-government is more of a anarchist/far-left perspective. They see the state as an entity that perpetuates divisions in society. Classical liberalism is perhaps more of a general philosophical trend compared to libertarianism, which is more of an ideology. But it's probably accurate to say all libertarians agree with most or all of the ideas of classical liberalism.
Don't forget, just because anarchism isn't a focus of libertarianism that there are anarchist libertarians (specifically anarco-capitalists)
I don't really consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists in any ideological sense of the word. Anarchy is a more colloquial sense? Sure. But the history of the movement and its ultimate concerns do not seem to align with anarchism in any way that is not superficial. Anarchism is essentially a variant of communism. Anarcho-capitalism on the other hand is classical liberal philosophy taken to absurd degrees. They accept all those Enlightenment-era Rationalist hypotheticals about the state of nature, but then basically say "screw the social contract, we want nothing but the state of nature."
Saying that a term that includes Shapiro, Harris, Saad, and Sargon is "vacuous" anti-Centrism. We need a term for people of those different political affiliations to rally around in opposition to fascists and communists.
Just like the Enlightenment included a variety of viewpoints that were all opposed to theocracy and monarchy.
Classical liberalism isn't as specific as you are making it. It defines a broad school of thought that can hold many viewpoints and only has basis in one thing: freedom. Liberalism = freedom. If anything, regressive liberalism is the one changing definitions around these parts partner
Edit: I didn't finish the video before I commented so nvm
In the UA-cam sphere, classical liberalism is when you espouse a 19th century ideology while simultaneously calling other people regressive XD
to me it just means i want to be a"liberal"but am stuck in the middle between neo-liberals and SJWs or people who use identity politics. i simply believe in free speech,a social safety net and workers rights so if a hard worker after 20 years with no sick days gets fired cause some asshole new boss doesn't like and fires them they don't have to face possible homelessness if they don't find work. also people uninsured should have access to health care
Shit before you wipe not the other way around, they say lol
the time period when an idea was created doesn't determine whether it is regressivethe nature of the idea does
if classical liberal meant any ideology supporting freedom that would include anarchy and the classical liberals were against anarchy
Liberalism and conservatism can also mean "any thing you want it to." You spelled out the key determinant in the beginning meaning individualism & human rights. Economically there is great disparity in opinions. This is clear. The distinction is much more important recently due to the increase in collectivist political warfare we're seeing. "Classical liberalism" is becoming a common sense pro dialogue and human rights stance. This is important.
Condescending as usual. With scare tactics. What would we do without Bernie to protect us from voluntary transactions.
While I'm not a classical liberal, and I've not seen anything to support Sam Harris being one, I feel the people that have begun to use the term more, like Dave Rubin, Sargon, and other UA-cam figureheads that have been critical of authoritarian aspects of the progressive left you mentioned, have clarified they are socially classically liberal, as in the free speech, NAP, which I would argue in the social sense is essentially just the golden rule, and economically they are liberal or centrist. I feel like the it's use has been confusing lately, but also, many that have used it, have clarified that they mean in a social context, like Dave's label, "Social libertarian."
Also, with regards to this comment section, I really wish we wouldn't demonize each other. Calling people that have supported free speech nazi sympathizers, going after Dave Rubin for daring to be a liberal that also has other views, and talks with people who aren't liberal. People are complex, nothing is black and white.
As for reclaiming the term progressive, I feel that has become as muddled as classical liberal. There are authoritarians, sjws or tumblr-ites or regressives, ect ect, the more toxic aspects of certain groups within third wave feminism (I'd say that most of these groups intersect) and they you have actual progressives like Bernie and people that supported him, myself included. You said it yourself, you're a progressive that has been critical of these things, as am I, and while many have argued these actions and views aren't progressive, hence the term regressives, they are the ones most loudly proclaiming to be progressives. It has ruined the word, not just for how other people see it, but for not wanting to be associated with people you feel are really against your own values in a lot of ways. I tend to use the term liberal, as it is somewhat ambiguous enough, but still, there is at least an idea of what I stand for, and I can add more labels as needed, humanist, atheist, ect.
1nd
3th
Oblivion Rapture firnd
I've become more economically left-leaning but you'll never see me waive a red flag.
7:28 As a cultural Marxist, I take offense to that.
Jk not much offense taken, though I am a Libertarian Marxist
how can you be a libertarian Marxist?
Erika look up rosa Luxemburg.
Erika It's actually the original form of Liberitarianism, before liberitarian-capitalism hijacked the term. It's essentially the belief that the working class can rule and take care of itself without a revolutionary state or government helping them out. It's the opposite of the more well known Leninist-Marxisim.
Erika one would presume economic Marxist, social libertarian
Courtney Harrington that literally sounds oxymoronic, although I'll admit that I haven't read Marx.
I'm at a loss. This purported description of classical liberalism focuses on none of the core values of the ideology. The NAP is a libertarian thing. I think Pakman is conflating classical liberalism with natural-rights libertarianism.
True because it's libertarianism. Classical liberals like Clinton and dare I say obama you don't belong in a left wing party you belong in the libertarian party your conservative
Brent Showers Obama in 2007 was for Single-Payer and Gun Legislation. He was way more left wing than Clinton. Yes Obama did eventually pass more leaning to the right legislation but not like the Clintons.
Much of Classical liberalism is just a re-branding of the neoliberals.
Center Progressive it's a rebranding of libertarians.
Clinton and Obama are not libertarians.
That would be odd considering how many people label themselves as classically liberal but want free healthcare and free education.
Have you done one on socialism yet? The most meaningless word on the planet currently.
Can everybody please stop calling Trump a Nazi?
No.
Ben Mangrum y tho
lilDeviant How is Trump a Nazi?
Ben Mangrum yep. Trump isn't a Nazi, but a Nazi enabler.
He's a trust fund baby, that wants constant attention. Trump has no actual skills. Obviously you don't know many wealthy trust fund babies. Most of them are truly useless.
Whoa. Thanks David. I love these pieces with so much research explaining the cause, consequence, and causality, as well as explaining the labels, their origins, their applications, their permutations, and their alignment or misalignment to the intentions of people who use them in the zeitgeist. It's an extraordinarily helpful addition to my personal lexicon for comprehending matters I otherwise wouldn't know where to start approaching. I wish I could give more than one thumbs up.
You are so condescendingly disingenuous here. The people like myself who use this label occasionally mean that they are liberal, in the sense of a "live and let live" worldview. They don't want to preach or be preached at. People who use this label do so as a place marker, because they don't like labels in the first damn place. We KNOW that this usage is a bit out of line with the dictionary definition, and you know that we know. They don't like zealots of any stripe. They need a label because virtue signalling "progressive" presstitutes will call them "right wingers" (or even "far right" like happened to Jordan Peterson this week) if they don't adopt something.
I'm an individual at the core. A non-joiner. The devil's advocate. A skeptic. A doubting Thomas. A free thinker. And sometimes none of these. Without the Enlightenment and it's values, every institution and infrastructure that a public intellectual relies on (you in other words) would not exist.
Progressivism is anathema to me, because it means you must be a collectivist and conformist or be cast out. Conservatism is similar. "Classical liberalism" in the current year means "open minded". If you follow the current "progressive" left wing ideology to the extreme you get Stalin. To the right we all know what you get. So unless you want to extend this little treatise on the "extremism" of classical liberalism to progressivism and conservatism, it's just propaganda for the far left.
The individual is the smallest minority, and must be protected from the predation of collectives.
One more thing.
There is only one definition of force. Physical force, physical violence. There is only one definition of coercion. Mental manipulation. Stop with the clever navel gazing. It's absurd. Regular people hate this kind of pointless semantics and it destroys common understanding. You are taking a term that is being used colloquially, and you know this, and you are trying to use that to question the morality of the people using it.
You have lost me as a subscriber. I know, you don't care.
I don't mind viewpoints from all over the spectrum. What I cannot stomach is demonizing propaganda based on an loose term that was only recently adopted in frustration by centrist people who don't identify with "conservative" or "progressive" because they are so rigid, moralizing, and exclusionary.
You goddamn well know it too.
To be fair, live and let live is similar to the NAP.
The Quester Nope.
They're both principles that advocate people doing what they want and living their lives how they want as long as they don't violate the rights of others. How is that not a massive similarity.
The Quester "Live and let live" is the opposite of a collectivist political party politically advocating that anybody do anything. It is a simple concept, a personal inclination. A method of existence. Not a political agenda or party. I swear, the internet is killing human thought.
If you say the same word over and over to yourself in the mirror, relentlessly analyzing it, it becomes nonsense after a while. This is what overthinking does. More of a thing contributes nothing to it's quality, in fact, it usually is counter-indicative of quality. If you have ever learned to build things with your two hands, you come to understand there is a fine line between improving a thing, and ruining a thing.
Do your thing peaceably and don't screw with the lives of others. Simple.
What is the point of trying to understand society if you have an intensely uncharitable and disapproving view of the intentions and value of everyone but yourself?
Freedom is the basic unit of individual happiness. This is where liberty morally intersects with "liberal".
Advocating anybody do anything IS live and let live, and it is an indivudualist sentiment, not a collectivist one. That's not overthinking that's just common sense. How am I being uncharitable?
Oh boy.
Ty very much for this video.
This is something that really hits me a lot.
I love the "small" channels i find all the time, that make great videos.
Keep up the good work.
*Subscribed*
This was so well made! You should keep making this type of videos from time to time. This format is very popular on youtube.
Classical liberalism means I don't want to be called a libertarian means I don't want to be called a republican.
This sounds like you're taking an extremely narrow and purity-tested definition.
You're also criticising your narrowly-defined version of classical liberalism as having internal inconsistencies and relying on subjective value judgements, while at the same time comparing it to progressivism (in a way that heavily implies that progressivism does not suffer from such internal inconsistencies and subjectiveness - a falsity as literally every single ideology does and must do)
It's possible to start from classical libertarian ideals, or predominately so, and end up coming to different conclusions than other classical liberals have. It's also possible to be socially "liberal" in this sense while keeping your economic stance more to the left (and it's possible to justify doing so *using classical liberal frameworks*). This (splitting social and economic politics) is something so normal to do these days that the common representation of political alignment has moved from a one-dimensional left/right scale to a two-dimensional social/economic axis "compass".
Classical Liberalism = Right Wing.
Social Liberalism = Left Wing.
I think you missed another principle about universality. That individuals are treated equally under the law means that varying levels of economic or other intervention into your life. These are the grounds that I believe, Carl Benjamin for example, might defend some social welfare programs, some form of nationalized health care, and some economic intervention. As long as economic regulations affect all actors equally, without a predetermined group to harm or benefit, then these interventions might be considered classically liberal.
Help me out if I'm getting something wrong here tho, plz.
Yeah classical liberalism is also a fancy term which is why others on the left might use it and why I used it but in reality excessive libertarianism shouldn't be glorified in my view. Progressivism may have negative connotations but fuck it, I'll call myself a progressive for the sake of social democracy, regulation of wall street and a push towards renewable energy regardless of how less of a 'neat label' classical liberalism might offer. We need to stand firmly for what and who we are even if there are those who also call themselves progressives who hold views most progressives don't agree it and which creates the SJW stereotype. You can call the average progressive a 'damn regulator' if you want but most of us are not SJWs or against free-speech.