Totally well done, a true intellectual and unafraid to show his depth of knowledge. Knows what he's talking about, and is good and positive about what to do and how to do it. Thanks very much.
I'm a liberal. But I believe true liberalism will only be achieved through capitalism. Capitalism is the natural system for human cooperation. I believe the market will regulate itself far more efficiently than big government is doing. I suspect less federal regulation in a great many problematic industries, from the meat industry to the mining industry, would tend toward a self-amelioration of many disagreeable aspects of those industries from a liberal perspective, in the context of smaller communities with greater personal investment in their local communities through vastly a liberated sovereignty at the local level. It was the videos on secession that attracted me to this channel. Some of what I've found doesn't completely resonate with me, but the majority of it does and that definitely attenuates the cognitive dissonance I feel from hearing some familiar trigger words being used from a much more agreeable angle. Such a system of reduced federal government, preferably removed and replaced altogether through secession, would even allow for agrarian collectives of socialists to exist in harmony alongside capitalist cities and rural communities. And it would breed diversity with regard to communty options for immigrants from other states or, hopefully, counties. Local sovereignty is the key to maximum liberty. Something most conservatives don't seem to realize is most true liberals have a very similar outlook, from what I've experienced. There are liberals giving liberals a bad name, and people who are not liberals at all (i.e. Obama, the Clintons), who are the farthest thing from liberal, largely misidentified as liberals. I also feel greatly at odds with people whose politics I generally identify with. I hope, for the sake of liberalism, more liberals begin to see the error of their reactionary behaviors and start to embrace good political science from places they might not totally agree with, like Mises, but which has, in my opinion, a compelling strategy and potential for positive change.
Thelma Itinuli , You mean the free market "is the natural system for human cooperation". Capitalism has readily embraced the free market principle, but both are not constrained to each other. Take worker owned cooperatives for example. That's more akin to socialism or even communism, yet have adopted the free market principle too and are thriving under it. I even believe that the same principle can be applied to governments, as a better alternative to democracy and would even be better than secession in achieving the things you described, like small government, socialists living in harmony alongside capitalists, etc. To me, individual sovereignty and freedom of choice in regards to governance and political ideology is the key to maximum liberty.
Yeah, you're right about that. I'm not hip to the lingo all the cool kids are using these days. Free market sounds much better, too. I'm not actually a capitalist, either. I've never identified as one. I've just always equated money with the term capitalism, and now that I think of it it's not necessarily synonymous at all, by definition. Thanks for your comment. I've been somewhat out of the loop for a long time, politically. I'm basically an anarchist at heart, but I know the world cannot function that way. I've basically taken for granted there are no political movements I can relate to in America, what with the ubiquitious two-party system effectively nullifying any hope for even a discussion of solutions to the problem. Libertarianism has really surprised me. There seems to have been a great deal of propaganda from the "left" equating Libertarianism with ultra-conservatism, and maybe I've been subconsciously influenced by that without even actually paying attention to it or taking the time to really study Libertarianism for myself. And perhaps there are ultra-conservative Libertarians, but I suspect my ingrained perception of what "conservative" even means is likely to dissolve to some extent within the context of Libertarianism. Regardless, all I know is these Libertarian guys are the only solutions-based political entity happening right now in America, and it's a breath of fresh air, and a bit of a mental curve ball, to hear ambitious and well-educated people, who invariably appear to identify themselves as conservatives, saying things that resonate with me as much as, and in many ways much more than, anything I ever read by Chomsky back in the day did.
@@morgellon9449 Libertarianism is a very broad term. I believe this is a very good representation of where libertarianism is situated in the political spectrum: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#/media/File:Political_chart.svg. I've been an anarchist most of my adult life too and came to the same realization, including the realization that the free market principle might be the best solution to many of society's problems and that this very same principle can be successfully applied to politics a well. That's when I became a Panarchist.
I disagree. Kant had the utmost respect for human autonomy both in political self-determination, as well as, a moral obligation upon oneself. The premise of Kant advocating a New World Order in the form a forced universal government is neither how I interpret nor understand his political writings.
Philip Kruseman you know a lot. Do you believe that the League of Nations would’ve prevented ww2? I do. Kant seems to think countries can consent to world government. What about instead of world government we had treaties and bilateral relations?
I may be a chauvinist but war grows out of different types of nationalism. Liberal values include freedom of expression. Although I disagree with Hazony, he is entitled to his self expressions. Freedom is so complex that rhetorical propaganda does it no justice.
What Kant suggested and the alleged universal rule of law (which doesn't exist anyway) is not the same thing. Where is the study that identify the Profs that teach... into the two claimed camps? The traditions... is not what kept the US people together. The traditions and the Us people have been changing over time and the US people have not been kept together but grown apart.
So, exactly at which point, federal coercion turns from right o wrong? The point is if humans are flawed then they are flawed at every level. There is no point in subjecting them to the whims and wishes of the tyrants at any level.
Ok here's the deal. European `Liberalism` has created brilliant healthcare for its citizens. If others don't want the benefits of that and don't want `imperialism` then don't accept these advancements? I take your point about Liberal Nationalism.
We don't live in a capitalist society in America. The War on Drugs, the prison industry, and the military industrial complex are a prime example. We live in a bastardized version of capitalism. It's far more akin to the Soviet state-capitalism, with its most vital organ, the gulag system. I'm sure they had quotas to meet for the amount of people they had to imprison for arbitrary reasons. They could have outlawed vodka and cigarettes to achieve the same result, but everybody in power would be obviously guilty. Vodka and cigarettes would have been much harder for any crooked big government goon to hide than cocaine or amphetamines. How can we call ourselves capitalist when something that can be used responsibly is denied to responsible customers? Are we to accept a big government prohibition just to prevent irresponsible use by irresponsible users? Couldn't the vendor use discretion with regard to whom they sell, as occurs with alcohol? That of course is simply a supplemental item for consideration.
@@OrthoHoppeanAmador Yes, nation and state are not the same things though. These are two entirely different entities. Mises realized this as well. But he was not an Anarchist, though. He was the last step before Anarch-Capitalism in a long tradition started by Menger.
@@NavaidSyed Political philosophy is independent of the Austrian school. The Austrian school is strictly about economics. Anarcho-capitalism was first systematically fleshed out by Rothbard using Austrian economics, natural rights theory, etc. But AE is independent of political philosophy. My point remains that nations do not need to be coercive. They can exist voluntarily and are not a problem per se
@@OrthoHoppeanAmador Yes Austrian Economics is a separate discipline independent of Anarcho-Capitalism. But many principles in Anarcho-Capitalism are dependent on Austrian economics. You and I understand the possibility of having a voluntary nation. This is not the sense it is usually used in. Nations such as those that exist today are not voluntary. And cannot be accepted as voluntary associations.
@@NavaidSyed Sure. But Austrian Economics itself can't say much about relationship between nations and states. My only point was to counter yours that nations are inherently coercive. Today, sure. But voluntary nations aren't a problem. We seem to agree rather than disagree on this though
Totally well done, a true intellectual and unafraid to show his depth of knowledge. Knows what he's talking about, and is good and positive about what to do and how to do it. Thanks very much.
Awesome discussion, please share.
I'm a liberal. But I believe true liberalism will only be achieved through capitalism. Capitalism is the natural system for human cooperation. I believe the market will regulate itself far more efficiently than big government is doing. I suspect less federal regulation in a great many problematic industries, from the meat industry to the mining industry, would tend toward a self-amelioration of many disagreeable aspects of those industries from a liberal perspective, in the context of smaller communities with greater personal investment in their local communities through vastly a liberated sovereignty at the local level.
It was the videos on secession that attracted me to this channel. Some of what I've found doesn't completely resonate with me, but the majority of it does and that definitely attenuates the cognitive dissonance I feel from hearing some familiar trigger words being used from a much more agreeable angle. Such a system of reduced federal government, preferably removed and replaced altogether through secession, would even allow for agrarian collectives of socialists to exist in harmony alongside capitalist cities and rural communities. And it would breed diversity with regard to communty options for immigrants from other states or, hopefully, counties. Local sovereignty is the key to maximum liberty.
Something most conservatives don't seem to realize is most true liberals have a very similar outlook, from what I've experienced. There are liberals giving liberals a bad name, and people who are not liberals at all (i.e. Obama, the Clintons), who are the farthest thing from liberal, largely misidentified as liberals. I also feel greatly at odds with people whose politics I generally identify with. I hope, for the sake of liberalism, more liberals begin to see the error of their reactionary behaviors and start to embrace good political science from places they might not totally agree with, like Mises, but which has, in my opinion, a compelling strategy and potential for positive change.
Thelma Itinuli
, You mean the free market "is the natural system for human cooperation". Capitalism has readily embraced the free market principle, but both are not constrained to each other. Take worker owned cooperatives for example. That's more akin to socialism or even communism, yet have adopted the free market principle too and are thriving under it.
I even believe that the same principle can be applied to governments, as a better alternative to democracy and would even be better than secession in achieving the things you described, like small government, socialists living in harmony alongside capitalists, etc.
To me, individual sovereignty and freedom of choice in regards to governance and political ideology is the key to maximum liberty.
Yeah, you're right about that. I'm not hip to the lingo all the cool kids are using these days. Free market sounds much better, too. I'm not actually a capitalist, either. I've never identified as one. I've just always equated money with the term capitalism, and now that I think of it it's not necessarily synonymous at all, by definition.
Thanks for your comment. I've been somewhat out of the loop for a long time, politically. I'm basically an anarchist at heart, but I know the world cannot function that way. I've basically taken for granted there are no political movements I can relate to in America, what with the ubiquitious two-party system effectively nullifying any hope for even a discussion of solutions to the problem.
Libertarianism has really surprised me. There seems to have been a great deal of propaganda from the "left" equating Libertarianism with ultra-conservatism, and maybe I've been subconsciously influenced by that without even actually paying attention to it or taking the time to really study Libertarianism for myself. And perhaps there are ultra-conservative Libertarians, but I suspect my ingrained perception of what "conservative" even means is likely to dissolve to some extent within the context of Libertarianism. Regardless, all I know is these Libertarian guys are the only solutions-based political entity happening right now in America, and it's a breath of fresh air, and a bit of a mental curve ball, to hear ambitious and well-educated people, who invariably appear to identify themselves as conservatives, saying things that resonate with me as much as, and in many ways much more than, anything I ever read by Chomsky back in the day did.
@@morgellon9449 Libertarianism is a very broad term. I believe this is a very good representation of where libertarianism is situated in the political spectrum: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#/media/File:Political_chart.svg.
I've been an anarchist most of my adult life too and came to the same realization, including the realization that the free market principle might be the best solution to many of society's problems and that this very same principle can be successfully applied to politics a well.
That's when I became a Panarchist.
I disagree. Kant had the utmost respect for human autonomy both in political self-determination, as well as, a moral obligation upon oneself. The premise of Kant advocating a New World Order in the form a forced universal government is neither how I interpret nor understand his political writings.
Agreed. And to have the gall to somehow link Kant to Bush as if the latter was kind of a 20th C spokesperson is just, I don't know.. Bizarre.
Philip Kruseman you know a lot. Do you believe that the League of Nations would’ve prevented ww2? I do. Kant seems to think countries can consent to world government. What about instead of world government we had treaties and bilateral relations?
I may be a chauvinist but war grows out of different types of nationalism. Liberal values include freedom of expression. Although I disagree with Hazony, he is entitled to his self expressions. Freedom is so complex that rhetorical propaganda does it no justice.
What Kant suggested and the alleged universal rule of law (which doesn't exist anyway) is not the same thing. Where is the study that identify the Profs that teach... into the two claimed camps? The traditions... is not what kept the US people together. The traditions and the Us people have been changing over time and the US people have not been kept together but grown apart.
I agree that social evolution is an ongoing process. But, evolution does not move in only one linear direction.
So, exactly at which point, federal coercion turns from right o wrong? The point is if humans are flawed then they are flawed at every level. There is no point in subjecting them to the whims and wishes of the tyrants at any level.
Supporting stamping out polygamy as an example of federalism working? So much for consent meaning anything.
Why they want Yoram on here is confusing to me. Yoram is a zionist. No different then the rest of the Neocons and the Neoliberals. But whatever.
Ok here's the deal. European `Liberalism` has created brilliant healthcare for its citizens. If others don't want the benefits of that and don't want `imperialism` then don't accept these advancements? I take your point about Liberal Nationalism.
We don't live in a capitalist society in America. The War on Drugs, the prison industry, and the military industrial complex are a prime example. We live in a bastardized version of capitalism. It's far more akin to the Soviet state-capitalism, with its most vital organ, the gulag system. I'm sure they had quotas to meet for the amount of people they had to imprison for arbitrary reasons. They could have outlawed vodka and cigarettes to achieve the same result, but everybody in power would be obviously guilty. Vodka and cigarettes would have been much harder for any crooked big government goon to hide than cocaine or amphetamines. How can we call ourselves capitalist when something that can be used responsibly is denied to responsible customers? Are we to accept a big government prohibition just to prevent irresponsible use by irresponsible users? Couldn't the vendor use discretion with regard to whom they sell, as occurs with alcohol?
That of course is simply a supplemental item for consideration.
A universal cosmology will lead to a darkness eminating from Saturn Worship and the black cube
I am sorry, nations are not families. Families are voluntary. Nations are coercion.
Nations ≠ states. Read Rothbard's "Nations by Consent," Mises' "Nation, State, and Economy," Huerta de Soto on liberal nationalism
@@OrthoHoppeanAmador Yes, nation and state are not the same things though. These are two entirely different entities. Mises realized this as well. But he was not an Anarchist, though. He was the last step before Anarch-Capitalism in a long tradition started by Menger.
@@NavaidSyed Political philosophy is independent of the Austrian school. The Austrian school is strictly about economics. Anarcho-capitalism was first systematically fleshed out by Rothbard using Austrian economics, natural rights theory, etc. But AE is independent of political philosophy.
My point remains that nations do not need to be coercive. They can exist voluntarily and are not a problem per se
@@OrthoHoppeanAmador Yes Austrian Economics is a separate discipline independent of Anarcho-Capitalism. But many principles in Anarcho-Capitalism are dependent on Austrian economics. You and I understand the possibility of having a voluntary nation. This is not the sense it is usually used in. Nations such as those that exist today are not voluntary. And cannot be accepted as voluntary associations.
@@NavaidSyed Sure. But Austrian Economics itself can't say much about relationship between nations and states. My only point was to counter yours that nations are inherently coercive. Today, sure. But voluntary nations aren't a problem. We seem to agree rather than disagree on this though