How Liberalism Took The L | with Carl Benjamin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 чер 2024
- Carl Benjamin, alias Sargon of Akkad, returns to discuss Liberalism’s flaws, and possible solutions.
x.com/Sargon_of_Akkad
lotuseaters.com
Support this channel:
www.paypal.me/benjaminboyce
cash.app/$benjaminaboyce
www.buymeacoffee.com/benjamin...
You can not have a safe world that lasts, because a safe world creates people who take safety for granted, they don't understand danger and they become vulnerable to it over time.
...good times create weak men...
It a classic boom and bust cycle.
Correct. A peaceful existence is something that we must fight to maintain, which means we can never really have it.
@@adamwebster1666 You can have it to some degree, perhaps a very significant degree.
What must always be engaged in is the fight to maintain the ability for most of the citizens to have a peaceful existence.
@@jwilliam2255 Yes, but the fact that the couple three doors down have a peaceful life is little consolation to the families of those who have engaged in that fight and made the ultimate sacrifice. It as near an infinite debt as we can incur, as cliche and trite as that sounds, and far too easily forgotten.
Until maybe about a decade ago, there was a commonly agreed saying in German lands which could be described as liberal democratic systems alone cannot uphold the justification for why it exists. Badly worded by me probably. The basic meaning is that liberal democracy can only be created and upheld through cultural and philosophical beliefs and traditions that are outside of the system hence without those beliefs being kept, liberal democracy cannot function. And this is exactly what has happened and why liberalism for its own sake is doomed.
Humans need to breathe oxygen to survive. Germans tried to not inhale oxygen this one time, for lolz.
It has subsequently been established that humans on their own, without oxygen, cannot uphold the justification for why they exist, and why humans for their own sake are doomed.
I would word it another way. Only two options for a society. 1) complete rule from the top down. This can be a dictatorship, oligarchy, or Feudalism. This is the most common type because it requires only a few people organized enough to make some sort of coherent social structure. Top down rule inherently is not, and cannot be liberal.
Second possibility is that there is bottom up rule which requires most of the population to be well educated and of somewhat good character taking personal responsibility and well considered decisions of many aspects of their own life and others.
As you can imagine, creating such a population is pretty much impossible, and only historical flukes create periods in time when this occurs. We have been fortunate enough to have lived through 100+ years of such a time. It's obviously ending now.
I think what you are generally saying is Liberalism is the means, it can't be the ends. When it becomes it's own end, it becomes cancerous.
This was by the jurist (professor and German federal justice) Böckenförde
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst-Wolfgang_B%C3%B6ckenf%C3%B6rde
It's basically a variant of what both Smith and Marx knew a long time ago: Liberalism dissolves both the traditional ties we'd like to get rid of but also the ones we'd like to keep. Marx was in favor of that because it would eventually lead to revolution, Smith was not in favor of it and thought moral education could help against it.
Why do I have a sudden urge for a picket fence and a grill? 🤔
I want to see Carl's gnostic sausage❤
He's English, they have these really low stone walls instead of picket fences.
Me, I'm looking for fertile land with defensible borders...
I England?
That'll get used twice a year and rust away in the same time.
@offshoretomorrow3346 i live outside Seattle. Same weather. My grills fan always be scrubbed clean. My new griddle bbq is gonna be a task.
The two calmest-voiced beards on the internet.
Well it is a calmversation, isn't it?
Differentiating rationalism and empiricism, if we're getting philosophically technical, is gonna become SUPER important.
I never understood why they should be exclusive to each other.
Totally agree. Carl represents the future of the West because he is an empiricist whose spirituality is founded in a sense of place.
The working class politicians children and grandchildren practically became imperial aristocrats, it's an endless cycle when you allow any form of plutocracy.
Conservatives use their Canon of arguments to preserve a status quo. It's just lipstick on a pig, but it works, as does political scapegoating. They do it because it works! It's pragmatism
@@napoleonfeanor Rationality and ontology are related, they involve what you can intelligibly postulate, rather than what you can realistically verify.
Empiricism and epistemology are related, they involve what you can demonstrably show and/or collect information abt, and testable and/or specific knowledge abt something.
Hopefully our empirical reality-testing informs our rational thought processes as much as possible, and hopefully our epistemological knowledge clarifies our ontological theorization as much as possible.
“You did not have reasonable, rational discussion in your own head about what you’re going to have for breakfast.”
Me: spent at least five whole minutes this morning debating whether or not I should have cheese toast v. oatmeal and the pros/cons of both…
username checks out!
;)
I remember walking up Victoria Rd in Swindon a few years ago, and the only English thing I saw was a sign for a Sunday roast, I think it was at Longs Bar. It was really disturbing actually. It wasn't the England I remembered from 25 years before.
I think Carl is soft-peddalling when he says mass immigration isn't ideological. As I know he knows, Andrew Neather, the speechwriter for Blair and his cabinet ministers, said that Labour did it to "rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." He is right that its roots and its continuation have been less consciously ideological at the parliamentary level, but politics is increasingly being run from above the party level. The "blank slate" idea is basically an ideologically anyway.
"A Bolshevik trapped in a Tesco manager's body" hah, fer sure.
Starmer is a Trotskyite progressive. Be warned.
I'm sure he's glad someone finds him funny. That's the great thing about the internet.
@@davidsprouse151my guess is this has been a problem for you?
@@davidsprouse151 I like you david and find you to be funny.
@@karlpilkingtonspilko-pants3287 ❤
thanks for having a Sargon interview. I always enjoy hearing him discuss his views on modernity. I also look forward to you interviewing people. you do an excellent job and definitely come prepared with questions, counter-points for discussing, etc., etc.,
awesome video!
Amen
Some of the worst things ever made are over thought, over analyzed, and overly complex
Breeder reactors? The Eurofighter?
Like those modern plastic gas cans you buy from Walmart that you need an engineering degree to figure out how to use, but they break after a few times.
Bellicose Martians
27:50
This was my introduction to where we are today. Anita Sarkeesian. I was into the whole atheism/theism circle on UA-cam and a casual gamer a decade or so ago. The algorithm led me to 'Gamergate' and Anita.
This quote from her (in 2014) encapsulates it for me: 'because like when you start learning about systems everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time.'
I had just scratched the surface on an ideology that was being taught in our institutions since the 90's that slowly took hold of more and more departments like the Borg.
yep, i got pulled in around 2015 and realised how unhinged that mentality is, and how sinister it is because it's so hard to contest to the average layman, because its so easy to dismiss criticisms with an istphobia accusation, and i had been a pretty hardline far left minded person, until i realised my good intentions were being weaponized against me by people who just want control
pivoted to a centrist mindset and been a pro free speecher ever since i came to that realization, which as a gay man, and a DRAG QUEEN no less, has been a struggle to say the least, cant talk to anyone about it because they jsut shut it down and cut off contact
I'm cool with atheism but it didn't go far enough. It never addressed the root of Xianity and scientific progress got perverted by progressivism and egalitarianism. Theories of evolution and anthropology are much more in line with Right wing values and eugenics. The left practices dysgenic theory which emerges from the moral virtues of Christianity
It's not irrational or illiberal, to value traditions from the past.
I believe Carl has gone off the rails a bit. His problem is there's no back stop philosophically to the eternal pursuit of "Liberation" via equality of liberalism.
But, I think he has misdiagnosed the situation.
The reason there is no backstop is because the decision-makers are divorced from the implications of their actions
Look up William Keates and the English Constitution website. Neil Oliver has recently had some chats with William on GB news (You Tube videos)..
The fact is the legal "system" as it operates is currently unlawful.
The Common Law of England (not to be confused with jurisprudence - which the legal system has adopted to replace Common Law) was established during the Anglo Saxon period.
The Anglo Saxons were far more egalitarian. They formed councils called Witten, the Witten elected the new king among them, and they convened groups of peers of the accused to determine guilt (then called courts, later called Juries)..
No law created by the King's parliament (a process introduced in the 13th century) could over rule the decision of the Jury. The people are sovereign, NOT the king's parliament or their policies.
The judge's role is to advise the Jury what legislation exists (what policies the king's advisors have adopted to advise the king) and what the decisions of other juries had been in the past.
It is the jury's job to decide the justice of the matter, not what the legislation tells them is lawful OR what the Judge thinks is right.
If the Jury today was held in such high regard and had the ability to override legislation then the people would be part of the law making process at a fundamental level.
This is the English Constitution.
The way things are run now arose in the 1600s and like Wokeism it is a confected fantasy version of what our culture set out for us.
The common man should be calling the shots out of enlightened self interest.
Our democracy has been stolen from us.
@@AndyJarman Thnx, this is good stuff.
Just ask Bret Weinstein and Heather Haying. There are evolved reasons for traditions. Evolution is amoral however, so traditions aren't necessarily good or bad, but there is a reason for them.
@@inthefade I mostly agree, except I think that what we call "morality" DOES precisely entail evolved behaviors and thought processes.
(Because lots of those things come from environmental pressures over generations, I think more suitable environments for the human organism, actually culturally/environmentally shaped more 'moral' adaptations).
@@inthefadeTraditions are the framework by which morality is understood, either in agreement or opposition
Great explanation by Carl on his stance. Only thing I don't get is why the, I dunno strawman of "going back" is problematic ... how can't we go back to merit being a thing, personal responsibility, a stable ontology and epistemology, aesthetics, being robust, etc. Those are tried and true ways off doing things, and I just don't understand why Carl does this revolutionary sounding "oh I can't say how the NEW thing is going to be" etc.
If your new, dumb tools fail you, going back to your old toolbox is the easiest thing in the world. Javier Miley is doing it right now.
This is terrific stuff, and dovetails with some of the thoughts I've been having lately. Thanks to you both :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
Two of my favourite gentlemen. Have enjoyed watching both of you grow over the years. Great conversation, thank you. 😊❤️
Good show, both of you
Have you looked into the possibility that uncontrolled invasion is a secretly arranged payment for oil? Or allowed due to bribes or threats?
Corrupt people aren't moved by ideology as much as self interest.
It's partly by self-loathing Leftists - partly by global capitalism that demands growth at all costs.
A perfect storm.
It’s possible, though right now it seems more like a push to create an amorphous, global peasant class that has no connections to people or place. The managerial elites of the EU are clearly wannabe social engineers and have no allegiance except to eachother. They don’t want to have their projects impeded by the demands of the different cultures and traditions of the European people. It’s just my guess based on every other ideology they push which do nothing but erode relationships and blur the line between different groups.
Of course, they are also incredibly naive if they think their tricks will eventually work on cknservative muslims. In this situation, it is the EU and the WEF playing the role of useful idiots.
He's not wrong about Feudal voters, i live in Alaska and our congressman just died which is the only reason he wont get elected this year. I've voted against him my entire adult life because he was to old and feeble but it's what Alaskans have always done. Even our senator is the daughter of the last one. Ridiculous
I lived in Michigan from 2006-2010. My congressman was John Dingle. His dad had his seat before him. He first got elected when his dad died in 1955.
„Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference.
And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental----indeed foundational----fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations.
Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism.“
Egalitarianism is inimical to nature. And cultural relativism and moral relativism are correct however they cannot function within a state. A state must have an ideological and moral conception that it enforces.
That was a thoroughly enjoyable stream, and I'll watch anything that Carl is in
It's a frivolous diversion.
Thoroughly enjoyable. Thank you, Ben.
A very provocative and thoughtful dialogue. While Carl's critique of liberalism may be a bit overly generalized, a number of his insights are useful and valuable. His comments on the US' founding principles echo notions of what David Starkey also asserts, that in particular the Declaration puts forth universalist principles that are overly idealistic and ultimately self-defeating. Carl also suggests that we Americans consider the Constitution as holy writ because we haven't revised it substantially since the beginning. While I am not sure these observations are fundamentally true, they are worth analyzing and responding to.
Great work, as always, Mr. Boyce. Thanks.
Was he having a bad day?
We have actively revised it through the Supreme Court
The advantage of a constitution is that it doesn’t pass away like rulers and democracies and priesthoods do
Not much of an advantage when you consider that it really only has power insofar as people and institutions enforce it.
I think the danger is the opposite, conservatives worship things like the constitution and the "law", but liberals easily change it and their reverence for it stays the same.
@@CivilizedWasteland What is the "it" that liberals allegedly have reverence for? If you say the Constitution, I would like to see the evidence for such an assertion. For the problem is, as Carl B is hinting, that we use the courts to interpret laws to fit current thinking (or alleged current thinking) when the Constitution offers no such justification. See Roe v. Wade, which is in my mind the perfect example of the Court amending the Constitution outside of the methods set forth in Article V. Liberals tend to be fine with this, while conservatives are not.
The long house, properly embedded in a functional, formally patriarchal, family based community is what Karen should be. A brazen woman appealing directly to the state/managerial class is the hated meme she embodies in late modernity.
Carl does not understand what people mean by Karen. Weirdly enough, progressives also co-opted it to turn into some sort of BLM thing.
Carl Benjamin Boyce
Benjamin Benjamin
That’s my cat’s name.
I love Carl from the original Sargon days but I think he really ignores that liberalism had to displace Christianity specifically Catholicism to win. Martin Luther was a liberal.
Carl would be a really cool dad. That history with his son story was wholesome. It's a bit gay he's not a Catholic though 😊
. In 1995, 76% supported it, but by 2002 support had dropped to 56% - death penalty
My favorite bearded, blue-eyed GenXers.
Once upon a time, I stumbled upon this sassy Brit's UA-cam channel and I'm so glad I did. He makes a lot of sense to me.
Also, many years after discovering Sargon of Akkad, I stumbled upon this channel. I'm glad for that, too.
Great chat.
17:20
There actually are objective, rationally discernable foundations for morality:
The motive states of sentient being are the ontological basis of moral value _(good/bad),_ and the Principle of Reciprocity delineates the epistemological parameters of ethical correctness _(right/wrong)._
It's not a matter of compulsively minimizing harm across the board, or blindly adhering to the arbitrary dictates of a designated authority(s). It's about understanding the nature of good & bad and right & wrong for one's self, so as to exercise moral agency through the choices one makes with that knowledge.
As with most if not all ideologies they can go to extreme.
Huge problem with Benjamin C's theory: Wokism is an explicit refutation of the principles of liberalism!
34:45 Generally speaking, it's rly only practically possible (usually,) for generations of certain sizes, to do certain things.
If Carl's argument is that we can't be assign to consent in all times for all times, and being reasonable. Then I agree.
But I don't see this as what people are currently taking classical liberalism as.
Any social system that embraces materialism is doomed to fail.
The fact that the coming UK elections are happening on the 4th of July is a level of synchronicity that convinces me we live in a simulation.
Interesting, but it might also help to define more clearly what you are taking as definitions.
For example, what Carl describes as "liberalism" sounds to me like a mix of things from liberalism, libertarianism, progressivism, and general beliefs of humans as blank slates which overlaps into all "-isms", e.g., as well described in Pinker's "The Blank Slate".
Yes, there could a whole discussion on the starting platform of a human being from an evolutionary or information theory perspective: instincts, habits, efficiency of consistency, the value and balance of maintaining a well-working machine while also trying new things to improve it (as natural selection itself does).
What I tend to term as "liberalism" is starting with laissez-faire libertarianism and adding in a collective mitigation mechanism that we bind ourselves to to balance my individual freedom to do things I want while keeping others from doing things to me that I don't want, and then considering each of them is also a "me" in their own perspective so we need to set those mitigation mechanisms (freedom to/freedom from) optimized across the whole population.
That "mitigation mechanism" governs our society to optimize for the thriving of the members bound to it, and hence we call it "government". Part of the "keeping others from doing things to me that I don't want" includes government as "others".
That, to me, is the foundation of "liberalism". It's not just maximizing individual freedom, nor is it maximizing some collective function; it is, essentially, aimed at maximizing agreement that the rules we'll limit ourselves to are in our own "generic individual" best interest, meaning not my personal best interest as being born to a rich family, or a poor family, or with great genes, etc. Generally, John Rawls type considerations (which is not the same as utilitarianism).
Those optimal rules will include things like maintaining traditions, habits, and stability while also making improvements and progress, and freeing people from tribalistic oppressions -- which are also an unfortunate psychological module that we humans come with that can be evoked, and the mitigations need to deal with limiting, primarily by not evoking tribal psychology.
Hence conservatism is not antithetical to liberalism. Conservative and progressive are more opposite: stability vs progress, brake vs accelerator, position vs momentum. Liberalism, to me, is more opposite to authoritarianism. It is is more about consent to be ruled to achieve the balance, and accountability via the regularity of acquiring that consent. That is, democracy is a liberal concept vs monarchy (ruling families) is an authoritarian concept.
Libertarianism is liberalism with more weight on individual freedom over optimizing the balance, or perhaps less trust that governments can be held accountable via democratic means so needs to be minimized and controlled. Socialism tends toward forgoing improving the average by minimizing the standard deviation, weighting relative differences at a given time much more heavily than everybody improving over time, and so "progress" isn't about a better life for everyone, but rather a more identical life for everyone, regardless of how good or bad, and regardless of differences in preferences and value between people.
34:12 The whole "defense of meritocracy" part, is the part that's completely good.
Edit: and formation of hierarchies can just as easily occur, sort of bottom-up instead of top-down, sure definitely yes.
In a 2015 study in the us 80% of respondants said they knowed the person who hired them
@@davidsprouse151the essential issue is that meritocracy is utterly irrelevant when subjective opinion is involved in the process of hiring. If you can just write whatever you like to evaluate a candidate, and the interview isn’t run independently, then you can Jerry rig the results easily. I have gone for government jobs and it was clear that certain minority groups were over represented and family members were present.
A straight IQ test would have been far more fair for the tasks required because advanced admin tasks aren’t achieved by social skills but by intelligent people.
The end result of flawed meritocracy is even worse results. But maybe it’s for the best. They didn’t get my
Talent and I got paid better and treated better elsewhere.
@@Xplora213 🤨The cream may rise to the top, but it's not the cream he describes.
This was a good discussion, and it made Carl's exorable march rightward plain. Loved hearing it.
BUT even afterwards I was left pondering the specific questions posed by the thumbnail, and ultimately I think they are rooted in a fallacy.
Did we fail Liberalism? Not possible. Liberalism as an ideology is a tool to be used as we see fit and discarded when not appropriate for the task or a better tool is available. We should not assign any kind of loyalty to concepts, which is exactly the behavior that leads to the march towards absurdity Carl correctly diagnoses modern liberalism with.
Did liberalism fail us? Also not possible. Liberalism and all -isms are just mental exercises to help us understand the interactions of involved parties, and are in turn each useful whithin the context they are well suited for.
The US founders were correct in blending democratism, republicanism, libertarianism and authoritarianism in so many interdependent ways to try and insure we had the correct tool for any eventuality. We failed by looking at the hammer in our hands and thinking everything was a nail.
Some points Carl has made
- Liberalism doesn't accept there are other moral frameworks, yet it is the moral framework, which is based on utilitarianism harm reduction
- Most moralities are born around upholding some sort of divine principle, given by god through their sacred texts. People have to behave in certain ways to be religiously proper, harm is not a concern
- Purpose of the liberal view is the render the universe a result of purely mechanical forces
- Nature wants to hurt you and is unfair, getting away from it was generally good.
- Civil rights are given by the government and should be free rights,
"We haven't been a religious people for centuries"
He means like around one?
I thought that too, but the 18th century was very irreligious too
Since about the 16th century
@@slash_em your sectarianism is showing
@@danielmaher964 how do you figure?
@@slash_em you were not being that subtle
It's much closer to getting more serious, particularly in regard to serious criticism of liberalism.
The Benjamins is back
The Americans have a blind spot about how fundamentalist and exclusionary the "pilgrim" fathers were.
They were religious fundamentalist who fled the kings accommodation of a olurality if religious systems. From a .anority perspective, they were the oppressors not the oppressed!
The problem with Carl's appeal to virtue is whose standard of virtue do we use? I agree with Carl's diagnosis of liberalism and its insufficiencies but declaring that "virtue" is the standard is no different than saying that man sets the standard. The reason we must appeal to an authority at some point is because it is clear that there IS an authority above all things. If man could reverse death and alter the laws of reality, man would be the author of virtue.
How do you derive moral ought through reason IF reason is subjective?
Loved this! But I must say I debate and rationalise breakfast choices daily lol and I love having the privilege to do that.
Wow, those first 13 and a half minutes... Thank you Carl!
Two awesome humans
Coffee ready sitting in the sun in adelaide …… thank you both for your work ♥️
Are we awake now🕊
Didn't imagine my podcasts would intersect like this.
Benjamin on Lotus Eaters when?
What I want to know, and i've heard Sargon talk on this a fair amount off the back-end of his Dungeon and Dragons sessions without an answer, is what are the actionable steps towards whatever he's aiming at? The most concrete thing i've heard is "People with Gang tattoos should not get proper due process" which I might agree with in *some* cases.
Implicit when you say ~Liberalism must end~ but you have people voting for liberal policies is that you have to enforce a system that doesn't let people guide it that way. We're getting into bop worthy territory here and "Your on paper ideals require you let me bop you 1st" doesn't work on me; we live in a world of the comparative, not the perfect: I will take an accusation of hypocrite if it prevents something worse.
I think the point is made that liberalism ignores the existential crisis in favour of values that have no power in the face of devout opposition. A sociopath is entitled to free association yet will ruin everyone they spend time with. The Muslim is jailed for crimes yet is able
To convert fellow inmates and create a powerful gang that threatens those outside the prison.
If liberalism cannot stand firm on the good (which it did on the basis of informed Christianity in 1800) then it cannot protect those who would defend it. There is no value in pacifism when Mr Moustache is rounding up your neighbours. But we are moving closer to that point.
So you prefer a slow decay into animalism with a reduced chance of things recovering. Which is fine just admit thats what you want. As for actionable steps, there are none within the current western civilization; anyone who might have a chance to actually move the needle is culled either by being forced into university or made persona non grata in society, and bo change can be done step-wise while that is still true.
What you need to understand is that power exists within society, and power cannot be wielded by the many, only the few; so whatever civilization you have you need to makes sure of two things.
1. That the people wielding the power and the people Responsible for that power are the same people.
2. That the society has a good system for selecting those people.
The issue we face today in the West is that Democracy is demonstrably terrible at both things, the politicians wield the power but hold none of the responsibility since it was the people who are nominally sovereign, and voting to select your rulers means whoever promises the best stuff wins, not the best suited to using power.
Good questions Ben
Slight, but important correction there, Benjamin: the things we don't choose/ can't choose CAN be valuable. Doesn't mean they are so automatically, as it seems like you were leaning into, perhaps accidentally. Sure, family is foundational for setting us up for life, but it could just as well be bad as it could be good for us. And IF there is value to be found in those "unchosen" things it is - strictly speaking - still up to us to learn to recognize and realize that value because values are "things you (have to) ACT to achieve, or preserve". If values could be realized without any effort on our part we would never be acting sub-optimally, or doing bad.
Is it 2016 again?
I really like Carl, and have been following him for nearly a decade. I have been subbed to the lotus eaters since its founding,(minus 6 months in protest against the petty tyrant Connor) and I follow what he is saying about the faults of liberalism. As a small "l" libertarian I feel surrounded by midwits who think anarchism is a valid systems.
Yet I feel Carl is wanting his cake, and to eat it as well. Our society is good because, it has created such a just and wealthy system based on liberalism. The issue is that people don't understand Liberalism didn't create common law, common law created liberalism.
Natural unmanipulated hierarchy is "good" and all, but without the human logical reasoning how do we determine what is "good". Without it there is no way to separate the good of the Christian, and the good of the Muslim, and in absence of the logical, only relying on the habitual leads to "might makes right".
When it comes to the West being wed to liberalism, we don't need a divorced, but an understanding that the west is the husband in the relationship and liberalism the subservient wife. When we see something that we "habitually" know as not right, we need to be able to say "NO". At the current moment we have been so manipulated by liberalism, we as a civilisation doubt, and dismiss anything that isn't strictly adherent to liberalism. I see all around me, people have shaken off the fear of being called bad names but still refuses to bad mouth libralism, even when they hate something it produces. (I haven't truly sat down to think about this line of reasoning so I am sure its filled with holes, but this is how I feel right now.)
I also just wanted to say, mabey it's due to my autism but. When I wake up the first thing I do IS debate rationally what to eat and if I should even eat. Before I even get out of bed I have planned the rough outline of what I am gonna do that day, and thought out the day I will try and follow it solving the problems that get in my way best I can to stay on track. I start to shut down when I can't predictably plan for a course of action. 95% of my day is non habitual, so when I find that 5% I hold on to it for dear life whether its good for me or not.
Always great to catch up with Carl. Such a wonderfully calm and clear thinker. Never seen him get flustered or not own it when does not feel has a good answer. Thanks to you both 🐈
The result of dealing with four kids at home ? 😂😂
@@mihaelatudor2417 ... Said he prefers not to work from home a lot, as I think it is a bit of a distraction 😸
The Constitution can change. It just requires more work than creating a new bureaucratic agency and then writing a law that lets them fill in the details.
The 14th Amendment, for example, was written because the federal government didn't feel that they had the constitutional authority to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That's the way our federal government is supposed to function. If they want to pass a law, that they don't have the constitutional authority to enforce, they just need a two-thirds majority (in both houses of Congress or the state legislatures) to grant themselves the authority. Instead, the Wilson administration introduced the "administrative state" and the Congress proceeded to give up all of their authority and oversight, leaving us with an unaccountable government with a scope far beyond its mandate.
The biggest flaw, with The Constitution, is that its only words as long as the people allow it to be undermined and ignored. Nearly every federal politician and bureaucrat has broken their oath to protect and defend The Constitution and has evaded the consequences.
You can argue that this is the inevitable result of liberalism but it isn't the inevitable result of The Constitution itself. Perhaps if we'd stayed within constitutional boundaries, we'd end up at a similar place, at least at the state level, but I seriously doubt we'd have as bloated of a federal bureaucracy, if many of those agencies and their legislative authorities required a two-thirds vote to be established.
I wish these two men would talk to William Keyte of the English Constitution website.
He has recently been given publicity by Neil Oliver on GB News.
Both. Yes.
The elite type politicians don’t mingle with their real constituents and therefore lose touch, but you could are Carl is in touch with his constituents; his children. This keeps him grounded in the real world
1:22:50
Tell me you don't understand the US constitution without telling me you don't understand the US constitution.
It was created to be amended as necessary.
Exactly
Carl sounds like ke's been reading Heidegger on thrownnss and being-in-the-world, but if not, he might like his critique of liberalism (and communism, marxism, nazism)
The home office has recently stopped student visas from including visas for all their family to accompany the students into the UK. Students are from India Pakistan proportionally
Good God, guys. How many adverts!
Thanks for notifying me. UA-cam was supposed to space them out by half an hour; guess they were trying to gouge or drive away traffic
@16:00. Ironically your critique on liberalism being "too rational" is actually being addressed by the other extreme of being too cultural. The self correction of modern liberalism is a focus on identity and multiculturalism. Though it still ignores structures that create either quality.
Multiculturalism is nothing but decease and cancer for the west
I wish Sargon had explained why Aristotle’s virtues were virtuous. They all are necessary components in a life to flourish. Any rejection of nature and what is necessary to even sustain life will of course lead to death. Any ideology that intentionally avoids these virtues should itself be avoided.
Progressive activists like Sarkesian aren't really Karens. Karens are appealing to a shared sense of morality, the activists are forging a new morality.
Fair point.
Isn't the independence of the Central Bank what stops politicians from printing money like crazy? I think that's how it works in some countries at least.
That is supposed to be the idea, but when that independence is undermined, exploited, and corrupted, there is nothing anyone can do short of completely taking over every branch of government in order to reform that independent relationship without significant pushback.
You must then trust that the people who are put in charge of every branch of government, with all the levers of power, that they will fulfill their obligations rather than just exploit the opportunity to totally loot the treasury themselves, which they will.
This is one of the many reasons why centralized banking structures fail, human's are prone to corruption and given an infinite amount of time it is inevitable that any institution will fall under negative influence at some point.
The fundamental problem with a centralized banking structure is that it is centralized. Too much power, too much incentive for corruption.
Citing the ghost of Anita Sarkeesian to Carl might be my favourite Benjamin moment.
Yes Benjamin, no one ever used reason and logic before 1800, let alone apply them to practical questions such as politics. How can you even think without liberalism? Basic facts might try to disprove you, but Aristotle and Aquinas were liberals!
Peak midwitery
"Liberalism makes no sense because X and Y"
"well, you just used liberalism there! Checkmate, chud!"
Carl is the best ❤
Nothing on James Lindsay blocking Carl on Twitter?
James has remarkably thin skin.
last 1:24:00 for Carl. His argument against The Constution is wrong, in that The Constitution pre 1860's rests the authority and powers to deal with contemporary issues rather quickly, 10th amendment, is granted to the states and even earlier at the local level county, town etc...
The problem... is that our people are not being taught what it means to be American, and what it means to be [insert your home state]. His philosophy is English and ours is American, our dichotomy is such that our authorities are fundamentaly given/ built into us by nature and thusly by natures God, but Then we make agreements and regulate based off of a ground up perspective where in England It's top down in it's unique English flavour.
Our Declaration of Independance is the document which lays out our seperation from the British crown and core Governing philosophies; Which is then tried in the articles of confederation and the Solidified in The Constitution.
The other issue is The slow then rapid change of our rights being based in negative rights and liberty, to Positive rights and safety, the real conjuring of the nanny state which is antithetical to the Core philosophy of the constitution, Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness...
I believe, without the adherence to individual soverignty and Lived individual Liberties, America falls, Because what else could be more American in my view...
Even though I find it difficult to argue against Carl's framing, even if he's right, it's too late for me to be deprogrammed from Liberalism. My personality traits wouldn't allow for anything in its place anyway.
Well, you'll be glad to know Carl completely misinterprets liberalism due to little more than it sharing a few words in common, ljke "equality" with leftism. It's just dumb word games.
@@electricelephant7471have you actually taken time to consider the criticism or do you hold onto your politics like a religion, just like a leftist? A liberal is not afraid of alternative ideas. That’s the entire point. To give them a chance to be heard. You are merely stifling them. Sit with this for five minutes before replying.
The question isn't how to dismantle liberalism, it's how to save it from corrupt actors. It is not perfect, but it has good things to be preserved
@@Xplora213 No, I've considered Carl's argument, and he really just gets a lot wrong about liberalism, and his definitions of tradition vs ideology are incoherent.
@@Xplora213
*Immediately accuses you of being like the dreaded leftists for disagreeing*
*Accuses you of just being afraid of new ideas*
*Asserts liberals are obliged to shrug in the face of everything from communism to cannibalism, they're just ideas and feeling things toward them is uncouth*
*Conflates disagreeing with stifling*
*Insists that the 90 minutes you just listened to Carl talk on a podcast was not you giving him a chance to be heard*
*Condescends that you take 5 minutes to think because YOURE the one at risk of saying something ill thought out*
This pseudo-rationality is how the foot gets in the door. You wouldn't want to be a boor, would you, liberal man?
*_"The emotional attachment to the identity of Liberalism"_*
So… basically just James Lindsey?
Benjamin should get Jay Dyer on
I think he might have had him on to talk with James Lindsay once, maybe?
Dyer and Lindsay were on Courtney's pod a while ago. Dyer hasn't been here yet. Carl and James both are atheists and just make assertions about morality with NO justification, which almost always results in worshipping a form of state, rather than God.
@@sillygoose4472Carl acknowledges this problem but for some reason cannot get over his atheism
1:28:06 I suppose he never heard of constitutional amendments… 🤷♀️😂
Wow… he’s smart but he really dropped the ball here. I never heard that type of desperation for Tradition and Constitution… 😓
Carl, you praised our civil rights act and then expressed admiration for our freedom of association. The US does not have freedom of association. That was eliminated with the civil rights act.
Is the host on ambien?
anchor.fm/calmversations
You can have a calm conversation without appearing drugged with sleeping pills.
The nature conclusion of virtue ethics is aristocracy.
Pale interview milk
Refering to Uks spirituality, i would say that it is in its land, infrustructure, architecture and archaeology. Briton has buildings, ruins and structures that span from 1000 to 2,000 years if not more. They are surrounded by an ancient legacy. Also, their maticulous lagacy of keeping records than span a millennium. The same way my people have their ancient land structures that represent our history and creation stories. A connection to our ancient stories.
As for the left coming up with something new, as a once identified lefty who no longer feels connected to it, NO. After 50 years, i have seen nothing work, implimented by the left on their own. I have however, seen policies that work when there is cooperation btw all parties. If we could drop the idea that left or right are the only options of power, and start working with eachother without those restrictions, Then we have something new.
0HP next?
His vocoder is so cringe lol
@BenjaminABoyce it's bad, no doubt.
Blair made the Bank of England independent because independent banks usually have lower interest rates, lower inflation and stable currencies. It removes political interference from monetary policy -- i.e. no tendencies to keep interest rates too low in the run-up to a general election.
True, but it would be better to just abolish it.
@@sebastiansirvas1530 Then who manages the currency that we use for literally every financial transaction? Do you think the pound or any other currency can operate on autopilot and just manage itself?
@baltasarnoreno5973 Cryptocurrencies can manage themselves, for example. There is no need for the currency to be managed centrally. Why are you against multiple competing currencies (and not even cryptocurrencies necessarily btw)? Why do you want to be bound to a currency that can be debased according to the whims of politicians, ideologues, and their legalized and covert plunder?
@@sebastiansirvas1530 Currency is a means of exchange to buy and sell goods and services and a tool for storing economic value. A hard currency needs to be universally accepted within a specific legal jurisdiction (country) by buyers and sellers of goods and services, and should have a predictable value. Buyers and sellers don't want the cost or the uncertainty of having to manage in multiple currencies whose values vary in relation to each other. I don't want my salary paid to me in a different currency each month. And nor does anyone else with whom I trade goods, services, time and labour in exchange for some token of stored value that they can also exchange for goods, services, time and labour. That is why virtually no country routinely operates multiple currencies at the same time. It was even proposed that the Euro could circulate in conjunction with national currencies. It was immediately discarded because of the predictable and understandable objections of the entire business world.
And Bitcoin fails as a possible hard currency or currency emitted by a central bank. It is an exotic investment. It went from 9000Eur to 51000Eur in the space of six months, then crashed to 28000Eur six months later, then sank some more to 16000 Eur, then peaked again at 63000Eur over the next 12 months. It is now on a downward trend and is worth 52000Eur. That is the very opposite of a hard currency. A hard currency maintains a stable value over a long term horizon. It does not multiply its nominal value up and down over a period of months.
And we can stop governments from debasing currencies by making central banks independent and responsible for the money supply and putting them out of reach of politicians.
It's all about the benjamins
I would definitely be careful not to equate "liberal society," with "managerial technocracy".
I listen to the lotus eaters every day
My hero
Regarding the cream rising, the scum can also rise to the top and will hit you if you fail to call them cream. Sadly.
Yes.
Free Kekistan
I like Sargon a lot, since back when he was more of a memer, but he doesn't do a great job of explaining his positions, sometimes coming off as overly cagey or even hazy on the details. He seems to always go back to liberalism when discussing his ideas and struggles to define his positions other than how they defer from liberalism. I'm on his side but I can't help but feel he overly romanticizes some aspects of the past and assumes too much about how others feel and think.
From a thought leader, which I think Sargon aspires to be, I would rather see more of a crystalized vision for what he would like the future to be, concretely how he wants to get there and be able to define those things without having to rely on those he disagrees with to do so.
The problem is, everybody knows how to be „more left-wing“, even in daily life.
But how exactly do you act more „right-wing“? Sure, there are answers but they are not as obvious.
I think he does a good job. Nationalism is the key, which will differ for each country. The reason most people can’t wrap their head around this concept is because these cultures, especially in the west, are being erased. Justin Trudeau proudly proclaimed Canada to be a post national state. In a way, Trudeau is correct, if you ask many younger Canadians what constitutes Canada by the actual current state of the country, they’ll say homeless drug addicts roaming major cities, non English speaking or esl immigrants staffing most public facing service jobs, nonstop moving due unaffordable housing and rent, nonstop pandering to woke causes which doesn’t make anybody’s life better and causes major rifts and divisions. In short, a gig economy culture, pathetic and throwaway, ready to be replaced with the next fad.
I’m Canadian, so I’ll detail what it means to be Canadian and what the country is and should like look. Carl has done the same for the UK.
Canada is a culture based on adventure and exploration and as such, those qualities must exist within the Canadian ethos. The typical Canadian should be humble, hard working, generous and polite to a fault. But, they do not suffer fools or allow degeneracy, criminals or authoritarianism. They protect the weak, but unless some extraneous event prevents it, they expect the weak to become the strong to replace them when their time comes. Their fierceness when aggrieved, their innovation to overcome adversity and loyalty to their families and communities should not be underestimated. Their heartiness does not preclude them from playing a game of shinny on a frozen pond in the winter when it’s -30 or enjoying a hike in mosquito infested summers. They value the rural life and only exist in major cities if necessary, even then the spirit of nature calls to even the most hardened city dweller. They embrace Canada and its traditions of English as the main language while French is used in Quebec and a nice addition to learn but not necessary. They honour the countries they came from through food and worship and other forms, but never at the expense of Canadian culture, which is to uphold the law, help your neighbour and contribute to the future by raising a family and taking your place amongst those pioneers that came before you and carried the fire.
Obviously the Canada I described is hard to locate as it’s been decades since that culture dominated. And it’s not to say Canada was without its faults. But to return to the Canada I described, while working on its faults individually and progressively (the actual definition not the woke one, meaning slowly and carefully) is the only way the fire can blaze again.
@@keldsports8337 I truly admire your love for your country. That's a wonderful dream you painted of what Canada should and could be, I hope one day we all live to see it. Such a good and honest people would be a pillar for the prosperity of the world.
Managerial capitalism was also an aspect of the growth of the technological scope in terms of managing unprecedented feats in logistics and technology that allowed for servicing the millions of people now part of one whole system. I don’t know if you get certain comfortable aspects of tech without these interested managers moving entire corporations towards these things, but I don’t think some of these things are necessary for a prosperous and moral people. The myth making that justifies liberal democracy is the reasoning backbone behind many of these moves makes it appear to be the only logical direction
1:04:39 Touché!
There’s no England, there’s no Englishman without Christ! There’s no Christian morals without Christ! What made England possible was the people’s faith in Christ and living that faith daily by adopting the Christian morals! There’s no such thing as life without faith, you’ll exercise faith in something.. It will either be Christ or whatever else the demons around can exploit to dominate you!
I am early gen x, Englishman. I went to a C of E school, sang in the church choir on saturdays (weddings) and sunday until i was 12 I was a loose believer then. Since that age became an agnostic, but definitely a cultural Christian now. I completely agree with you and if Carl was honest he would also agree, I thing that we would have to go back to having Christianity taught in schools, up until the age of 11 (in the UK) to have any chance to at least keep cultural Christianity, let alone true believers.
Its the same thing in the US. Our country was founded by Christians for Christians who strive for virtue & believe in a Christian morality. Without that moral foundation holding things together, the whole ship falls apart. I used to be atheist/agnostic but after seeing my country & culture being shredded by progressive postmodernism, I changed my perspective.
Since when is liberalism so rational? Carl is severely confused on this. I think he's talking about some idea of liberalism he has rather than its reality.
We failed. We fucked up. The Classical Liberal ideal came from the right place in people's hearts. For the longest time it worked too. The problem is that, like irresponsible teens inheriting a beautiful piece of property, we've forgotten that maintaining a thing and having a thing are too very different proposals. You have to mow the proverbial lawn, trim the hedges, and repaint the siding if you want to keep what you've got. You have to couple the privilege with responsibility and effort. If we don't get back to that crucial balance again...we're lost.
all social order--everywhere--is built upon rites, rituals, symbols, and icons. Take them away, take away the social order. Lack of social order is NOT an to a nation, per se, but an end to whatever society has been built. In almost every historical case that has led to genocide, and tyranny, not anarchy and freedom. So these rites, rituals, symbols, and icons--the "irrational" side of human life as Carl might say--protect us not from freedom, but tyranny. Any person or group looking to destroy them is seeking tyranny. Full. Stop.
“In nature you’re free to get eaten by a tiger”
Oh Christ, now he’s unironically making the same arguments as vaush now.
I BLESS THIS! FLORIDA MAN!