We've been in the age of Neo-Liberalism since the 1960s. It's on a natural trajectory of incorporating socialism and communism into politics and organizing under dictatorships of the proletariat in the culture war.
We've been in the age of Progressive Neo-Liberalism since the 1960s. It's on a natural trajectory of incorporating socialism and communism in politics and organizing under dictatorships of the proletariat in the cultural discourse.
IMO Tim Urban missed the mark on what Classical Liberalism is and how it differs from post-modern American Progressive Neo-liberalism, which doesn't surprise me because he's read too much liberal revisionist political history. Historically, the two main branches of liberalism and how they diverge are delineated between the British Glorious Revolution influencing the American Revolution versus the French Revolution influenceing the Springtime of People's Revolutions of 1848 and Communism. Classical Liberalism (libertarian, Republic liberalism) is far different from current American Progressive Neo-liberalism (social, Democracy liberalism). Very interesting conversation Erik. I would really enjoy seeing Ruyard Lynch (a political right perspective) and Tim Urban (a political left perspective) have a conversation on MOZ.
If your philosophy has to be an anomoly to survive it pretty much definitionally cant be the best system because it was tested and found unsustainable.
Life is inherently unfair idk why adults still think it can be otherwise, thats childish. You can play around on the edges and make it more fair with less freedom thats about it. By far the largest advantage a human has in the world is being born in a rich country especially America the amount of opportunity here is just ridiculous. I grew up as poor as you can in America with a single mom who was disabled and welfare with five kids no dad and all of us now in our 30s are young professionals with top 10% incomes and starting families and buying land/homes. Its actually pretty easy to go from the bottom to the top in America most people on top love a scappy person who will do more faster with a good attitude and youll move up fast. If want to see life on hard mode Go visit a poor developing country like go to the Congo see just how impossible it is to really get ahead there.
I personally loved this conversation! I know to some in the comments this is a trite topic with "obvious" reasons why things are inherently unequal, but that doesn't dispute the fact that this IS an issue in modern society. If we don't talk about it, we will never figure out the way forward, and both political parties will continue to become ever more polarized, and most people in this Ameican social experiment will lose except the monied elite. Second comment: I especially like the thought brought up that equal opportunity still leads to unequal outcomes, and we have to figure out once and for all if we are going to do anything about that in the US? The way forward for most minorities in America was to marry someone, have children, and focus on getting those children a better life. You, as a parent, just grinded and worked 2-3 jobs to make this happen. It was a luxury to be a parent AND have dreams for yourself. Now, we have those children going to school with, and working along side people who didn't have parents who did that. These people can afford to have personal dreams while building a family, but those whose parents who didn't do that are at the bottom. The problem is due to the advent of the internet, those who didnt have the advantage of parents like that no longer see the point of living an adult life of sacrifice without personal dreams. Essentially to do for their children what was not done for them. So, these people have little interest in finding and mating with each other, having children, working low wage jobs, forgoing any personal dreams for themselves. Especially with a large percentage of These people having college degrees, themselves. It's like having more than your parents ever did, but still ending up in similar place they did. So, in some ways we are at a bit of an impasse when it comes to equal opportunity and inherently unequal outcomes, IMO.
The world is not a resort. It's a place where only the fittest survive and thrive. If you get fucked by a power or an ideology, you are not the fittest one. Whatever that power or ideology is. These low-IQ convos are really tiring.
Don't say low IQ, it's the midwits, delusion really is a bell curve. Low IQ people have to believe that might makes right because they can't come up with anything outside of what they see directly in front of them, and high IQ people are faced with too much evidence that it simply is the case, Only a midwit would create a fantasy as an alternative and try to make that square peg fit in a round hole. Unless you seperate it from the real world via an afterlife and/or dissociate through prayer or meditation, that works, that's why christian liberalism works but secular liberalism doesn't, the realisation that the world will never be fair but your creator wants you to try anyway is perfectly viable, if you actually sincerely believe it but as a society we just can't anymore. We will return to monarchy in all but name kicking and screaming just like the Romans and Russians.
I'm not even half way through, so maybe it's addressed. But you're explaination so far is like the school house rock version. It's not how things actually are. This isn't a liberal democracy, it hasn't ever really been, and liberalism and democracy aren't good systems without some huge caveats. First, there's a big difference between what the population believes and how government actually works. Republican voters are not in line with the Republican politicians, and Democrat voters are not in line with Democrat politicians. This is one of the few things Marx kinda got right, people in similar stations in their lives will behave similarly. It has less to do with ideology and more to do with incentives, the part Marx was wrong about, because people are mostly the same. Unless you have a selection to the group of people you're analyzing (ie all rapists are rapists) the groups of people are mostly the same, what's different is the incentives that drive their behavior. There just aren't that many H. H. Holmes in the world. So politicians act like politicians because they have a unique access to powers that incentivize certain behaviors. Politicians want and act more similarly to each other than the voters. Voters want and act more similarly to each other than to politicians. The divide is almost entirely rhetorical. The system we actually have is much closer to fascism. I don't mean fascism in the sense that everything I don't like is fascist, I mean fascism in the actual philosophy of fascism. The voting that exists is almost entirely a rhetorical tool, "denying elections", isn't a threat when those elections aren't real. What you're portraying as "normal" is the "neocon" hegemony that really is about as bad as any of the worst regimes of the 20th century. Hitler came to power in a democracy, he wasn't elected. That's closer to the system we have than a liberal democracy. Liberalism and democracy only works with extreme cultural homogeneity. "Wokeness" is a product of liberalism. You have to keep people out that will destroy your system. When a population gets as big as the US, you will also have cultural drift, and you can't have consent of the governed. The US is imperialist, it coerces the population to act and believe within a certain narrow Overton window, where even opposition opinions are controlled to a narrow range of acceptability, and that Overton window isn't defined by the people, it's defined by the government, for the interests of those in power, which includes all the crony powers represented by lobbyists.
We are never going to be able to go back to the 90s. Your version of liberalism is in the past. Liberalism is always moving
We've been in the age of Neo-Liberalism since the 1960s. It's on a natural trajectory of incorporating socialism and communism into politics and organizing under dictatorships of the proletariat in the culture war.
We've been in the age of Progressive Neo-Liberalism since the 1960s. It's on a natural trajectory of incorporating socialism and communism in politics and organizing under dictatorships of the proletariat in the cultural discourse.
IMO Tim Urban missed the mark on what Classical Liberalism is and how it differs from post-modern American Progressive Neo-liberalism, which doesn't surprise me because he's read too much liberal revisionist political history. Historically, the two main branches of liberalism and how they diverge are delineated between the British Glorious Revolution influencing the American Revolution versus the French Revolution influenceing the Springtime of People's Revolutions of 1848 and Communism. Classical Liberalism (libertarian, Republic liberalism) is far different from current American Progressive Neo-liberalism (social, Democracy liberalism).
Very interesting conversation Erik. I would really enjoy seeing Ruyard Lynch (a political right perspective) and Tim Urban (a political left perspective) have a conversation on MOZ.
If your philosophy has to be an anomoly to survive it pretty much definitionally cant be the best system because it was tested and found unsustainable.
Erik gets a better camera (kudos!), proceeds to have the worst lighting setup lol. Keep up the good work!
It will take another year to get the lighting right 😂🤙
Life is inherently unfair idk why adults still think it can be otherwise, thats childish. You can play around on the edges and make it more fair with less freedom thats about it.
By far the largest advantage a human has in the world is being born in a rich country especially America the amount of opportunity here is just ridiculous. I grew up as poor as you can in America with a single mom who was disabled and welfare with five kids no dad and all of us now in our 30s are young professionals with top 10% incomes and starting families and buying land/homes. Its actually pretty easy to go from the bottom to the top in America most people on top love a scappy person who will do more faster with a good attitude and youll move up fast. If want to see life on hard mode Go visit a poor developing country like go to the Congo see just how impossible it is to really get ahead there.
I personally loved this conversation! I know to some in the comments this is a trite topic with "obvious" reasons why things are inherently unequal, but that doesn't dispute the fact that this IS an issue in modern society. If we don't talk about it, we will never figure out the way forward, and both political parties will continue to become ever more polarized, and most people in this Ameican social experiment will lose except the monied elite.
Second comment: I especially like the thought brought up that equal opportunity still leads to unequal outcomes, and we have to figure out once and for all if we are going to do anything about that in the US?
The way forward for most minorities in America was to marry someone, have children, and focus on getting those children a better life. You, as a parent, just grinded and worked 2-3 jobs to make this happen. It was a luxury to be a parent AND have dreams for yourself. Now, we have those children going to school with, and working along side people who didn't have parents who did that. These people can afford to have personal dreams while building a family, but those whose parents who didn't do that are at the bottom.
The problem is due to the advent of the internet, those who didnt have the advantage of parents like that no longer see the point of living an adult life of sacrifice without personal dreams. Essentially to do for their children what was not done for them. So, these people have little interest in finding and mating with each other, having children, working low wage jobs, forgoing any personal dreams for themselves. Especially with a large percentage of These people having college degrees, themselves. It's like having more than your parents ever did, but still ending up in similar place they did.
So, in some ways we are at a bit of an impasse when it comes to equal opportunity and inherently unequal outcomes, IMO.
Conservatives should play by the rules, regardless of their opponents do. 🤔
Yep...
The world is not a resort. It's a place where only the fittest survive and thrive. If you get fucked by a power or an ideology, you are not the fittest one.
Whatever that power or ideology is.
These low-IQ convos are really tiring.
If people were actually inherently rational they would realize this but...
Don't say low IQ, it's the midwits, delusion really is a bell curve. Low IQ people have to believe that might makes right because they can't come up with anything outside of what they see directly in front of them, and high IQ people are faced with too much evidence that it simply is the case, Only a midwit would create a fantasy as an alternative and try to make that square peg fit in a round hole. Unless you seperate it from the real world via an afterlife and/or dissociate through prayer or meditation, that works, that's why christian liberalism works but secular liberalism doesn't, the realisation that the world will never be fair but your creator wants you to try anyway is perfectly viable, if you actually sincerely believe it but as a society we just can't anymore. We will return to monarchy in all but name kicking and screaming just like the Romans and Russians.
please stop posting old content
Classical liberalism has been dead for a long time. That's why it's called "classical".
hopefully not
I'm not even half way through, so maybe it's addressed.
But you're explaination so far is like the school house rock version. It's not how things actually are. This isn't a liberal democracy, it hasn't ever really been, and liberalism and democracy aren't good systems without some huge caveats.
First, there's a big difference between what the population believes and how government actually works. Republican voters are not in line with the Republican politicians, and Democrat voters are not in line with Democrat politicians. This is one of the few things Marx kinda got right, people in similar stations in their lives will behave similarly. It has less to do with ideology and more to do with incentives, the part Marx was wrong about, because people are mostly the same. Unless you have a selection to the group of people you're analyzing (ie all rapists are rapists) the groups of people are mostly the same, what's different is the incentives that drive their behavior. There just aren't that many H. H. Holmes in the world.
So politicians act like politicians because they have a unique access to powers that incentivize certain behaviors. Politicians want and act more similarly to each other than the voters. Voters want and act more similarly to each other than to politicians. The divide is almost entirely rhetorical.
The system we actually have is much closer to fascism. I don't mean fascism in the sense that everything I don't like is fascist, I mean fascism in the actual philosophy of fascism.
The voting that exists is almost entirely a rhetorical tool, "denying elections", isn't a threat when those elections aren't real. What you're portraying as "normal" is the "neocon" hegemony that really is about as bad as any of the worst regimes of the 20th century.
Hitler came to power in a democracy, he wasn't elected. That's closer to the system we have than a liberal democracy.
Liberalism and democracy only works with extreme cultural homogeneity. "Wokeness" is a product of liberalism. You have to keep people out that will destroy your system. When a population gets as big as the US, you will also have cultural drift, and you can't have consent of the governed. The US is imperialist, it coerces the population to act and believe within a certain narrow Overton window, where even opposition opinions are controlled to a narrow range of acceptability, and that Overton window isn't defined by the people, it's defined by the government, for the interests of those in power, which includes all the crony powers represented by lobbyists.
You're off the mark on several conceptualizations about political theory.