Founding fathers: Liberals vs Conservatives
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Nationalism Debate: Ya...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Noom: trynoom.com/lex
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.... and use code Lex25 to get 25% off
- SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com... and use code LEX to get a free security camera
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com... and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
- Blinkist: blinkist.com/lex and use code LEX to get 25% off premium
GUEST BIO:
Yaron Brook is an objectivist. Yoram Hazony is a national conservative. This is a conversation and debate about national conservatism vs individualism.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
That was a historical change in politics. A limited government that protected the rights of the people. Creating a document that begins to list things the federal government can not do. Yet that government has grown monstrously, done all those things, and so much more.
Yes I would love to have the job of explaining to one of the founding fathers what has happened since their death.
And seeing their reaction to it
limited government? u really dont know what the Necessary and Proper Clause means.
@@jamesmiller5331 Right! Imagine their faces when they hear about a Black man being the President.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@lockejr I don't think they would be that shocked about that, unless that's the very first thing that you told them before explaining anything else that happened since.
@@jamesmiller5331 In that case nothing would be shocking at all.
The Bill of Rights was one of the first legislative documents that impose restrictions on the power of government. The first 10 amendments have the words “Congress shall not” over and over meaning it created a guarantee limitation that government could not infringe
- Liberal - House is a complete mess, but filled with books and artwork.
- Conservative - House is organized and tidy, but there are few books and the walls are dull.
It's a pretty accurate description from a personality analysis.
Though what fascinates me the most is how there are a large number of liberals and conservatives living out the opposite ideology.
Hate to break it to you, but loving guns doesn't make you a conservative, and bring pro-choice doesn't make you a liberal.
I'd recommend people take an official Big Five test. The results might surprise you or make perfect sense.
I never viewed liberalism and conservativism as the opposites.
To me it was liberalism vs authoritanism (as a way of ruling or socieatal principles) and progressivism vs conservativism (as values are concerned). For example, you could be a liberal conservative, cherish the rights of everybody (whether it's gay people having the same rights as the rest or the gun owners), but put it via democratic consensus whether there should be gay parades or open gun carrying. Same way, you could be authocratic progressive, where you say "no, we must now empower the gays/minorities by giving them special rights" or "guns are explicitly used to kill/harm people and we must forbid them all at once!".
Guess the American populus looks at it a tad different nowadays... or maybe not.
@@Notorious_Network True, but you could also argue there were major switches in party policies around the time of Kennedy, which is best represented by how the south changed from all blue up until then, to all red further on and vice versa.
Progressivism today is beyond the point of sanity. It's trying to amend the mistakes of the past by commanding more of them on the other side.
Suffrage was progressive, AOC is a parasite.
Being Conservative means respecting (or Conserving the best parts of the past). Religion is apart of that. Murdering the unborn for sake.of sexual freedom is not something an educated religious person can support in their own personal life. So I disagree, being Conservative means being anti abort ion. I hate to break it to you.
@@Notorious_Network progressivism now is socialism...and has very little todo with what Teddy Rosevelt pushed for. Modern "Progressives" would never support Rosevelt of he were alive today...much like JFK, no modern "Progressive" would suppor5 him either
@@cromBumny You're basing conservatism on a modern interpretation of politics that have taken place during the 20th century. China has an extremely conservative culture, but that didn't stop them from euthenizing 300 Million children.
The terminology of conservatism has been made political.
It has nothing to do innately with religion or 'best parts' of society. It's a set of personality traits that prides itself on orderliness and low openness.
Reason and Truth are not the same, "if we all use reason we will come to the same general end" this is totally incorrect. Loche, Hobbs and Marx all used reason...their end results are radically different.
With basic math, using pure reason always comes to the exact same answer. But life is so much more than basic math, no one can use pure reason because humans are imperfect, and we are all biased in what answers we want or have been told we want.
@@mustang607 to expand on the idea if impetfection.the difference between Rousseau/Marx which thought people were basically good (perfect?) vrs Christianity/Judaism which thinks people are flawed (sinners, imperfect). Rousseau/ Marx thought that if you remove the oppressors society would flourish. Christianity/Judaism thinks you should self reflect and atone for your sins as the means of moving forward.
@@cromBumny If you keep removing all "bad" people in the world, only "good" people will remain, until mankind becomes extinct and equality of outcome is finally achieved. But there are numerous other choices.
@@cromBumny I can't find any 'reason' surrounding Marx.
He was afforded his entire life from familial and associate wealth. Not to mention he endlessly wrote about his envies of society at the time.
"A man should revolve around himself as if he were his own sun."
""Religion is an opiate for the masses."
The guy was entirely in love with himself and revolved his theories around depriving those that had more wealth than himself.
Pure vanity and envy.
@@vladimirofsvalbard9477 his politics does mirror Cain and Able...politics of envy, but he was using reason, his arguments outlining the flaws of capitolism aren't untrue and are rational. His solutions were too utopian and nothing new.
Jefferson owned a Q'uran.
Would the declaration of independence exist if Thomas Jefferson had not read the book? There so many circumstances like that.
The founding fathers were a group of individuals.
The constitution is beautiful because it disabuses the government from imposing its will on the people.
Anything else is flawed.
Whatt?? I'm a muslim and didn't know jefferson owned a quran
Of course he would the constitution and Declaration of Independence both were heavily influenced by the British Magna Carta and the British bill of rights and English liberalism do your research
Yes, it would have, he felt the Q'uran and the Asian religions were inferior to the Judeo Christian tradition
@@cardroid8615 mostly Monenesque, John Loche, and the Masonic Constitution. 2 of those 3 are British.
The British whigs ideology is where we came from with both the puritans and the Virginians this is the modern day Republican Party. I’m doing a video tracing back the history of freedom and abolition movement right now and the research really made me get a huge respect for our founding fathers they literally performed a miracle that they pulled America off they answered a millennia long debate on how to set up a country
Only for others to give it away
Absolutely not. You are way out to lunch with that idea. We saw the iroquois league ruling ruling themselves in a federation and there is literally an actual quote of Franklin saying "if these savages can rule themselves, why can't we?"
@@kingmerlyn4615 sorry man but it was the British whigs that set up the parliamentary system that we copied. Not the Iroquois system. The founding fathers referred to themselves as whigs and when the first party split the dissenters created the American Whig party which became the Republican Party that ended slavery so yeah
@@GodGuy8 no, wrong. Read some history buddy. Not made up history.
@@kingmerlyn4615 ok now you're just uninformed. this is the first sentence of the patriot(american revolution) wikipedia page and i quote "Patriots, also known as Revolutionaries, Continentals, Rebels, or American Whigs, were the colonists of the Thirteen Colonies who rejected British rule during the American Revolution" notice how they considered themselves whigs!! and thats from super biased wikipedia!! just dont say anything more youre just gonna dig yourself a bigger hole on this buddy
Not a single "uhmm" or "ahh". That is complete mastery of the art of communication
2:50
I'm a Lex fan and follower but this segment was more of a college lecture. Dude on the right was on a podium streaming white noise. Could not make it thru to the end.
I thought this was supposed to be a debate, not a pile-on.
LEX,
you've got a crypto scammer in your comments section.
The original comment is under the name Dr George. The guys name is George Howard.
They were Libertarians.
By the thumbnail I thought this was a Wes Craven new movie 🎥
"The State, every government whatever its form, character or color - be it absolute or constitutional, monarchy or republic, Fascist, Nazi or bolshevik - is by its very nature conservative, static, intolerant of change and opposed to it." ~ Emma Goldman
They were both!
A question ive had in my mind for a very long time is what will democracy evolved look like? The next free political system i mean.
However Fierce the debate was back then imagine what it would be like now with characters of all colors and creeds mucking up the debate with their topical issues. What a mess. It would take 20 years to even begin to start putting something down on paper.
@@jamesmiller5331 Can't disagree there.
These two are very much in step with each other. Constantly nodding at one another. It would be absolutely UNBELIEVABLE if you could've got someone like Chris Langan on to talk about all of this stuff. Chris is such a intelligent human who is righteous in his beliefs. And he has a theory that needs to be talked about; the CTMU. Why is no one inviting Chris on their podcast? It reeks of dishonesty in my opinion
thanks for mentioning Chris. I'm going to research CTMU.
@@astraltraveler257 You're welcome. Chris's wife also runs a channel on UA-cam called: "CTMU radio" if you're interested. It also has some interesting info in it pertaining to Chris's theory and his thoughts.
If you think words on paper will stop humans that get major benefits in breaking that law, you are delusional.😒
words on paper wont, but principles in practice will
Exactly. I love the principles of the Constitution, but at the end of the day people get what they tolerate from their government representatives...
Dude called slavery an "innovation" ... Smh 🙄
In context he was correct
@James Wheat
Evil or just plain stupid to talk like that.
By this logic robbery, murder, child sex trafficking all can be labeled innovative.
Slavery wasn't anything new, infact it was outlawed in England. Then people took advantage outside of the law to do evil heinous acts for profit.
@@orangemanbad No.Absolutely no. Shame on you.
Slavery was the antithesis of innovation.
It was not new in any way, it is simply a crime in any ethical society, or to any moral being.
how come it seems like alot of smart people have a speech impediment like the white hair guy?
this was hard to watch tbh
🌈🌈🦄🦄
Saw the Yarmelke and was like “NOOOPE”, I realise the potential error in that, but that shit is so silly. Can’t take that guy seriously.
My favorite class in college was cultural anthropology. You hate the Yarmelke. I get it. It’s culturally unfamiliar to you and me. However, people literally punch holes in their ears. That’s ‘normal’. And nuts. Some do it with noses,. And ties. Why the hell do men put nooses around their neck? High heels for women? Etc, etc, etc. In America, we say, “You look like a million bucks” without blinking an eye. Men in some tribes in Africa tell women “You look like my favorite cow.” Both statements speak to what is valued in that society. Humans are weird.
@@StrategicWealthLLC throwing stones in different ponds- it’s seriously not “unfamiliar” to me- I’m from LA. I don’t hate Jewish people or Judaism. I think piercings, tattoos, all that sort of stuff is silly and entirely self serving.