Liberalism's Great Flaw
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- Or: Why I am a liberal but not a progressive.
-----
Join the community discord! ► / discord
Watch Us LIVE (And Click Dat Sub Button!) ► / shortfatotaku
SFO Arcade Archive Channel ► / gameboomer
Dev Kit Channel ► / @thedevkit
Dev & Friends Channel ► @DevAndFriends
Devonetized Channel ► @SFOBackups
-----
SUPPORT THE SHOW:
BTC:bc1q6udqgvfm9uaj59l24ut7f73wvsfu707kk6pn3m
SubscribeStar! ► www.subscribes...
Streamlabs! ► streamlabs.com...
Patreon! ► / shortfatotaku
Paypal! ► paypal.me/short...
Humble Bundle Affiliate Link! ► www.humblebund...
Amazon CAN Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/322aFAa
Amazon USA Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/30PLxgN
Amazon CAN Wishlist! ► www.amazon.ca/...
Amazon USA Wishlist! ► www.amazon.com...
-----
SFO-CIAL MEDIA! HYUK HYUK
DA TWEETS ► currently banned lol
DA FACES ► / sfotaku
DA GABS ► www.gab.com/sh...
DA MINDS ► www.minds.com/...
DA PARLERS ► parler.com/pro...
DA STEAMS ► steamcommunity....
Ah, yes, the greatest liberal philosopher of our time: Todd Howard. "It just works."
You joke, but when he said "I will stop re-releasing Skyrim when people stop buying it" is peak cum-pod liberalism. Why shouldn't Todd re-release Skyrim? You may call it greed, but nobody is being forced to buy Skyrim for 7th time. The lack of discipline from cum pod liberalism lead to the current state of the AAA game industry. If gamers are too much of a addicted to control themselves and NOT spend hundreds of dollars in micro transactions, why should those companies do better? The answer lies on discipline, which nowdays is a conservative principle.
Communism is the most ambitious modding project
@@afelias I love and hate that I understand the two of you
@@afelias Ideology: The Frontier
"nooo you need to give meticulous reasoning based in abstract theory!"
"No." [GIGACHAD]
Turning color blindness from a concept to strive for into a racist concept is the greatest crime of modern politics. Regressing all the progress we'd made as a country.
That's the thing though... there was never any real progress. Only progress along the slider of liberalism, progress which ends with communism after passing through socialism.
From a liberal perspective, that was "progress". From any other, it was just delusion that was doomed to fail because it goes against human nature.
I mean it does epitomize why socialism is a bad thing. For their Utopia to exist, they need collectivism, which means they need the population to behave in colllectives.
Every race is different regardless if you want to admit that. They have strengths and weaknesses. To deny they are different is an injustice in itself.
@@kalypso4133Color blindness refers to treating people the same regardless of skin color bruh. Its a personal philosophy. I am personally someone that lives in reality so I also find color blindness at best silly and at worst dangerous to your own personal health
Dr MLKJ: "No, goddamnit, not like THAT?!"
My mind has been rotted by memes - I can’t think of the term “Liberal” without immediately seeing a biker skeleton holding two glocks, pointing them at the viewer while talking about being born to shit, yet forced to wipe.
Truly, the West has fallen.
"Cool trick, Jesus. Now turn this wine into weeeeeed! Ha ha ha ha ha"
If you have to pee, you pee but if you don’t, you don’t pee
I picture a big crab with lasers shooting from its eyes.
And my mind is so rotted that I hear Skeleton biker and think of Hypnospace outlaw.
😂😂😂😂😂
To quote Richard Feynman:
"If [your theory] disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
Doesn't matter how great your philosophy sounds, put it to the test.
It’s not a theory, it’s a religion. That’s why it fails the No True Scotsman test every time. True socialism has never been tried, true?
Jesus hasn’t come back either but no one expects you to base a secular society on that expectation.
"The test was flawed, put it again" And that until the heat death of the universe
@@danielutriabrooks477 ah, the essence of "that wasn't true communism" distilled.
"a TrUe ExPeRiMeNt HaS nEvEr BeEn TrIeD!1!"
@@ComicGladiator More science™ is required
Rousseau strikes me as a man who's never been to a rural area. Nature doesn't provide a damn thing walk into the forest and you have to work 24/7 to just eat, and the isolated individuals in nature die.
I can't believe this man was ever taken seriously with this idea that was completely divorced from reality.
You have to understand., humans have been living in cities for thousands of years. You know the current setup we have now where most people are in cities and they tend to drive the local politics even to the detriment of the locals outside the city? That was true even back then, just to a lesser degree. Rousseau is a city boy, with romantic feelings toward nature. I don't blame him, I have romantic feelings toward nature too, I just also live in the information age where I can find plenty of evidence, without ever even going to it, of how deadly and brutal nature really is. I love nature, I just also understand it for what it is and am grateful to not be a caveman.
In fact, some of his fellow philosophers from the time utterly roasted him for one of his famous essays.
Voltaire, in particular, mocked him for unironically advocating to "return to monke" and sarcastically said that he can no longer walk on all fours because he's not a baby anymore and can't leave civilisation because he's old now and needs a doctor.
Not sure if he was. I asked my philosophy professor what understanding we have now gained by reading Rousseau and he literally shrank into a pile of resginating nothing. I mean, in hundereds of years, SOMEBODY most have wrote a credible defense, right? No. Even the commentaries in the books say better read something else on political philosophy. That's the people publishing his works today saying that.
Nature does provide though. It's all there you just have to work to get it. The city doesn't provide anything naturally. It's all artificial and or stolen from nature. If you stopped shipping food to cities everyone would die. If you shut down stores in the country some people would die and everyone else would look to nature and behin hunting and farming. You can't plow concrete or steel though.
@@johnteixeira6405Until the industrial revolution most people lived rural, for thousands of years agriculture was the main industry. In modern day most people live in the cities as atomised individuals, but plenty of rural communities still exist
Finally a video that's not tiktok Tuesdays. I enjoy those but your focused videos are better.
been waiting for a new in depth video
@@naingaung2748right? It's entertaining. Plus these kind of videos take a lot of work, he's able to make more content by doing these every once in a while with some TikTok junk food in between.
Still waiting on the dogpill video he's been teasing.
@@Austin-kt7ky Didn't that already come out?
@@oz_jones I think it's still on Rumble
I don’t know who said the quote, but it went something like this ‘ traditions are answers to problems that you forgot we ever had’.
I don't know if he said it, but it's Chesterton's fence.
Great quote but some people see cannibalism as tradition😂
Some people also see reason, at least what we call reason, as arbitrary and subjective.
Some people shouldn’t be listened to.
@@fabianbiere5653 okay so what is the problem which the answer is canibalism? Yes canibalism is wrong but the question had to be asked to see if the problem still exist and if yes then are there a better solution to it than canibalism.
The quote didn't say that it is the answer to today's problem, merely that it is an answer to a problem the past society had. The answer may be stupid or wrong but the problem is real, at least as real as the mind of the people back then belief.
@fabianbiere5653 Who? How is it enacted? Again the question from ops post is "why was it started".
That first "conversation" between Sargon and James... it's what I hate about Twitter: A back and forth of "nuh-uh" - "yuh-uh" with some insults thrown in, instead of exchanging actual ARGUMENTS.
Well one side offered to elaborate in a long form discussion and the other side ignored it...
@johnteixeira6405 James has been avoiding that conversation for some time while even some of his colleagues like Bogosian (spelling his name wrong I know) are at least willing to have it out. I've lost a lot of respect for Lindsay because of this
@@jesse123185 Agreed, I used to like the three of them a lot more but have found myself only maintaining a liking of Boghossian, this whole ordeal just put the nail in the coffin, for me.
Lindsay is a d!ck on Twitter, just the way it is. Doesn't make the rest of his work less valuable.
From what I can see of Lindsay's thinking, he believes (with a fair amount of truth) that the right, in reaction to leftist provocation, is abandoning liberalism in order to embrace some sort of reactionary right authoritarianism.
In that light, I believe he sees Carl as arguing for a gateway to the Dark Side, which would explain his dumping on someone who is 90% ally in fighting woke.
Jumping to conclusions and cutting off Carl is a mistake and one of his personality problems. But, humans are flawed, so what can one do but sigh and move on?
The individual must be susceptible to childish behaviour in the first place in order to exhibit it
The problem with current American politics is that the Liberal party sees no value in the Conservatives and this led to a positive feedback loop causing the Conservatives to become more anti Liberal and the Liberals becoming more corrupted by Socialist thought.
It's also that the conservatives/lolbertarian political lexicon is liberal.
Why make fun of libertarians?@@Cornflakes-sr3nq
liberals have also pushed away moderates and actual centrists by becoming so dogmatic and shutting down any dissenting opinion, especially recently thats been shown with being called racist or a right wing extremist because you criticized a weird polticial ideal. personally i believe this is because liberalism got so popular and ingrained it has honestly become decadent and too comfortable. many seem to believe it can do no wrong after its given the west so much and instead of balancing itself with tradition and conservativism its gone all the way and now liberalism wants to be the only thing in society
personally i think society needs both conservative and liberal values. liberals without conservatives assume human nature is better than it actually is and enact policy that doesn't really work in the real world due to uptopian thinking. examples of this include culturally insular EU countries taking in more immigrants than they could possibly handle because liberalism believed it would be good morally, which has really hurt a lot of working people in these countries.
conservatism without liberal optimism leads itself to be too brutal and darwinistic at times, believing human nature is only kept in check through society's cohesion and threat of punishment by the authority. this can lead to pretty bad authoritarian governments being seen as 'necessary' when a less repressive system might otherwise be tried. personally i lean more conservative as i've seen too much in my time to believe humans are as good as we like to believe.
The dems were never the liberal party if that's what you mean. If by "liberal" we don't mean the american definition. If you want real liberals, then you'll have to look at the libertarian party and any strict constitutionalists.
The problem with American politics is that both parties are essentially monarchies now (in the literal sense) which are extremely ideologically vulnerable to external political pressure such as a Christian group or a 🐝 LM influencing their policies. The politicians don’t care. They merely seek power and play to a base.
The actual people are not the policies. Look at POTUS. He was heading a tough on crime bill which adversely affected the people rioting against his opponents 30 years later. He will say what needs to be said.
Once you stop expecting the Congress and senators to be anything but greedy people, you can realise that it’s simply picking a better poison because the GOP isn’t spending less.
James Lindsay unfortunately failed to separate his online persona from himself and became emotional. This is how you lose the war, by making strangers of friends.
He was always trying to show his fellow intellectuals how much he understood them as a basis to despise them.
Nothing larger was at play.
James is not really the beacon of hope we think he is. He’s just reading all their shit and saying “umm they have told you the plan and this is what it looks like “. No one else is reading their shit and is able to explain it (because it’s incomprehensible garbage)
@Xplora213 Also worth noting: If we use his analogy of leftism being a different operating system, then to understand it one would have to be, by necessity, insane.
You can't have two OS's running on the same system. A real computer could do it with a virtual machine, but the human mind can't compartmentalize things to such a perfect degree.
@@HunterStiles651 Most of how we lost was at the denotation/connotation meanings of words, and we lost becasue psychopaths will stretch the denotative meaning into the connotative and beyond to the point where their is not meaning.
The long march through the institutions included subverting our language, and therefore our thoughts, too.
@@HunterStiles651 This is the famous “multicultural” versus “multiracial” duplicity. Mutliracial in a mono culture may work, but multiculturalism will destroy everything.
This video belongs to me now
This is true.
Love the video original creator
Bring praise, the creator is here!
To us you mean commrade
Based
Locke greatly overestimated how reasonable humans are
every cynic does
if humans were reasonable most systems would probably work better. regardless of the alignment of the system.
Let me up you on that one: it's not that your average human isn't reasonable. We are.
When something runs against our (perceived) self-interest, we will try our hardest to find a "reason" to oppose that something.
The reality about humanity's reason is that it centers around ourselves first, not what's good for the group. Every once in a while, we are capable of thinking on a larger scale, but the more removed the people involved, the harder it becomes.
(To clarify, with "removed" I don't mean physically, though that can be a factor, but rather emotionally)
@@Rct3master44As a cynic, I think Locke greatly overestimated how reasonable humans are :v)
@@p.s.shnabel3409That was Locke’s entire thing tho. Self interest will ultimately make you better, not worse. The real thing is that when Locke lived, this was patently false, and was always false. Group dynamics are always in play. Liberalism believes humans are rational, self interested actors. They are not. Only elites are rational, self interested actors. Everyone else for the most part is part of some smaller community
"Seperation of church and state" isn't just to protect one or the other, its to allow a domain for both liberalism and conservatism to occupy and thus coexist without one dominating the other. We have strayed from this and we suffer as a result
To be clear, I say this as not a theist and not as a suggestion that everyone needs to go be Catholic or something.
if the state is secular then the secularists dominate...
@megasizer5119 Not true. The secular state is still ran by the people, who interact with non secular structures and are influenced by them organically.
@@internetguy1260If the state is the primary organ of education (which, until homeschoolers or private school families have vouchers or are exempt from property tax to pay for public schooling, it is) then the secular state produces secularists after its own image who then create a feedback loop in which secularists dominate.
@@Good100 Ah yes. Because parents bear no responsibility what so ever in the raising of children, especially when it comes to passing on religious, cultural, moral values etc.
@@internetguy1260 They no longer bear the primary responsibility when the state by law requires your kids to be in their care for the majority of thirteen years of their life, or makes it financially impossible through taxation to do otherwise.
Looks to me as if Carl means "while it's not the same, the small cracks in Liberal theory made Communist theory possible", while James Lindsay means "Communism theory is not compatible with old Liberal theory, therefore they are completely separate and should not be compared".
It's a healthy debate and both views are valid imo, but too bad it's so one-sided. I wish James would stop being smug about it and just make a proper response. I'm sure it would enrich the debate for all of us.
That would mean accepting liberalism isn't enough to solve the problems. However no single ideology can solve every problem, and if it in fact professes to do so than it can do only ever be totalitarian.
No Carl literally thinks commies are descendants of liberals, that’s it’s the natural goal for liberalism.
Carl has no idea what he’s talking about
They subvert the meanings of their host in order to extract from their host instead of communicate with them, which implies there is little politics or philosophy at play than those with a craven psychology.
Notice how poorly adjusted and antisocial leftists are, as people. That’s what’s manifesting, not high philosophy or politics. They want to take or break someone else’s stuff simply because you have it and they don’t, so they’ll come up with any way to do that - even ways they don’t understand.
Also - James isn’t in this for any other reason than to give the “fuck you” to the intellectuals he despises.
@@NoahBodzeWrong, James does genuinely want to see change in the world towards classical liberalism
>because it just works
>Collapses from lack of children
Pottery
noice
> Conservative response: have children and don’t pull out
> progressive response: *autistic screaming*
Not to mention the insane mental health crisis and rising deaths of despair because people are miserable and incredibly lonely. Maybe the hyper-individualism of liberalism isn't as perfect as people pretend. Yes we've advanced technologically so we live longer and on the surface our quality of life has improved, but are we truly happy?
@@kyliearmour forget happiness. Why do we even wake up in the morning? Liberalism robbed average man of purpose.
@@kyliearmour Happiness is gay. Humans need fulfillment. Materialism doesn't provide the succor required for a fulfilled existence.
Liberalism does not have an answer for the coom pod because liberalism does not concern itself with morality. Liberalism is not an all-encompassing blueprint for the ideal society but is confined to the proper form of government as a bulwark against tyranny. Liberalism is a framework for law and law alone, and therefore has little to no place as a moral system but is meant to function in conjunction with Christianity as it is ultimately derived from Judeo-Christian doctrine about the nature of man and our relationship to each other, whether or not liberal thinkers realized that.
Indeed, Dev did not go back far enough in unearthing the roots of natural law and natural rights. Had he done so, he would have had to bring Augustine of Hippo into the conversation.
I thought like that once. The problem is that the question of "how to run a government" or "how to avoid tyranny" is not separate from morals. Even the word "tyranny" has a strong moral connotation. For instance, why shouldn't we have a tyrant if it gives us peace and stability?
You either strive to have an all-encompassing worldview or become a reductionist (which most libertarians in practice are, despite claiming that same argument).
Didn't Locke want atheists to be banned/killed?
@@FraterMerovius I agree with this. "Just because it works" is unsatisfying because it doesn't actually progress the "why is this true?" question. There's a physically real reason a value or idea is correct or not.
You sound like a nanny state anti freedom loser.
I think a lot of this disagreement boils down to how truthful you think the socialists are in being successors to the liberal ideals the most of west used to be pretty much in agreement on. Carl's argues that people were naturally conditioned to socialism in the west because of those ideals of equity and liberty while Lindsay's argument is that it's a more subversive and deceitful process to hide the anti-liberal contradictions of the socialists.
Something to note is that Marx was in fact wrong that the Communist revolutions would take place in places like London, they instead took place in anti-liberal nations like Russia. However does a violent revolution overthrowing the old order really speak to a nation's natural ideological progression? Compare this to the West's slow but sure stretching of the Overton window to make progressive and socialist talking points and policy more prevalent without the need for revolution.
Exactly. At least in the non-liberal nations marxism had to fight wars to take power. In liberal nations, they were able to take power without a shot being fired.
was he wrong about the event or just the timing? Deep down he was an accelerationist so I don't see him approving of these socialist politicians. If anything in his model they are drastically slowing down the revolution as a kind of distraction.
James Lindsay was overall correct and their literature openly says this stuff, but the Social Liberalism views of Carl Benjamin and James Lindsay are already problematic and incorporated some of the worst takes from the left already.
They can't even make themselves Hayekian Social Liberals, which is technically the best flavor of that you can possibly get.
@@dontcallthemliberals3316 Probably selection bias. Karl Marx himself being from England would no less be fully aware of the breadth of Communist thinkers in his vicinity. As opposed to a place he wasn't familiar with.
@@dontcallthemliberals3316 The reason the revolution should have started in England was because the proletariat, in OG Marxism, were low wage industry workers. Agricultural workers were the oppressed under Feudalism, whilst factory workers are the oppressed under Capitalism and it was they who were supposed to start the revolution. This is why Marxist-Leninism and Maoism had to redefine the proletariat to mean agricultural workers whilst the smaller minority of industrial workers became the vanguard that would rule the dictatorship on their behalf.
Nature doesn't provide. It is just there and what we need must be taken.
Just as the Stars Belong To Man, We're are not nature's stewards, We're it's pimp.
@user-pt5xc1pp4z
"Awwww shuddup biatch"
Slaps plant
@@user-pt5xc1pp4zbased
@@user-pt5xc1pp4z Meanwhile we’re the ones getting pimp-slapped by natural disasters, droughts, etc.
Don’t be too haughty when dealing with nature.
You're half right. Nature does provide, and we, as beings that need resources, will take what we need.
But we also must conserve nature, understanding that without it, we will die.
It's all about finding that happy balance between what we want/need, and what nature needs to continue providing for us.
And to be perfectly feckin' honest, erring on the side of caution, because we only have *one* nature.
18:18 explaining how socialists may view liberalism really showed me the problem with socialists viewing everything through the lens of class and oppression in the same way modern progressives view everything through race, gender, and also oppression.
you can't only look at things through how society could oppress people as that narrows the view down far too much for that view to be very applicable to the real world. viewing every inequality as always something that is societal and unfair doesn't work. men and women are going to have different outcomes as men are stronger than women. thats not societal oppression thats biological fact, yet a modern progressive might say that gender is a social construct and as such men and women can do exactly the same work. we've seen the folly of this in trans athletes playing in women's sports and absolutely dominating.
you can't look at society through one pre picked lens as you will miss the trees while trying to see the forest as you always say in the video
I believe what you are alluding to is the equity fallacy: the idea that any difference between two things is due to or indicates the presence of prejudice and oppression.
Yeah that’s pretty much it. When you view everything through the lens of race i don’t know why anyone would be surprised when all you see is different levels/forms of racism. It’s like a self fulfilling prophecy.
Ok I gotta ask, is there a whole guild of you guys with the name 'Sovietunion####' with that flag, or do I just see you on almost literally every video I watch on an extremely wide array of topics?
@@adamperdue3178 my @ is from a hearts of iron meme so IDK
TL;DR: libralism has failed as its has not yet produced the trucker video
Look inagree and find the LA of the trucker video aggravating but I given up since I don't expect dev to be honest in it.
So why bother?
Liberalism failed from the beginning.
You have summarized my exact way I thought just liberalism was and the way I actually think. I agree with you 100% that we need some conservatism.
Conservatism isn't a distinct philosophy from liberalism either.
It necessarily is contextual, so If we're saying we need something apart from liberalism then it doesn't make sense to say it must be conservatism.
We must conserve liberalism to get away from liberalism? I would hope that's not what people mean, and yet that is what they are saying.
There is a line in the sand
Where some change is good
And necessary for human flourishing, but wholesale abandonment of successful organisation of culture and society is a possibility when accepting change, and usually fails because we don’t learn success, or
Create it. We observe it. Communism is entirely a priori and has failed to
Demonstrate a successful implementation.
Realising that the King might be a tyrant and a bastard but it’s
Better than anarchy (cf. Iraq post Saddam) is a very important lesson to learn. American philosophy has forgotten how to accept imperfections and it creates a trap for atheists who don’t have any better hope
For the future (which most enlightenment thinkers had)
Conservatism isn't a political ideology, but a world view that also includes a political ideology. And this political ideology IS liberalism. Conservatism is essentially a form of Liberalism+. The exact type of ideology is called liberal conservatism and it's the product of Edmund Burke's philosophy. The first modern conservative.
All that talk about small government, humble foreign policy, free markets, low taxes, right to bear arms, etc? That's the liberalism.
Classical liberalism isn’t incompatible with conservative moral principles. Classical liberals traditionally frame rights only in a negative sense, saying what government is not allowed to do with you. Socialists believe in positive rights, things that government must give you, i.e. economic equality. Classical liberals are focused more on equality before the law, not economic equality.
This was a good video. I appreciated how you were willing to take the most good-faith interpretation of Sargon's words and actually read into what he was saying as opposed to dismissing it for the rudeness.
As an aside, I do wish you'd touched on Christianity and its relationship to liberalism in this video. I think you can make a strong argument that many of liberalism's core ideas are really just Christian values stripped of their religious context. Nietzche touched on this if I'm not mistaken.
EDIT: Oh, and I think that Historical Christianity provided an interesting answer to the "Why should do we have human rights" question, historically speaking. The religious answer would be something to the effect of "Because we are all creations of god, made in his image, and as such are deserving of some degree of dignity. In addition, at the end of the day, we are spiritually equal in God's sight and equally beloved." Or something like that.
I'm not necessarily advocating for this position or explanation BTW. I just think it's important to have historical context for the ideas we're discussing, and like it or not Christianity provides the foundation for... like... most of western civilization.
I think that's true of modern liberalism, but it might be more accurate to say that when our societies were still dominated by christianity, they were just christian values applied to civil society, but now they've become untethered from their religious context. I think that explains why everything didn't fall apart instantly like with the French revolution.
Yeah, it's mostly like that. But one has to also take into account the context in which liberalism wass developed, Scotland, a place where reformed tradition reigned, and thus religious power was more decentralized than in Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy
Human rights removed from Christianity ultimately have no legs to stand on. Up to a point they do, but when you get deep into the justification it rings hollow. At the end of the day, secular human rights have just... Exist. No secular explanation will be good enough. Mostly because secular explanations of human rights are all false, because God exists, and we are made in his image, whether people like that or not.
@@voxlknight2155 But a christian foundation for human rights is as flawed as the philosophic one Dev talked about in this video, in that it isn't supported by facts. There are no more proof of God that the "state of nature" imagined by Rousseau and others.
@@voxlknight2155 good enough for what? I dont need a 2500-page invisible superhero origin story to understand the value of social contracts. "We follow these rules because it produces better outcomes for every participant" is all I need to metaphysically shake hands on that. Cooperation is a trait we evolved to wield effectively, and more successfully than any other organism on the planet.
I've said for a long time if you actually understand the terms, you can easily be a liberal and a conservative at the same time.
According to the socialists I’ve talked to they’re essentially the same thing.
@@ellis7622 ofcourse, to a socialist, anything that doesn't support their goals is the same thing - heresy/heathenism.
That's the fun thing about life; it's mostly shades of grey. Far leftists (or socialists, however you want to define them) lens everything through the viewpoint of pure equality, like all black and white, or good and evil. All binary. It's the same thought process as Maslow's hammer (when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail). They are literally unable to understand different viewpoints because they basically think "if you aren't with me, then you're against me." In other words, socialists are sith.
Well yes. The thing modern western Conservatives are supposed to be conserving is Liberalism. And they have failed.
Is that not just classical liberalism?
"It just works"
-Todd Howard 1771
"Sure there's a bug here and there, and we're not gonna fix it, because we're really lazy, and it's so much more fun to add in new features and unconnected story lines..."
Todd Howard is the perfect analogy for liberalism, holy crap
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin yeah, there are issues, but fuck, Skyrim's better than fuckin Undertail
@@maxfinazzo2443Skybabies keep winning!
Liberalisms great flaw is that it has Dev as a follower of the ideology, dragging it down. 😂
Dev's so fat he's causing the whole thing to sink
💀💀💀💀💀💀
By gravity?
Drop a meme with Atlas (Liberalism) holding the Stone (Dev) 😂
Every time Dev has to poop, he drags liberalism into the washroom with him
You can divide philosophies into different categories but for this discussion there are two types that are important: political philosophy and social philosophy. Liberalism works well (if accidentally so) only in a nation that embraces a different social philosophy. That philosophy must be both robust and compatible with liberal ideals (such as the western Christian philosophical tradition). If liberalism becomes the social philosophy (or if the society holds a fundamentally incompatible social philosophy) liberalism will always fail.
Good point. People want to combine their cultural, economic, and political views into a single "theory of everything".
But that's overly limiting. What makes a good economic system isn't the same as what makes a good political system, what makes a good political system doesn't always make a good culture, and so forth.
You can acknowledge that letting people buy whatever they want is good for stimulating market activity, while also encouraging your friends and family to not overspend on useless junk. You can believe that people shouldn't be jailed for having weird sex kinks, but also think that some kinks are a sign someone needs therapy.
wow, this is a really good point, im leaving a reply so hopefully i can reference this in the future, if you go through the tenants of liberalism were actually already at the point where it has become the social philosophy, a quick example is the liberal tenant of "civil rights", look how many liberals have currently based their whole identity, purpose & social philosophy on fighting for "xyz rights or social just movement", XYZ obviously equaling the long list of social justice movements we see nowadays be it race, sex, gender, animal rights ect., pick your choice....
WHAT?! ONLY HALF AN HOUR?
Literally what I said, he teased us with the hour of recording
dave edited it down
@@ShortFatOtaku DAVE SHOULD BE FORCED TO REPLAY LORDS OF THE FALLEN, ENDLESSLY
@@ShortFatOtakui dont trust dave full unedited video is necessary
Fjords of the Lawnmower?@@DrakusLuthos
2:27 Dev try not to plug the gramshi video challenge impossible (I’m not dissing you I just find it funny how every other video mentions this video)
It's a good video
James wants to conserve classical liberalism from encroaching leftistism
Well lets be fair - its a reasonable wish..
@@romualdaskuzborskis old liberalism was pretty sound, well until the federal reserve ig
I think he wants to do more than that, I'm pretty sure he was the one who started the whole calling LGBT+ supporters groomers thing or at least started it up again after a long hiatus from people calling all gay folk pe*os
But the only difference between classical and progressive liberalism (and thence leftism) is the speed of change. The only real difference between classical liberalism and fabian socialism is that the fabians are deliberately slicing the salami as thin as possible, while the classical liberals wring their hands and fear both the public and the radicals.
It's already infected. Leftism is a disease.
2:02 Wow, James blocked him because of that? I didn’t think James was like that, so rude & disrespectful.
I know James is smart and works hard, but I've always found him to be a rude blowhard. I can't believe grown men act like this.
This is nothing new. James Lindsay is a snake.
He’s very gruff in nature.
@@spacejunk2186 - Blocking anyone who slightly annoys you means you take it too seriously imo
@@spacejunk2186 The problem is "everyone who annoys him" = anyone who disrupts his perfect self image
Jordan Peterson commented years ago that we guard against the Right because we know what them going too far looks like but we have a difficulty with the Left in picturing exactly what too far looks like, not the results but the steps taken getting there.
I feel the Left leaves the Gate unguarded. This video is a good take on the hole it leaves and how to spot it.
We all know what the left going too far looks like, they did it years before the right ever did. Fascism was a response to Communism. The left just never polices itself and never acknowledges it's faults, it never takes accountability for itself so it denies that it is the path to Communism.
The left doesn’t seem to mind or care about how far it may go because the presumption that some leftists have of being on the “right” side of history but also having faith that future adherents will carrying their principles out in good faith.
We know exactly what the left going too far looks like, it looks like N-Germany and the Soviet Union
no flaws in liberalism because its my ideology and im never wrong (real)
Unfathomably based
I'd like to test that claim(in bed).
What’s wrong with communism and facism then?
@Jaco059 It's wrong and I'm right
it's almost like...
there is no all-encompassing philosophy.
And you do well considering life through the appropriate lenses at the appropriate times and situations.
Sensible centrism wins again
Oh nuance? No, we can’t have that…
You have completed the quest, discovered the great secret, and are now ready to ascend to new levels of wisdom.
Yep
I think the hero's journey of constant renewal and shoring up society is the best we can do. Everything else is temporary.
Another modern classic. Excellent work, Dev
I wish there were more reasonable people like you around. I don't always agree with you, but you're thoughtful and seem to care about people.
Liberalism does not lead to ESG, because ESG violates Liberalism. It is neither providing a universal standard like meritocracy, or random chance to everyone, but privileging some people over others based on their immutable characteristics and ration of their demographics interested in a field, and in doing so, providing a detriment to almost everyone even tangentially involved. That's a bastardization of liberalism where you swap individualism with collectivism.
critical social justice is indeed NOT liberal social justice but the marxists have their roots in classic liberal thinkers
The smallest minority is the individual, after all
The fact that esg violates principles of liberalism does not mean it can be the product of liberalism.
If one is free, one is free to do PR, altering puplic opinions to your favor. That would naturally impact any democratic voting, putting pressure on the legitimacy of the outcome. Corruption, legal loopholes etc are just the natural imperfections of such an organic institution.
And yet thats what created esg, as in the fact that these rules have any power behind them.
@@actuallyKriminell Liberalism has no defences to something like ESG that proclaims to help oppressed/protected entities as a guise for siphoning money from large firms. Most firms only get ESG assets or projects for a brief period for some portfolio release, etc and then dump them for actually profitable ventures. Liberalism has yet to stop this practice despite it not being a liberal practice. A right wing version might be religious firms getting benefits.
A Socialist would say to this, "Yeah, but since these pilots are black and women, they have likely had less opportunities than white men in the airline industry. One group is being pushed down in favor of another, but the group being pushed down is more powerful and had more opportunities, so DEI is the equalizer."
And many people who call themselves Liberal would agree with that because they have been taught all of their lives that anyone who isn't a straight white male has been oppressed, and still are in secret despite laws to the contrary. Even if we want to say that those people have gone too far and are no longer Liberal, it still plays to Sargon's point. They started as Liberal and expanded on the ideas of what qualifies as "equal" to eventually become Socialists.
Sargon is right. Vee is right. Dev is just Canadian
17:58 liberalism hasnt failed in upholding these three, the governments or their states have. i.e. Vee is right
Spoon is right too.
@@Richforce1 yep. Full clanker here.
But didn't carl full on blame liberalism for the 'moderate problem?
I clearly remember when he became a full on 'traditionalist'.
@@badxxxmonkey5541 That's Styxhexenhammer. I was talking about the Aristocratic Utensil how also had a video about the debate these two had. As to Dev's question about liberalism's flaws and he rhetorically said if we should go back to Monarchism, Spoon's answer would be "Yes, oh GOD YES!"
Natural Law is not based on Blank Slate theory. It's a separate philosophical school
Natural Law is the description of what an organism will be able to do if left alone within nature
Blank Slate is an assertion regarding how humans ought to act if left alone in nature
Is/Ought. These are not the same
Lots of selective reading there, Dev. "Liberals get the bullet too" doesn't exactly scream any sort of affection for liberalism. Progressives have such radically different conceptions of rights, freedom, property and equality, that it's impossible to argue that they lie in the same intellectual tradition beyond "Enlightenment" or "Western". That Jacobin article is really just rehashing a progressive debate bro tactic that Chomsky and others before him used: "if you ACTULLY believed in freedom or equality, you wouldn't be a liberal but a socialist".
And honestly, Sargon's entire worldview negates itself. He made it a point that he's no longer a liberal, but a Burkean. But Edmund Burke was a liberal. For a guy really into genealogies, Sargon seems to selectively remove Adam Smith and John Locke from Edmund Burke's and by extension, his own. And he seems to overlook the fact that Edmund Burke's conservatism solved whatever "problems" liberalism was stated to have; modern conservatism as we know it was founded by Edmund Burke, where he argued for a cultural grounding in traditional western values, under a liberal capitalist system of limited government and a protection of private property rights. Edmund Burke's conservatism, which laid the foundation for American conservatism, is merely a traditionalist form of Liberalism+.
Liberalism isn't supposed to be an all-encompassing worldview anyway. Those all-encompassing worldviews are by design left to the churches, local communities, unions, guilds, etc. Which is why progressives were so fucking slow to take hold of the West. Russia and China fell to communism immediately, because these traditionalist, pre-enlightenment-styled monarchies concentrated all power centrally. Liberal capitalism decentralized so much power so that progressives were forced into a long march through the institutions to accomplish their goals.
I don't think Sargon's a Burkean, I think he's a Hobbesian absolute monarchist in denial.
@@Richforce1 could be. I'm just going by what he described himself as in a recent video. Doesn't take away the fact that by referring to himself as both a Burkean and someone who has left liberalism behind, he still has an overall pretty poor grasp of political philosophy.
burke is the FATHER of conservatism. not a lib.
Yeah, Sargon and others making similar arguments equate liberalism with socialism/communism by defining it to include leftist ideas. But real liberalism - a philosophy of individual liberty - doesn't match the definition they use. Hopefully Sargon eventually realizes that what he's really opposing are leftist ideologies sometimes labelled 'liberal' but that are actually opposed to liberalism, the philosophy of individual liberty.
@@Joseph_G he knows, he's just being deliberately wishy-washy. He drank Auron MacIntyre's koolaid in arguing that liberalism is the stopgap before communism. And that the post-modernists learned the "malleable human" from Locke, and therefore, it's all the same thing. It's incorrect, obviously. The idea of the malleable human has been apart of Western philosophy since Aristotle. And it was _other_ liberals who refuted this idea (post-liberals' conception of liberalism begins with Locke and ends with Rousseau). But it's a convenient 'narrative' for post-liberals, since they seek to convince people via narrative. Not through argumentation and empiricism, because, as they've correctly pointed out, people are convinced much more by unifying narratives than rational arguments.
Not saying Sargon's in on some conspiracy. He's just never been the deepest or most rational thinker, and easily swayed by what his Twitter feed bombards him with. The dude used to declare himself a leftist liberall before he even knew what liberalism was. He's not going to get convinced by a rational-empirical argument, because that never was how he rolled.
I find it sad that in any discussion of liberalism, nobody ever mentions Adams
Dev said he talked to Sitch and *Adam* right at the start.
Ba Dum tish
In any discussion of Liberalism, most of the planet's a bunch of opinionated head asses that don't know the actual theories, philosophies, or anything, but will spew out their mouths or type text diarrhea anyways, in unironic sheeple fashion, but you get projected onto as a "kook" for calling this out.
@@KyriosHeptagrammatonI think he meant John Adams
The greatest trick Dev ever conceived of was convincing the world Canada wasn’t still loyal to the Monarchy.
a lot of us like it. and it would be a massive pain in the ass to get rid of it
The problem here is with Carl's approach to these types of online discussions. If he explained his position clearly from the outset, the disagreement wouldn't have ended so sour. But he likes to throw out vague statements just to get a reaction. I think he revels in being provocative and is entertained by the speculation and theorising it creates. I've often found myself feeling frustrated by his drip-feed debating style. Getting him to elaborate fully is like pulling teeth.
I’ve noticed this for a long time now. I don’t even hate his ideas that much, but his style annoys me more than any other I’ve seen. It’s like he is allergic to a productive and good faith conversation
Fair criticism of Sarg, but James still acted like a little bitch blocking him so hastily
Yeah heaven forbid you learn something and not just screech like the transfat fed Amerimule you are.
@@grimnir8872You are assuming Carl has anything productive to teach. He doesn't even understand his own ideas.
@@saisameer8771 And you think some preened American "Intellectual" gives you anything else? Britain stands to gain nothing from importing more Americanisms.
Brilliant assessment. I can't fault Carl's critiques of liberalism and came to a similar conclusion - liberalism is the preferred doctrine to live in, as long as it is limited by some external framework to prevent excesses; either conservatism or traditionalim.
>We should uphold liberal principles because they work.
Fair enough. Let's go by the Chigurh rule and judge things by the outcome. The only question now is:
Are you satisfied with the state of society as it is in the present and as it is projected to be in the future?
If you can sincerely respond positively, then there is nothing else to really talk about. If not, then you must understand that we must change the course, which would mean leaving liberalism behind.
"If not, then you must understand that we must change the course"
Agreed.
"... which would mean leaving liberalism behind."
And this is where you sneak in a claim without evidence. The issue is socialism here. Liberalism didn't "do" anything here, the issues are with a lack of response to the socialists, which has not been expanded upon in particular. Liberalism has not been shown to be broken outright, it has only been shown to either be incomplete or that socialists took the keys to the liberalism that made things work and the system cannot be turned on, not that it's broken.
@@Harley_Mitchelly If your system makes promises it can not fulfill and other ideologies can just "take the keys" because of that, it means that the system is broken in some way. Unless, you mean that the purpose of liberalism *is* to roll a red carpet for socialism...
@@Harley_Mitchelly then you were not paying attention to the video. Liberals are hamstrung when trying to resist socialism. All the go to talking points of liberals are easily coopted by socialists. The criticism of socialism by liberals doesn't inherently refute socialism, at best it suggests that it won't work. The response back is easy enough, liberalism has not worked because (insert thing about current society that makes you sad) but socialism will fix that. And now you are lost in the weeds of debate where most people will tune out, the last thing people will remember is the socialist critique of liberalism: x is current society's fault. You cannot argue that the foundational socialist values are wrong because that is to undercut liberalism. Liberalism will always fight a losing battle against socialism, because socialism is a critique of the social ills found within the liberal state.
Fundamentally it is the same reason Christian responses to atheism always seem to be on losing ground. Nothing about this is saying atheism is better than Christianity just like I am not saying socialism is better than liberalism. However, responses to critics start from the disadvantaged position. The best approach for Christians is and always has been the practical appeal, your life will be better for being Christian. Liberalism doesn't have this appeal because socialists start out with, "our life is not being made better by this liberal society."
@@campomambo No. There was an extremely easy way to refute the socialists. "None of us signed up for what you're peddling and your position was never liberal." This was always on the table, simply rejecting that socialism was an improvement in the first place. However this is primarily an incomplete defense. It does not explain how or why, something the long march through the institutions the illiberal left did deliberately did not want to beg the question of. Given there has not actually been a liberal response to the socialists since the socialists deliberately did not show up to the metaphorical debate, no wonder liberalism doesn't have a direct and clear response. By now, socialism has proven to be a failure and even back then there was ripe ground to deny the economic equality condition socialists wanted to employ as relevant to liberal values in the first place. The Americans quite famously have a long tradition of denying that all the way back beyond the early 1800's, so clearly this was not wholesale impossible. I can envision it because the liberal critique of socialist values did, in fact, happen, the issue is that this was before socialism existed, and socialism came after the Civil War after the debate in the US had already moved to a left vs. right debate over the older federal vs. decentralized government debate where you could actually get theoretical rebuttals to socialism. The very nature of limited government as an ideological premise forces a question of praxis, something classical liberalism does have in their toolbelt and socialism famously does not. As a result, I just have to conclude here that there simply was no steel-man against socialism as it was spreading. It's fighting with a hand tied behind its back because by the time the threat of socialism was apparent, the problem was already well underway. This is why I draw an analogy with the socialists stealing your car keys. The car won't turn over, but that's not because your car is incapable of turning over, it's because the thing you'd need to use to turn it over has been taken from you. If you find it, the car turns over.
It's also worth mentioning that atheism does have actual theoretical flaws, especially nowadays given science worship as a concept has more actual selling power since we've all seen this happen. A Christian can make a valid accusation that atheism has blurred the line with agnosticism and is trying to prescribe far too much explanatory power into science for questions it cannot possibly answer. I have actually made headway in circles by diving straight into these metaphysical questions and forcing people to admit that all worldviews on religion, atheism included, are more or less illogical because they have no ability to prove why we exist. Either the universe infinitely regresses and we need to special plead our way out of a logical auto-fail, or some being defies causality, both propositions having the same value of ludicrousness... namely infinite.
Socialists can say all day long that their lives are not being made better in current society, but socialists would first and foremost be either lying or attempting to hold liberalism to a standard it never inherently claimed to fill in the first place as a result. No one is taking away Lionel Messi's soccer accolades because he hypothetically sucks at ping-pong. To say this is ludicrous, yet that, at a noted level given the liberal conservatives of the early 1800's who did actually anticipate this sort of thing, is exactly the logic the socialists are employing to pull the "Liberalism 2.0" card. I agree Locke and Rosseau don't have the best theoretical foundations, but Hobbes doesn't have a good solution to anything either. He's correct on the state of man, but the liberals were correct on how power structures tend to operate, a noted place where the socialists deviate from liberalism. If you ask me, the more I learn of de Toqueville's work, the more I think socialism never had any real ideological opponents for most of its rise and any gains have nothing to do with socialism over the failings of everyone else to see what was happening.
Thus the state of today. No contemporary liberal response to be a countering improvement to the socialist one could have come about due to obfuscations that blindsided institutions, which is a problem, but nothing about this definitively proves that Locke's work could not be updated to account for this. Quite to the contrary, it would imply the liberal response to socialism has never actually been made in the first place, or that the socialists are attempting to claim liberal values extend to places Locke and possibly even Rousseau never intended, and the socialist critique of liberal society was always a strawman and the supposed improvement claims were never actually aimed at the segments of any nation's ideology that were actually material to their claims, i.e. targeting Locke over economic issues instead Adam Smith who actually remarked on the topic in some detail. Is it really the fault of liberalism as an idea then if more or less by circumstance no one was there and able to defend it in that ideological realm and socialism basically just got its victories by default instead of merit?
@@Harley_Mitchelly that is a lot to say to miss the point entirely. It is all about the communication and reception of ideas. The liberal position has frequently been made against the socialists for many years through the conservatives, who are in fact just a branch of the liberal project. And their attempted defense has failed in exactly the way I described. Many people don't realize how long this debate has actually been going on culturally. As somebody who grew up as an evangelical conservative I remember a lot of these points being made that were often just dismissed as the ravings of the religious. As the saying goes, first they came for the religious fundamentalists but I did not speak out because I was not a fundamentalist. But the slippery slope was in fact real, the boogeyman of the left was not the imagination of paranoid Christian boomers. Now I am not an evangelical anymore, but we were correct in many of our warnings and predictions. The same points that the American "liberals" were making against conservative values were in fact being made by the crypto-socialists. And so the socialists were the secret allies of liberalism in order to dismantle and co-opt liberalism. Which is where it comes back to the point dev made, the fundamental values of liberalism are shared values of socialism, but to an extreme. Socialists don't argue against freedom, they claim that there is no freedom because of ingrained systems of oppression. And what is the liberal response? Nuh-uh, prove it. But now the ball is in the socialist's court and they are framing the narrative.
I am not saying that liberalism is just going to roll over and die just because socialists have thrown a punch. Liberalism is still the societal norm and the default position. However, because a strong defense of liberalism against socialist critiques is dense and boring (ngl I felt bored reading your response), on average more people move away from liberalism toward socialism than the reverse. This is also why you see various reactionary critiques of liberalism and socialism gain traction easily. The ideas they promote are simple and easy to communicate: liberalism and its consequences have failed, we need to do away with the whole proposition and replace it with my reactionary philosophy. Christian nationalism, nrx, alt-right, redpill, etc. Take your pick.
The Cümpød fella is not free. He is consumed by vices that have been weaponised to contain him in a perpetual state of need, not want. Even if he wanted to he couldn’t leave his pod, because he is now an addict. If he were to disconnect he wouldn’t last very long. Possibly from complications of withdrawal, or by becoming a greater problem to society in which he is a risk to himself and others. There’s a difference between rights and freedoms, and, the exploitation of the addictive to further some idea. That is where it can become totalitarian and fascistic like “Brave New World”. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before, look at the Sackler family.
Also see Platos cave.
This is essentially the reactionary critique of liberal morality. The reactionary would assert that true liberty is freedom from vice, not a value neutral 'negative' freedom that liberals believe in.
Thus in the reactionary framework, to maximize true liberty, a society must seek to minimize vice. This creates the justification for government to encourage moral behavior and punish degeneracy.
Coompod is a good acknowledgment that scarcity exists. Liberalism doesn’t restrain the desire to create boundless wealth and prosperity, conservative thought definitely does.
Once you do not fear for your future, you can afford to give yourself over to vice but it misses the lost opportunity to make the world better. Most will achieve nothing. But we miss out from the Kulaks who grew more food and were able to provide new opportunities because of it. Coompod ensures the brilliant programmer never makes anything. We wouldn’t have Linux is everyone was in a Coompod.
@@roshansundar6618no, it’s not reactionary. I believe almost anything within moderation, and that you can be free and also receive help to be free through help with addiction. I don’t believe many things to be degenerate until they’re a genuine harm to themselves and society at large.
@@roshansundar6618I also don’t understand where you got “punish” from. I don’t think the individual should be punished where addiction is involved. If anything the only ones to be “punished” is the corporation monopolised enough to be able to provide both h and pron, and for preying on the vulnerabilities of people to make money. Do you think any of those things are free? What do you think people will do when they can’t afford it anymore? Addiction isn’t just you have it and really like it, it comes from many different issues both genetic and psychological. I don’t think you understood what I said at all.
@@roshansundar6618 that's not a reactionary view, it's the traditional view, the one our society has always had. it's old enough to be in the Bible: "Very truly I tell you, the man who sins is a slave to sin." - John 8:34
I used to be Liberal for many years, like 15 years. Then I realized something better.
Communists don’t see liberalism as outdated. They see it as a means to an end.
They see it as an enemy.
21:44 Easy, debauchery is not a liberal value, personal responsibility is. Debauchery is a gnostic value.
Hedonism is destructive and thus a violation of the social contract necessary for any liberal society to thrive.
THANK YOU CHAIRMANKAM!!
Why wouldn't it be? Personal ownership means you can run that property in debacherous ways as long as you can maintain it.
@@assortmentofpillsbutneverb3756 private ownership as a principle means respecting the private ownership of others. true debauchery is necessarily either self-harming, or harmful to others. you are free to harm yourself, and society will live on past you if you choose to do so, but the moment your decisions harm others, they have the right, as self-owners, to prevent you from doing so. personal responsibility is central to the principle of private property, both of the effects of your property on yourself, and their effects on others, and therefore wanton debauchery cannot be a liberal value, nor has it ever been. everything said of liberalism here might be more accurately described of libertinism, which neither classical liberalism, nor the libertarianism liberalism has since evolved into have any correlation to. libertines might be more accurately compared to progressivists with a drug addiction problem than actual liberals. barely liberal in any regard outside of their own immediate, hedonistic convenience.
@@davidlewis6728 so you admit you can be debaucherous to yourself and your property. Now how about if you freely associate with other debaucherous people and use rhetoric to consensual convince others to join you?
Pure liberalism just does not have an inherent guard against debauchery other than the assumption that good lives spread more easily
good video. It's the first time I learned nothing new from your video. But I still learned a more eloquent version of what I already knew. thanks dev.
1. James is clearly worried that losing faith in liberalism will give rise to some further right movements which have a tendency to turn authoritarian during periods of turmoil and social chaos. - That's not an unreasonable fear imo.
2. James fears that demonizing liberalism would give nationalist types more confidence to "do something about it" falling into the trap - giving the excuse and the justification for government to emergency sign some "Patriot Act type" legislation take what little remaining human rights we have and fully activate the surveillance apparatus that they've been building for the last 30-40 years.
whatever happens the Status Quo Can not be maintained for long. Best Case Scenario, we have the survillance state with Star Ship Trooper Democracy
"It just works"
This is why I am an empiricist and not a rationalist.
I do agree that being an empiricist isn't rational.
The problem with Carl Benjamin is that he is wrong. Communism isn’t and never has been egalitarian. Carl Marx and Engel never fought for the equality of man.
I'm no political philosopher or scholar, but what I am is an engineer. And as an engineer, I understand that when something works, you keep using it. Eventually, you might develop something that works better, at which point you can replace the old thing. But there are designs that have worked for centuries that we just can't really improve. As the saying goes: You can't reinvent the wheel.
I say this because that is the reason I am a conservative. I understand that if a system of society works, then it should not be changed arbitrarily. I will never understand people who feel the need to change everything for the sake of changing it. They call it "progressive," but it's not progress, progress would be the aforementioned iteration on what works into something that works better. What I call this is a "fetish for novelty," and you can see it in the way they obsess over "firsts." First female doing a thing, first black doing a thing, and ever more granular categories of person being the first to do a thing are celebrated as some kind of monumental accomplishment. You see it in the constant invention of new genders and sexualities, as all of them want to be the first. These are the people who would change the shape of a wheel simply because nobody had used that shape yet.
Blind change for the sake of change is not progress, it is chaos.
The trouble with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity is, that taken to their logical end, these values are mutually exclusive.
In those instances politcis determine the victor
Not only that, but ironically to what liberal thinkers like to believe they all violate our very innate impulses.
@@thanatosdriver1938 Armies determine a victor.
Especially in those cases.
You can take any ideology to its "logical end" and it will end up as a dystopia.
Those values are signs of a dying society.
"I care more about the downtrodden than you. Give me your money."
"Because it works" fails as Liberalism did not build our society, our society was already forming in the way it came about regardless of it. We'd still have universities without it as their a result of the guilds, we'd still have some say in our governance, as we had that before liberalism. I could go on, but the simple fact is that Liberalism never got loose and totally was allowed to take over any society after it failed in France.
It did in the U.S. and they invented airplanes and the atom bomb.
@@cas343 The US has never held to the ideals of liberalism, ask any of the leftists and they can point out an endless list of the US taking actions that violate them. Liberalism has never been more then empty platitudes to the US.
If you want to know why you have legally enshrined rights I can tell you why: It's too much of a bother for those in power to deal with the strife in brings to their rule to violate them, as it incites fear in the other members of your class. Racial, wealth based, no matter what your group rally around. Collective fear that you may be next in tandem with economic power, is all that preserves rights.
@@cas343A brazilian invented the airplane and Franklin "Adolf fan" Roosevelt was the one that gave funding to the atom bomb
@@AdolphusOfBlood So rights are a really good idea then.
@@cas343 Rights are not an idea at all, their an emergent property of the power dynamics in the system. This is why they vanish in a socialist state, putting too much power in the hands of a single class naturally results in them not having to constrain themselves, then they terrorize the rest of the population.
If you want to make rights stronger to have to atomize power as much as you can. Or else their is nothing driving those that have power to limit themselves. This is why things like the second amendment matter. Along with limitations on government power over all.
12:42 Wrong. Seeing as how Ruseau isn't a liberal but a romantic. The actual value the liberals had was personal responsibility, and liberty and equality were simply tools to acheieve the value.
Yep, he was definitely part of the succeeding movement he inspired. Everything about him is more in line with the Romantic movement rather than the Enlightenment.
However, I wouldn't discount his contribution to the Enlightenment that he was alive in
I take issue with the "it just works" argument: it assumes that if things are going well now, they always will. Like modern scientific progress, there is no way to know if liberalism will "work" long term in terms of survival. It very well may be self-destructive over a cycle of a few hundred years.
Y'know, "liberal conservative" might be my descriptor. I've always been skeptical of "new" things, but not rejecting them outright. I thought this made me a centrist, or perhaps a center-right libertarian.
Critiquing Locke and Rousseau's state of nature by saying that tribal societies weren't atomized misses the mark because tribal societies aren't the state of nature. They're primitive societies, with primitive social contracts. The same can be said for packs, troops, or other groups of communal animals. They are living in an even more primitive society than the tribal structure. That anatomically modern humans did not typically live as bears do does not change the fact that some ancestor of ours did, and some descendants of theirs innovated communal living and primitive social contracts.
I often imagine the life of Ötzi, also called the Iceman, a mummy found in the Alps wo lived 5000 years ago, and he had pocket litter like you'd find on a modern body, he had a pack, he had stuff he'd carried from other regions, he was a solo european backpacker 5000 years ago, probably living better than most of us today in the future.
Also interesting is his axe was 99.7% PURE elemental copper, which would be excellent quality even today...and a random 45 year old guy in the middle of the mountains had it. 5000 years ago.
TO ME, that's like a Pope in the 1800s having an ipod. It makes me think we're not as advanced as we think.
He also had repeated tattooing over pressure points that were above damaged areas of his body, and that evidence predates that practice anywhere else in history by 2000 years. It would be like finding a Bayer aspirin in the pocket of an Egyptian mummy.
the state of nature for humans IS tribal, in the same way the wolf and its pack are one unit so has it always been with the human and their tribe. The two are inseparable.
@@mycoolhandgiveit tribal living is the "natural state" of humans, but it is not "the state of nature." The state of nature is defined by the absence of a social contract, tribal societies live under a social contract.
Some people do live in a state of nature, we call them hermits.
But all of that is immaterial to the point of the thought experiment, which is to explain the social contract, why it's necessary, and what limiting principles ought to apply.
Come to the dark side.
Funny seeing you here
Iv always hated the phrase
For the Greater good.
It's sounds like a excuse to me.
Me too, but I also hate the talk about "principles" for the same reason. Whenever someone says that he's being "principled", it's always an excuse for something that's at best inconvenient, and at worst a crime.
32:50 what dev? merit and diversity hires don't mix. if the hires are diverse and have merit, the incidental nature of their diversity doesn't matter in the shadow of meritocracy. liberalism doesn't excuse incompetence nor entreats it. man, so many wrong things said this vid but this was really clueless of you. "you can't serve two masters." diversity over meritocracy or meritocracy over diversity.
liberialism doesn't value meritocracy, it never did. It only survives of the shared greed of the elits and stupidly of the masses
2250 philosophy lecturer: "Let us observe this 2024 tweet thread."
"Liberalism , it just works !" can be countered with "It just works, for you."
Followed by a finger pointing at a laundry list of human choices, from as recently as the late 20th century, like:
- The failure of Neocons (via war) , and Neolibs (via revolution : Arab Spring) to export that "good" that "just works" to a number of Muslim countries of the Middle East -- including the latest drama that started with "offering" the Palestinians "elections" in 2006.
- The"pick and choose buffet" of central Europe (see Vee), where after a couple of decades of elation (after the fall of Communism) , those dirty uppity locals have the nerve to say to the enlightened and clearly superior Western Europe "no, thank you" on an increasing number of preferences , based on nothing more than "this works, for you, not us " .
- And if the "pick and choose buffet" of central Europe is not bad enough, going to Easter Europe and Asia makes you think that there are people, who were not programmed by Islam, who non the less seem to think that they have their own ideas about social existence and progress -- with some of those ideas having predated the Enlightenment (how dare they! 😮) .
In other words, this "great disagreement" between these individuals who just yesterday could have sworn that they were all Leftist Liberals , is nothing more than a storm in a cup of tea , with the wider world not really giving a ... . 😅
Yeah, we have blank slate qualities, but there are multiple parts to that. We're not just blank, we're the slate too. We have limitations, specific parts, functions, and maintainance requirements.
The conservative argument for liberalism. I like it.
Lib: "Conservatives are LITERALLY one step away from facism!"
Con: "Then, I guess that means that liberals are one step away from communism."
Lib: ... >:(
Got anything lined up for the Xanderhal x Keffals drama? I love watching bread tube eating and backstabbing their own.
mebbe
Are those coloured names from Shinigami eyes? You should scroll through the wikipedia list of new religious movements, it's interesting what's been marked as red/green.
They are,he's stated as such in the past. Still kind of curious as to what degree he keeps the extension for the lols, or to judge who's actually worth listening to, or a dissident voice.
Or if he's somewhat in agreement with the nature of the addon.
@@SigurtherHe's probably in agreement, he has not one, but two friends that are part of their core userbase
@@danielutriabrooks477 i have many more trans friends than that - but no i just use it for lols. stop being weird
@@ShortFatOtaku You are the one that specifically searched for my comment, so talk about "being weird"
"searched" it's a comment on my video dawg. i read my comments
Guarantee that if you try to describe yourself as a "conservative liberal" you'll have droves of people with a very surface level understanding of politics act like those two things are mutually exclusive lol
It's a liberal conservative. And yes I will do that if the opportunity presents itself.
Anyone describing themselves as a "conservative liberal" is 100% American, as that is the only place were those two terms are not mutually exclusive. Conservatism doesn't work the way you think it works, here in the socialistic Europe.
The problem Sargon has is he’s an atheist leaning on Christian Conservatism too heavily, making him heading into a harsher, more mean and dictatorial form of conservatism. He’s a smart guy but his position right now is an unappealing and bitter fruit that people won’t eat.
If he wasn't so married to the democratic ideal Carl would be an absolute monarchist.
hes not a christian nationalist
Which is why he needs a conversion. What have you got to conserve if you take away the divine? Why would you care so much about past traditions and lineage? If you answer it makes us work harmoniously, why would that be a goal? Can't peace be found in other ways? Why would you even want peace? Material prosperity? Years of labour so that when you die you can't use it. There are many other reasons and none of them would make sense without the divine
Agreed. He's the only atheist I've heard suggesting people should be compelled by the state to have children.
I don't know if and how much he was being hyperbolic, but having had my grandfather pay a fee under Mussolini cause he got married late, that really rubbed me the wrong way.
Even a democracy becomes totalitarian when the state holds the right to decide for your personal life.
@@joao.fenix1473 "What have you got to conserve if you take away the divine?"
What about family? Community? Social cohesion? Religious people don't get to monopolize those things. The divine is not required to give importance to them.
"Why would you care so much about past traditions and lineage? If you answer it makes us work harmoniously, why would that be a goal? Can't peace be found in other ways? Why would you even want peace? Material prosperity?"
Life is more valuable to those who don't believe there is an afterlife, because it's all they know they have. It makes sense that they want to make the best of it more than religious people do.
"Years of labour so that when you die you can't use it."
That applies to every single one of us, including religious people. Christians don't believe they could bring their houses or cars to heaven, do they?
"There are many other reasons and none of them would make sense without the divine."
That is an objectively false and absurd statement. You've read my answer above, the divine is not a requirement in giving importance to life. Think for yourself.
There's a book "The Origins of Woke" by Richard Hanania which tracks this origins of wokeness/DEI in civil rights law.
Correct
Dev flirting with Catholic conservatism… even brought up Burke and Chesterton. Ur getting close, just gotta get baptized and u will finally see the light
i don't believe god exists
@@ShortFatOtakuya I can tell with how u danced around the blatantly obvious answer to the question “why do we have human right?” The Christian tradition which is where all of these sweet ideas stem from is that “we are made in the image and likeness of God and deserve dignity and respect”
@@ertr8420 natural law says that human rights stem from god, nature or reason
@@ShortFatOtakudo u subscribe to the philosophy of natural law? I don’t think I’ve met a proponent of natural law that wasn’t theistic in some way. I guess an atheist could believe in natural law I’ve just never met one. Great job on the video like usual!
@@ertr8420Lockean Natural Law is based on reason
Clearly the Liberal answer to the coompod is the equality of everyone being in a coompod in a linked coomiverse, the situation will sort itself out
Rare Dev L.
Said Hobbs was correct about the state of nature being war of all against all and then in the same sentence contradicting that by saying people lived in cooperative tribes.
Claims socialism is a philosophical descendent of liberalism because Marx read some liberal philosophers, despite him taking his whole philosophy from the anti enlightenment Hegel and going in direct opposition to everything liberalism stands for.
Spends thee rest of the video arguing against the strawman that James Lindsey ever said that he hates conservatism.
He shouldn't be embarrassed Dev, you should be.
The Dev L's aren't that rare, being a Social Liberal makes you more prone to taking Ls more often.
Dev and James Lindsay should both be embarrassed, because the criticisms to James Lindsay was correct due to his simping for leftist ideas and he's self-admitted to be a left-leaning liberal openly, but these criticisms you brought up about Dev and being emotionally chicken about Liberty are also valid.
@@DerpyRedneck Lindsey said he's left? Cringe...
@@ReallyAwesomeBoy He's called himself "left-leaning liberal".
@@DerpyRedneck 🤮
As I see it the real issue with DEI and progressivism lies in it's application rather than it's intent.
It proposes to further the cause of liberty but in doing so it imposes worse restrictions to liberty.
Thus by definition it is an illiberal regressive policy that is masquerading as liberal and progressive.
As mentioned in the video liberalism is related to communism but claiming that they are in-effect the same thing is every bit as disingenuous as claiming that DEI is inclusive and progressive.
The airline thing is scary because pilots aren’t picked on merit and experience now and that is absolutely and truly terrifying
Too much liberty will dissolve your morality.
Too much conservativism and your morality will be controlled completely by external forces.
It has to be balanced out and the formula of liberalism vs conservativism changes in different situations and scenarios.
Exactly
One issue, the socialist ethics are inherently consequentialist, and as you have said yourself, liberal value of consent is breached in socialist philosophy.
Socialism is on opposition to liberalism by virtue of wishing to take private property, to breach consent for the **equity** not **equality**.
Socialists cannot be trusted to define liberalism, or even classify themselves as continuation because they can't even accept the fact that fascists are kin to them.
Fascists aren't kin to them, fascists are them.
@@patrickbarnes9874 well said, I just didn't want socialist crybabies storming in with "but muh hitler said he no likey le socialism, he no likey muh socialists thas why he killed them!", as if stalin didn't kill trotskyists.
"What Sargon is asking is to justify liberalism's existence, beyond the obvious answer of 'it won' which, to be fair, it did."
Well it'd be nice if he asked it like that then, instead of some provocative one-liner that liberalism and communism aren't separate. So what if you can prove the ideologies shared lineage? The fact that there is lineage means they are not the same. We are not the same as apes and neither humans nor apes are the same as our shared ancestors.
Too true, people need to think about why right and wrong are right and wrong. Especially now that western countries are in an anti-liberal speedrun challenge. But if Sargon is ahead of us on that, he does a poor job of showing it. Twitter intellectuals sparring over nothing again.
Sargon's always been about empty one-liners and dismissive scoffing when someone disagrees. No wonder he got roped in by the Auron MacIntyre's of the world. No idea why people consider him some sort of intellectual force when all of his views are copy-pasted from Twitter.
Is libertarianism separate from liberalism? You said it as such around 25:10 or so. Libertarians like to classify themselves as "classical liberals" very often. I fail to see where they're illiberal, even to the modern notion of a state-backed liberal system. Wouldn't you agree someone like Jordan Peterson is more libertarian than not, and that he's rather a rather conservative thinker? People like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman follow the same path.
classic libs = libertarian lite
@Dev
I disagree with a lot of this. First yes, James should have debated Sargon. He was being stubborn there. This is getting out of hand.
James is largely right. He's mentioned Rousseau is NOT really one of the first liberals, I'd agree, he's more the escape clause that socialists take. Nothing in the founding of the USA really resembles anything Rousseau wanted. And James also called out Locke's tabula rasa belief as being wrong.
James never ties the origin of rights to tabula rasa, he ties it to the falsifiable scientific method. And that's a pretty good basis.
James finally mentions (classic) liberalism is very flawed and something more up to date has to take it's place. THIS IS WHERE TO FOCUS.
You need an update to liberalism that expels communist ideology or at least it's roots of oppressor/oppressed, the dialectic, the inner god, and no private property.
This petty debate over communism being a part of (classical) liberalism is causing division when you honestly have a much bigger problem to work out.
James called Kant "anti-enlightenment" and thinks that The Lord's Prayer is gnosticism. He may have never been correct about anything in his entire life. Even his math papers are bullshit.
@@vivecthepoet36 staaaahhhhp He's already ded!!! XD
@@vivecthepoet36In b4 they find out that Lindsay's doctoral thesis was plagiarized
@@vivecthepoet36 Wow you went zero to ad-hominem in lighting speed.
Lindsay critized Kant's take on the dialectic (which is central to communism)
And mentioned the lords prayer was adopted from older gnostic types of prayers. He didn't say it was awful. He pointed out how deep this stuff goes.
James has been PREDICTIVE as far as woke behavior and intent for well over 4 years now. Calling him "never been correct about anything in his entire life" makes you the ultra ignorant idiot.
James isn't right about everything, no one is perfect. But he does change his tune when he is shown he's wrong about things.
He's not wrong with much of his current stance. And his warnings about how they are already targeting Christians is very prescient.
"Because it works" isn't a satisfying answer to why natural rights exist. It might be true, but it explains literally nothing. WHY does it work? If you just say "it just works", first, hello Todd, second, you cede the ground to anyone who comes with the question of "but y tho".
Natural rights work because they provide a stable foundation for building up a functioning society and a coherent system. They're simple, yet powerful principles that don't require blocks of mucho texto to explain and don't require PHDs to understand. And that's usually the foundation for a good system. Anyone can grasp them, anyone can internalize them, anyone can resonate with them. And, if everyone can understand them, then they can make better informed decision on how much of them to sacrifice and for what reason. And this is only the most basic and surface-level analysis.
Things don't exist because they "just work". Things that work work for a reason. And if you don't explore the reason, then you've learned nothing from it. Can you imagine if you go to engineering class. You ask the professor "Why we use Newtonian Physics instead of Quantum physics for this particular problem" (bad example, but you get the point) and the professor just tells you "cause it works". No, just no.
21:08 As a libertarian I see nothing wrong with that picture. It feels wrong because it represents a man destroying himself, but he is free to do so if he wants. Of course it's ok to try to persuade him not to do it, but it's not ok to force him to stop.
"We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.
C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity
Different people want to be different places.
In 2020's Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Summer, the Smithsonian National Museum of African American Culture and History published a chart warning about the insidious traits of Whiteness. It was, essentially, a list of Western liberal values: individualism, property rights, English common law, objective and rational linear thinking... That was itself based on the work of Robin DiAngelo, who lists individualism, universalism, objectivity, and meritocracy as the "four pillars of white supremacy." So with all due respect to Sargon's earnest desire to be wrong and inflammatory about everything, he is also wrong about this. I refuse to take responsibility for a group and their ideology who ALSO vilify me. Saying that liberals are responsible for leftism is like saying that gays are responsible for homophobes. It's not merely wrong. It's asinine.
What actually happens is this: there is a left vs. liberal pendulum. One does not lead to the other. Rather, when one is ascendant, the other is in retreat. Through the 1990's to 2010's we lived through a period of liberal consensus. In the 2010's and now into the 2020's, liberalism receded as a leftist consensus emerged. My favourite symptomatic expression of this is Star Trek. 1990's Star Trek was a liberal vision of consummate adults being rational and collaborative. 2020's Star Trek is a leftist vision of children screaming at each other about how special they are and crying all the time.
Completely brushed aside the third reason for humans having rights, like the edgy atheist Dev is: rights are imbued by God. It’s literally the reason why the USA has a bill of rights.
Because for most audiences, "God/the Bible said it" isn't a compelling argument.
That's the same reason as saying "nature" though, for the purposes of this discussion. The 2nd reason is just "anything with an external justification", whereas the first is "whatever happens to work". But I don't think those two are fundamentally incompatible - you can say "God came up with them because it's the best set of rights" or "the rights we have work because they channel human nature" or any number of "why" explanations that make it more satisfying than just saying "it works because it works".
that's included in the second answer - natural law stems from god, nature, or reason.
@@ShortFatOtaku"Natural Law stems from nature"
-Dev 2024
@@ShortFatOtaku fair enough, it just wasn’t explicitly stated so it seemed like it was being left out.
This is one of the greatest videos youve made, please make more indepth political theory videos like this
The U.S. Founding fathers understood rights perfectly. We don't have human rights or natural rights, we have God given rights. Where do we get our rights? Our Creator. Who gives those rights? Our Creator. When you remove that simple fact, rights make no sense. Philosophy is by default shaky and unstable, and cannot provide solid foundation for any ideas. When the states was formed there was an understanding that no government has the authority to give rights, because they are given divinely. Society will crumble without that understanding, and all the issues we're having in relations to rights is because we lost sight of this.
Honestly Dev, this video is a great showcase on how your scripted well thought out videos are leagues ahead of any debate that you've had with most people.
As much as I like the verbal shit-flinging contest you engage in, let's say with Artemis, this format is much better at actually getting your point across without sounding like a white-pilled contrarian. Rather having well researched and well thought out arguments laid out and examined properly, can help people better understand your position and even learn something new.
(Also yes I do know that you've said debating is not your strong suit)
tl;dr Great work and pls more videos like this/less dumb debates
And now that the serious part is over
STOP BEING FAT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
This also highlights the flawed "left vs right" spectrum we tend to use. Liberalism vs conservatism is really just libertarianism vs authoritarianism. Wanting smaller government, for example, is more liberal because the value is freedom. Wanting to protect nature is more conservative because it's literally conservation. It's freedom vs protection, and you need a balance.
I would actually argue that leftists are just religious conservatives. They don't want freedom. They want protection - conservation - for the things they value, to the exclusion of opposing values.
As for why the sex pod is bad, it's simple: we're mortal animals. Ultimate freedom for everyone, without any responsibility, would get us all killed. If you want to survive, then you need safety. If you want to have more freedom without sacrificing safety, then you need someone else to conserve it for you; i.e. governance.
The missing component here is duty and obligation.
From the conservative perspective, and especially the religiously conservative position, moral frameworks have both a list of things that you cannot do, and a list of things you must do.
The reason for a small, limited government is not based on the liberal idea of freedom, which is freedom for it's own sake, but freedom for men to perform their duties without necessary hinderance. The freedom to worship their god, which is a duty, the freedom to protect and raise their children, which is a duty, and the freedom to pursue innovation and enterprise, which is, again, a duty.
The sex pod is not bad because 'without responsibility it would get us killed'. It is bad because failing to meet your duties to yourself and other people is immoral. Even if the coomer pod resulted in no people being hurt, it would still be immoral because the occupant is failing his moral duty.
The government has a duty to protect the people, yes, but to what end? The conservative end is to protect people's ability to meet their own duties, while the liberal end is to ensure the people's freedom to do as they please. Both liberalism and socialism have the exact same goal. Strip away all duty and obligation in the name of 'equality' or even further now, in the name of 'equity'.
@@shawn4110 I see no conflict between what I've said and what you've said.
Why are duties, obligations, and morals important? The answer isn't "because they are". It's because they serve a function. Even if no one is hurt by an action, we know something is a bad idea by simply asking the question "What would happen if everyone did this?" If all society would collapse, then it's bad. So yes, the sex pod is bad because it is not a good example to set for the survival of a society.
As for duty and obligation, let's compare the home and the government. In your own family, you can be libertarian and have no rules, or you can be more authoritarian and tell your kids what to do. The latter makes sense, because kids don't know any better. You conserve their safety for them, which gives kids free time to wander around and do whatever (depending upon how much freedom you allow).
Extrapolate that out to a government system. A truly conservative government would just be a bigger version of your parents. They would protect you; literal conservation. A liberal government would protect you less, which means you are more responsible for your own protection. You have more freedom from control, but you aren't as free to ignore the duties and obligations that come with living in reality. A person in a government that protects them, like a parent protects a child, can use all that free time to sit in the sex pod. They aren't responsible for their own protection because they've given that responsibility to the government.
This is the important distinction between freedom *from* control and freedom *to* do what you want. So, someone who wants the government to leave them alone and wants to be completely self-sufficient is, categorically, a liberal; someone who is protecting themselves at the cost of their free time.
Oh man…”because it works”
Emile Peynaud: “Traditions are Experiments that worked”
A good quote I picked up recently from Louise Perry.
This is a good video. Alot of stuff I didn't know or thought about.
This has happened before, people calling Carl's ideas "obviously wrong" or even "stupid" just to fall behind into obscurity because they became more focused on attacking enemies than building themselves.
I'm not saying Carl is a genius or anything but I think he is putting in the work and adopting the right attitude. He might be a little out there for some people at times but he doesn't speak nonsense.
You have just described the entire premise of Lotus Eaters. It’s a collection of internet trolls memeing their political opponents.
@@drustnowon what are you talking about? That's not the podcast I know. The guys there are for the most part well informed and keep eachother in check. And the most important thing is they have no interest in deceiving their audience or themselves. The memes are to ease the tension and avoid the doomerism. You need a sense of humor when dealing with so many bad news.
Not to mention that the world has become very absurd and meme worthy.
We're in the post-liberal age, and it's never coming back.
And we will be worse for it
@@afuzzycreature8387it was inevitable
Thank god. Free at last.
Good, Liberalism gave us this hell...Good riddance.
@@John-kc4cg Indeed...
Wow, So this Rousseau guy in all his wisdom really came to the conclusion that it was the "natural state" of an 8 month pregnant woman to hunt, gather and protect herself from predators all by herself, real intellectual this guy was...
Yeah. He was right.
James Lindsay is what happens when a highly intelligent outsider (a Math phd) only picks up the books of the things he dislikes.
The video missed the proper closure, so I'll take initiative this time: Have a good day, I love you.
Thank you! Their blind spots on this have been driving me nuts. I think Carl is also right that the other foundation liberalism stands on is Christianity. Which we don’t have as a base assumption anymore which is why it’s so hard for us to explain why the comic is so disturbing but we can’t explain.
I agree 100%. Its the same as when commies criticize capitalism as having no limits against greed, exploitation, etc. Both capitalism and liberalism lack any inherent moral framework and desperately need christianity as a foundation to provide the correct one.
In that way, we could stop this endless "progress" mindset and focus on coming to the point where our society and laws came as close to reflecting the moral law as possible, promoted prosperity and general wellbeing, and preserved our culture and traditions, then we could mostly leave things be and just worry about how to keep everything afloat when new developments arose. Think "what is right" instead of "what is progress"
@@Thatonedudeyouknowtheone Liberalism's moral framework is not to harm, defraud, r-pe, murder, or mol3st others, a coherent property rights practice being the extension of your bodily autonomy, and skepticism of the merits of political authority.
Laissez-faire capitalism is merely an economic extrapolation of these values, same as proper Rothbardian Libertarianism, but again, most of the planet hates on Rothbardians due to not having valid refutations against it, but instead looks for the weak takes of Rothbard and certain others as "gotchas", just like a vegan, a collectivistic right-winger, or a leftist when they cherry-pick and lie in similar fashion.
Learn to read the philosophy before commenting on these things, please.
Unlike Carl Benjamin, I unironically have read John Locke.
@@DerpyRedneck okay, but if that's the case, then liberalism does indeed end up with everyone in the coom pod.
@@KingRyanolesWhat if the pod guy is a millionare with enough passive income to sustain himself while doing nothing else? How would he be destroying himself? He would just be having a shorter time prefference
@@KingRyanoles They don't behave that way because it looks poorly and they are shamed by society, but there's not a small subset of people that would do that if they become wealthy enough. The closest IRL case would be Tatsuhiko Takimoto, a mangaka that was a NEET, wrote a successful manga, and became a NEET once again, living off the royalties of his work, he has now recovered and works once again, but it can and has happened